< October 21 October 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The raw ratio probably deserves a full-fledged keep decision, but a total of 5 opinions makes it hard to declare that consensus was really reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Is Loaded[edit]

This very spare band artice was speedy deleted. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that the band claimed release on a major label, and that this exempted the article from CSD A7. The article is listed at AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.ableTalk 11:44, 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 no consensus, default to keep -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Train of Thought Sketch Comedy[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was: "I'm not sure this group is notable enough for Wikipedia." Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.ableTalk 11:12, 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 keep. Dakota 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tan[edit]

Second nomination for this singer. Asserts notability in that one of his songs was selected for a compilation put together by Neil Young. Is that enough? I don't think so, but it's enough to avoid a speedy (the fate of the first nom). NawlinWiki 23:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its not clear whether the things listed under Discography are albums or just songs. If they are albums, keep.

If not, delete. Clamster5 00:07, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwe championship roll call[edit]

listcruft, basically copies other pages about WWE championship and is pretty useless. Tony fanta 00:16, 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 no consensus, and I don't think transwiki to Wikibooks is appropriate -- Samir धर्म 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barberton Chicken[edit]

Very well written article about something completely not notable. At best, this is of local importance, and even then, it's just one restaurant's rendition of fried chicken. This is way below our ordinary notability standards. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Armourae[edit]

As it stands, the CV of an actor. Aside from a bit-part on one movie [3], I can't see how this meets WP:BIO. -Doc 00:19, 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 delete. Dakota 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142[edit]

Delete per the precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe in that Wikipedia is not a substitute for a game guide. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:24, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Car Brands to Australia[edit]

Is a list of all 2 new types of cars that are being exported to Australia in 2006 a notable list or article? I think it falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. Metros232 00:26, 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, CSD-G7. --Interiot 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Nothing[edit]

One is that it's currently empty. The second is that it looks like nonsense and/or vanity, and it's all by one author. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:32, 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 delete. Dakota 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuZEN Luxury Audio[edit]

Does not Meet WP:CORP. May be advertising or spam -Nv8200p talk 00:38, 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 No consensus; default to keep. MCB 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of İzmir[edit]

This article is a WP:POVFORK which was ((main))ed out of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) without any real reason:

The article should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or the title should be expanded to include Ionia; not only Smyrna

Also, the title of the article, although a military term, is largely POV, because:

Compare the existing title to Temporary liberation of Smyrna to see the contrast of the two POV's. Either a more NPOV term should be used, to bridge those two extremes, or the article should be deleted under any name. •NikoSilver• 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been here before, Greece occupied izmir a whole year before the Treaty of Sevres was signed, that is why its presence is referred to as occupation by historians. Even George Horton uses the term "Greek occupation of Smyrna". So your claim it landed under the provisions of a treaty is false. Second, invading a territory with the same ethnicity does not make it a liberation. It is still the territory of another sovereign. But all this is pointless, the title of this article is the most commonly used term for the events and it can be verified through impartial third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some weird reason though the article doesn't discuss any of this. Why?--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Garnet: I've no idea if my answer will be pointless, but if u look in the historic facts, u will see that Smyrni, at the time of the landing of the Greek army was not territory of another sovereign... The Ottoman Empire had been defeated in WWI, and so had sovereignty nowhere... (unless someone would thing he is ready to talk about 'French occupation of Alsace and Larraine...' (again, prior to the signing of a treaty). but even if we accept that the Ottoman Empire still was sovereign, the Greece administered the area, did not conquer it.... (that's why the ottoman flags remained in their place and there was a committement for a referendum). moreover, saying that since the treaty of Serves was not yet signed, we are free to name the article occupation, i'll have to remind u that the article does not cover the period 1919-1920, but more... In addition, under this pretext i can create another article, 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni 1922-1923', where the 'Great Fire' will be also discussed (more or less it would be as povfork as this one). Hectorian 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate seriously doesn't belong here, but just for the record: Being defeated in a war does not strip a state of its sovereignty over its territory, according to early 20th century international law. Your point is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that as much legitimate it may be to call the greek administration of Smyrni as 'occupation', the same validity could apply to the territories Germany, Austia-Hungary, or anyone else's who was defeated in WWI (early 20th cent.). But it seems that the Germans are not pushing any pov concerning Gdansk or Lorraine... (ο νοών νοείτο)... Hectorian 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a Turkish pov when third party verifiable sources are using the term? --A.Garnet 10:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that you claim that Pontian Greek Genocide is Greek POV when when third party verifiable sources are using the term.--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, you have 1 third party source who mentions Pontian Greek Genocide which makes it a minority pov. Occupation of Izmir/Smyrna can be easily verified through reliable third party sources. I even got an admin to have a look at the dispute and he agreed this is the most relevant title. --A.Garnet 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:ANOT: an admin is just a normal user with a mop and a bucket, not an expert or a peer reviewer. I'm not denying that an admin is more likely to be cool-minded and neutral than the average wikijoe. I'm just saying that an admin's opinion is not in itself proof of anything. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, there are a lot more than one (as I'm sure you are well aware), and we have more sources endorsing it than denying it (makes you wonder what the minority POV really is). This article however remains a fork of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Most of the information here is a copy of what is at that article - any further information would comfortable fit into a section of that article. If it is so widely attested in the literature, why can't you even give the names of the Greek military commanders?--Tekleni 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: May I remind everybody that "delete and merge" isn't a valid option, for GFDL reasons. If anything is merged, the edit history and a redirect must stay (and will do no harm).
Changed vote to Merge and Redirect to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) per Richardshusr. I voted to temporarily keep so as to have the conversation take place at the talk page and not on an AfD page. It seems however that the conversation took place here anyway, so, here goes. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the name, I think Occupation of Smyrna would be more appropriate. A move request should be made on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. - Francis Tyers · 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, more specifically that would be Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. It explicitly says:
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. ((mergeto¦article))
Article duplicates information in some other article
 Cleanup or propose merge and redirect.

If you can't figure out how to perform the merger, tag it and list on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.

((merge¦article))
Article is biased or has lots of POV
 List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. ((npov)) or ((POV check))
Dispute over article content
 List on Wikipedia:Requests for comments. ((disputed))
Therefore, I hereby withdraw nomination and I'm tagging the article with the above proposed tags by the policy. •NikoSilver• 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case all of you were still wondering, we have an explicit confession by the article creator above,[5] that the article is indeed a WP:POVFORK. •NikoSilver• 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question is whether the article content is substantive enough to stand on its own or whether it should be merged back into the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article. Most of the discussion so far has been around liberation/occupation and Izmir/Smyrna. The one really substantive comment has been the idea that the occupation extended beyond the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and thus deserves its own article. This argument would be valid if there were notable events that happened during the occupation but after the end of the war. I haven't seen evidence that this is true yet. --Richard 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. To my knowledge, there weren't any events after the war. In any case, why should this article be separate until we see such evidence? •NikoSilver• 08:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, strike what I said. I misremembered what I had read. I don't think there is any claim that the occupation extended beyond the end of the war. Re-reading the above, it appears that the Turks retook Smyrna after the end of the war. In which case, the occupation COULD be part of the article on the war or it could be separate. The question remains... is there enough encyclopedic material to warrant a separate article on the occupatio alone? Based on what's in the article now as opposed to what is in the article on the war now, I think there could be but it's a judgment call. --Richard 09:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could-should-would, but definitely isn't. When it will-shall-may, we see if we make it separate. We'll have more data for bitching on what to call it too. :-) •NikoSilver• 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more clear. The article on the war has only two paragraphs on the Occupation of Smyrna. The Occupation of Izmir article has much more than that and can stand on its own as an article. If the Occupation of Izmir article were only two paragraphs, it would be a definite candidate for merging into the article on the war. However, because the Occupation of Izmir article is as big as it is, it is a judgment call whether to merge all of that info back into the article on the war, thus expanding the two paragraph section into a much larger section. I could support the merge or the keeping of the article as a stand-alone. I lean towards the keeping of the article as a stand-alone but, as I said, it's a judgment call.
If the Occupation of Izmir article is merged into the article on the war, it might be considered to be taking up a disproportionate amount of space in the article on the war. This is a good argument for pulling out the details of the occupation and having it be in a separate article.
If the Occupation of Izmir article were much larger than it is right now, there would be no question that the article should be a stand-alone.
Thus, I don't see this as being a POV fork issue at all. IMO, it's only a question of whether there is enough encyclopedic material to warrant a separate article. I think the answer is "Yes, just barely".
--Richard 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to point out what else is unique content in that article apart from the 4-5 lines of text in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation? The rest is background and results, which are again analyzed in the mother article (only in a much more NPOV way...) •NikoSilver• 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, I'm supposed to actually READ the articles in question before expressing an opinion? Since when is that a requirement of AFD?  ;^)
Seriously, I confess that I am guilty of having looked at this question too superficially. I looked at the section in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article and saw the section titled "Occupation of Smyrna" and read those two paragraphs. If I had read the whole article, I would have seen what you pointed out. To wit, most of the rest of this article is covered in that article. In my defense, that other text was not clearly identified by the section headings as relevant to Smyrna. I have added in section headings to help the reader understand the flow of the article on the war. At this point, I am sitting on the fence, leaning towards a merge of the two articles. I have changed my vote above accordingly. --Richard 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole argument that it needs merging because of the lack of content is pointless. No one is disputing its relevance or notability, only the amount of content, but this is something which can be expanded in time, and which i did intend to expand (i only rewrote and sourced it a couple of weeks ago). If it is merged, then put simply, i will recreate and expand it when i have time to do so. But it is unfair that other editors will not have the chance to expand it, and the onus will rest on me to research and expand the article to a state which will survive another merge request. --A.Garnet 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a misconception here that the occupation of Izmir and the Greco-Turkish war were one and the same thing. The Occupation of Izmir was only one stage of the war. The others include, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. --A.Garnet 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aristovoul0s 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot (having to deal with every day and real life stuff...). Don't worry, noone is so naive to count me twice, even if that was my aim... Hectorian 21:38, 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. Punkmorten 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Independent News Group[edit]

This article is not regarding a notable subject. Johnwwatson 00:46, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsung Zeros[edit]

Previously speedied, and I deleted after re-creation, but I have my doubts now. The band released 3 albums and was signed to a record company. They disbanded in 2004, but apparently they have a cult following. Google gives 102,000 hits. Nishkid64 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they've released three records on a notable label than I say keep. But of course, that info should go in the article itself, so this discussion doesn't happen over and over again.Natalie 00:51, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Guliani[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page. Lisa Guliani isn't important enough for a Wikipedia article. Johnwwatson 00:51, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Thorn (patriot)[edit]

Who is this guy and why is he important? Another vanity page. Johnwwatson 00:57, 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 CSD G11 - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPGOnline[edit]

Page was created by User:Bizflyer, who mass linked this site in numerous articles, and is associated with EPGOnline (See User talk:Jfdwolff#External Links to EPGOnline). The site seems to be too little known to deserve its own article. A google search excluding Wikipedia and the EPG Sites returned 41 hits, the top hit being an anti-virus site McAfee. Delete because of self promo and vanity Chris 73 | Talk 01:19, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kunze[edit]

NN consultant and technology journalist. Seems best known for coining the term LAMP, though this isn't mentioned in the article. Article itself is a cleanup candidate at best, and its title should be used for the much better known Michael Kunze (writer). Electrolite 01:37, 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 delete. Dakota 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_British_films[edit]

Several reasons to remove this page: it's obviously listcruft; which films make the page and which don't is entirely subjective; to actually list every British film is absurd and unnecessary because this could just be a category instead. Stellis 01:41, 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 Delete. Yanksox 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Lion Television[edit]

Non notable local cable TV program produced by high school students. Not a bad article, but it is hard to see how this deserves an article. Earlier prod removed. Brianyoumans 01:50, 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 Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 06:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power paper[edit]

Reason Jeffreynye 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I think this looks like an advertisement.[reply]

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

Michael Graeme Berman[edit]

The result was speedy deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Because the article appears to be a hoax: it describe the career of Sebastian Coe, but puts a different name on it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petz community[edit]

Prod'ed back in May,[10] deprod'ed without comment 21 hours after that.[11] Original concern was Non-notable online community. Does Wikipedia really need articles about online fan clubs of computer games? The article is currently linkless, probably since it was created in April, exactly 6 months ago. Reviewing the history, apparently only anonymous and very new people contributed to the article, plus some established ones tagging and doing some minor cleaning. Besides not being really encyclopedic, the article is currently a mixture of an external link repository and instruction manual. -- ReyBrujo 02:12, 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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pommy Johnson[edit]

Only claim to notability is Maruie Awards comedian of the year 2002, if that counts for anything? A google search suggests that most of very few references to it are people saying they've won some flavour of it. Anyway, over to you. Ben Aveling 02:31, 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 deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaxy[edit]

I could throw the book at it: violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NEO for starters. Prod removed and doesn't seem to qualify as patent nonsense for a speedy. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:40, 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear timeline[edit]

Redundant and irreconcilably in-universe original research. This is an original synthesis, taking bits and pieces of a fictional story and arranging them into a timeline, with no clear criteria for inclusion or omission. Additionally, none of this can be referenced save to direct observation of the games in question, and each of the games already has its own article (as well as a series of sub-articles and an umbrella series article) to describe its story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just me but I still fail to see what's so extremely problematic about it (or any timeline for that matter) that cannot be fixed with a cleanup. If you do still wish delete this fictional timeline, then we might aswell delete all of them... but like Kinslayer ponted out, it looks like the Castlevania timeline has also been nominated, although the vast majority over there actually wish to keep it, which further complicates the issue of whether timelines are acceptable. Jagged 85 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been up a couple of days, and people haven't noticed it's up yet. Guaranteed now it's been mentioned here, more votes will appear. But trying to argue the merits of keeping an article based on a 2 day old unfinshed AfD of another article is shakier than the 'but these articles haven't been nominated' defense. The Kinslayer 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a defense, it's just a plain fact that the majority over there prefer to keep that article, at least for now. Anyway, I think I might have changed my mind after looking through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life series storyline. Transwiki might actually be a better idea after all. Jagged 85 14:15, 26 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 100% delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charities that apply 100% of financial contributions towards end-recipients[edit]

Not quite sure what this is supposed to be, but if it is what I understand it as...it's supposed to be a list of charities that donate 100% and don't take anything out for themselves. Not exactly sure if this is encyclopedic. Metros232 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't read all the comments, but first of all there should not be a list with only one item, and an offbeat one at that; the COI issue is serious; and even if we could find another ten or hundred charities which meet this criterion, the article still inherently does not belong. The article tries to make it a public service or something...forget it. 129.98.212.59 20:46, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBNNow![edit]

Contested PROD. Originally PRODded with the message, "Unnotable company/service." PROD2ed by nom with the message, "While company is notable, (as with other television networks,) service is not." DePRODded by anon with edit summary, "should not be deleted since the product exists and the article is genuine." No other improvement offered between my PROD2 and DePROD. RoninBKETC 03:16, 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 delete. Dakota 04:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pruyne[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).

Was originally speedy-tagged, but since he's an author, I want to let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mansfield.edu/news/updater/archive/02-03/up11-22.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.207.141 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. MCB 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dotson[edit]

nn bodyguard, "Jim Dotson" wwf gets about 250 ghits, more wrestlecruft Tony fanta 03:46, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KUNG-FUzion[edit]

Article about a group created by User:Kungfuzion, who is its only editor. Peter O. (Talk) 03:48, 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 Merge & redirect to Jake Brahm. --MCB 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mess With Football[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social marketplace[edit]

No real sources and more like advertising to me. Kamiawolf 04:10, 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 delete. Dakota 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stillmeadow Church of the Nazarene[edit]

Contested prod. Original prod said "Non notable local church; no particular claim to notability, and the article is not written from a neutral point of view. --Brianyoumans 10:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)" Khatru2 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you count as the nominator, then I vote delete per nom. Khatru2 06:28, 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.

Ex-Lion Tamer[edit]

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A7) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Smells like vanity and/or hoax, but wanted to make sure. As it stands, delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 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 delete. Dakota 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wine & Spirit[edit]

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 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 delete.

Tere Bin by Atif & the credit goes to?[edit]

Does not meet WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 04:47, 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 okay, that's better. Notability properly asserted, article expanded - it's now a keep. DS 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Calero[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Subject's only assertion of notability is working for a comic book company. Appears to be a borderline A7 article, but the author strongly refutes this. NMChico24 04:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask Ughmonster, who created the page and is either a huge fan of the artist or the artist himself, to please stop interjecting whbat may be seen as self-serving or possibly biased comments, and let an unfettered dicussion take place. --Tenebrae 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are unnecc. acerbic and frankly, presumptuous. No I did nto read the entire manual of style, but I have made an honest effort to read to every page and set of guidelines that I've been referred to, none of which suggested that commenting in a discussion page is ill-mannered. There is no "hype" in my listing, except perhaps for a link to the artist's website, which I did not add.
I don't see how asking me to stop "interjecting" is going to add to the discussion. It's my first page, and if this is supposed to be a discussion, why wouldn't I be encoruaged to try and answer criticism and ask questions?
At the same time, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to hinder the process, but I frankly don;t understand, with every Wiki policy emphasizing being kind to first time users, why some obviously more experienced users insist on slamming me for not being as familiar with Wiki policies as they, and to the point of accusations of dsengeniousness, especially considering that in terms of "overt bias" and "advertising", just about every other current comic artist's listing on this site includes contact information and service descriptions. --Ughmonster 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's "slamming" anyone by asking that those who contribute to Wikipedia read up on some of the basic rules and editorial policies. It's also hard for unbiased, disinterested contributors, with no personal stake in an issue, to have a substantive discussion on its merits when an interested party won't let them do so without it turning into an issue of personal emotion. --Tenebrae 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote for delete was blanked out by User:70.19.97.253. I restored it by reversion. MidgleyDJ 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.18GB is clearly an identity made up on short notice, no credits etc, who wants to, for whatever reason, disrupt this process and thus I felt needed deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk) .
Your own account also has no edits save this one. Is this user (User:70.19.97.253) posting under different names in this deletion discussion? MidgleyDJ 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm moving anon because I saw something shifty going on, so I don't wish to, in turn, be flamed. I'm sorry you find that level of caution so shocking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk) .
It's noteworthy that User:70.19.97.253 & User:Ughmonster have been editing the same pages, in similar language - and are likely to be the same person. Removing delete comments in a deletion discussion that you have a clear interest is concerning. MidgleyDJ 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fer... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.115.36 (talk) .
For further discussion of the blanking please see User talk:70.19.97.253. MidgleyDJ 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that not all articles need to be really long, but they need to have at least some content; this one has a grand total of four sentences and they leave out vital information that ALL biographical articles need: birth date, hometown, education, etc. Four sentences isn't anything, it needs to be written out in a few paragraphs and in the proper form for living biographies. I agree that the guy seems notable enough, though so far there aren't really any sources cited in the article to back up these claims. I think the article should stay but it needs to be expanded, properly sources and properly formatted. --The Way 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're 100% right and I will, as soon as I get home from work. Some of us have jobs you know!  ;) One thing though, clearly I am an inexperienced user, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so the fact that I may not format things correctly shouldn't be the deciding factor. People should help me format it, once the information is there, of course. --Ughmonster 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, people will. --Mild Mannered 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above "Keep" is also by a newly registered (Oct. 24) user. This, together with the new-user erasure of a Delete above, as noted by MidgleyDJ, very much gives the appearance of an interested party rallying friends not previously contributing to Wikipedia is order to "stuff the ballot". An Admin should be made aware of this. -- Tenebrae 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no interest in the fact that Midge and 4.18 post within 2 min of each other. --Ughmonster 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ughmonster, assuming you are talking about me when you say Midge (sic): I said on this talk page I am more than happy for an administrator to look into any sockpuppetry you are suggesting has occured on my part. If you'd like to report your assertion that I have been using sock puppets I believe you can do so here by requesting an administrator to investigate. If you look through my contributions and those of the user you are suggesting is also "me" ie: User:4.18GB you'll see we dont have the same edit history, interests or contributions. I've done nothing wrong: I've not deleted other peoples comments, I've not written comments under pseudonyms or sockpuppet/anon accounts. MidgleyDJ 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the people concerned about 'ballot-stuffing,' keep in mind that the AfD is NOT a vote and is NOT determined by which side has the most in support. Rather, whether or not to delete an article is determined by the arguments offered by each side. When someone says 'keep' or 'delete' without any argument, the administrator is supposed to totally ignore them. Theoretically, an AfD nomination could have 10 people voting for keeping something and only one or two voting for deletion and the article could still be deleted if those voting for deletion have the better argument. --The Way 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way, I will keep that in mind. And Midge, I have, but regardless, it's clear what you're up to and merits no further response. --Ughmonster 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ughmonster, what is it that you think I'm up to? I just dont understand your comment. MidgleyDJ 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This arguing (between Ughmonster and Midgley) needs to stop; please quit being so petty and quit accusing each other of things. Stick to the topic: whether this article should or should not be kept. The admins are smart, if someone is playing games they'll notice; they're only going to look at the arguments so this doesn't matter. Can't we keep it a bit more professional? --The Way 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly be more mature here and cut it out. But he started it. --Ughmonster 11:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He started it"?? I find that statement, combined with Ughmonster's sockpuppet accusations (without requesting formal verification) a troublesome drop in the standards we all voluntarily try to keep. I applaud The Way's attempts at keeping the discussion at an elevated level. Ughmonster has more than made his position clear and I can only ask, as a disinterested party, that he please just let the Admins make their decision. -- Tenebrae 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for letting admins make their decisions and I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems obvious to me that Ughmonster was making a joke. Unless I'm a suckpuppet. Or sockpuppet. Whatever. --ConeyIslandBoy 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. --Ughmonster 16:28, 26 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 of the debate was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's A Wally[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 04:56, 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 keep as nomination was withdrawn. GRBerry 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You See The Trouble With Me[edit]

Besides being a hit in the UK, this song seems otherwise non-notable GinaDana 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I see the error of my ways. I'll rescind my nomination. GinaDana 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - True, but it also says that it it meets one of those criteria, it may border on notability. GinaDana 05:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, although it also came pretty close to the top 20 of another country (Australia) and could probably be argued to be the performer's "singature song", by virtue of the band being a one-hit wonder according to everything I can find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 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 delete. Dakota 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Simon[edit]

Not verifiably important per WP:V. Article created by User:Aaron Simon violates WP:WWIN, WP:VAIN, and WP:AUTO. -AED 05:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Resisters' International/Links[edit]

This is merely a web directory. Even if the links are eliminated (as the author suggest s/he might do on the talk page), it's only a membership roster that is unencyclopedic. Metros232 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As mainly a list/web-directory, it isn't really an encyclopedia article. Ideally, such information should be placed in the main article (if this AfD determines it to be encyclopedic), but that would make the main article ridiculously long. Right now it is more of an appendix to the main article. Leuko 08:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Task Force on Palestine[edit]

non-notable organization with no verifiable references and no sources other than the organization's web site. Metspadres 05:49, 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 deleted by Quarl as a hoax. This isn't technically a speedy deletion criterion, but WP:SNOW can be applied here. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. recreated admitted hoax, see User talk:GusVanDean, User talk:Dormeus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.A. Ruscaba. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 06:59Z

Kiran Parkhe[edit]

Unverifiable far as I've tried, possible hoax, likely nn even if exists Seraphimblade 05:56, 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 Merge and redirect to 2090s.--Konst.ableTalk 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2099[edit]

Too far in the future to put any relevant events, all events currently documented there are fiction or anniversaries and it is the most distant year to have a page of its own, the next being 2065. I suggest delete and redirect to 2090s. Philip Stevens 05:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and North Korea - a new threat to the world[edit]

I guess the title says it all. It's a POV essay, cites no sources, possibly an attack page - "Now the world have two monkeys with N-tech" - and contains speculation. Contested prod. MER-C 06:02, 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 delete, verifiability is non-negotiable and despite that being the basis for the nomination no reliable sources have been provided to even show that this album is even actually being produced. This deletion does not prejudice against a verified article being written instead. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.E.L.L.Y.[edit]

Future album, no references, scant information. Prod removed without explanation. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For what it's worth, I recently asked about this sort of article on the Village Pump and was pointed at WP:NOT, which states that "speculation (about an upcoming item) must be well documented". Zetawoof(ζ) 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which way? Currently, this is a page of unsourced speculation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Odyssey: A Tale of The Tim Box Wars[edit]

Someone wants it deleted? Timbox129 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Man, this took me THREE schooldays to make this. Timbox129 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –– Lid(Talk) 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, maybe I should!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbox129 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McDonald[edit]

Unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:16Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vespene gas[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. These articles provide an unnecessary level of detail. An appropriate level of information for these subjects is already in the StarCraft article, so these really aren't necessary. Also nominating Minerals (StarCraft) for the same reason. Was PROD2'd but then removed due to the age of the article by User:N Shar. Delete as unencyclopedic content. Wickethewok 07:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Emeraude 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Minerals is 90% game guide, 9% speculation, 1% verifiable and enyclopedic knowledge. Talematros is 100% regurgitation of storyline. Same with Psionic technology, Khalai Caste, Zerus, and so on down the line. The whole series of articles could use some attention, really. Being an element of a notable game does not establish notability, and since nearly all the articles source only the Starcraft manual and StarCraft Compendium, a Blizzard-run site. Smells crufty to me, and ripe for a whole lot of merges. Consequentially 16:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebong[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy and later prod, and I'm bumping it to AFD. My first impression is this article should be kept or merged; I'm bringing it here for wider audience. I haven't seen the subject cartoon but it definitely seems to exist at 19,000 Google hits; the article isn't a hoax or an attack page (is the cartoon itself an attack? probably just a parody). —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:32Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Plate Scare[edit]

Unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:35Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Weapons List[edit]

Page that has nothing more than explanation of what a kunai and a shuriken are. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:43, 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 delete. DS 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Boys Incorporated[edit]

Unverifiable -- all Wikipedia mirrors, myspace, and other user-submitted websites, except: "Tough adjustment for young Albanians" by Selim Algar. Bronx Beat is student newspaper (its website starts with: "Bronx Beat is a real newspaper" [21]). I have a hard time taking this seriously if this is the only documentation in existance. Selim Algar now appears to be working as a journalist [22]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:46Z

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

The result was tedious delete. DS 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osism[edit]

Nonsense about a "newly founded religion". Was speedy-tagged, but tag replaced by Prod tag ("WP:V and no assertion of notability/significant following"), which was subsequently removed without comment by the article creator. Not merely a delete, but a speedy one, in my opnion. Calton | Talk 07:46, 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 keep. -- Steel 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmigaOne[edit]

Notability not established. Not referenced. MER-C 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existing product. Out of production. Discontinued. Encyclopaedicly irrelevant. 85.138.1.15 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that the product is non-existent (in the sense of it never existing) is false. It is discontinued, but there are plenty of articles on discontinued products (for starters, the Amiga article and all the articles for every other Amiga machine). Mdwh 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How can it be discontinued if it's nonexistent? JIP | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amiga invoices safe to let Wikipedia be a honest serious and well balanced Encyclopedia letting all voices to speak with democracy, and keeping a decent point of view, preserving the history. Even big/little phenomena as AmigaONE.

3000 AmigaONE happy users, who use their machines with profict and consider their machines as the evolution of Classic Amigas ask this to you all.

Check also the thousands of occurrences of AmigaONE in google:

[24]

And see how much AmigaONE is notable (or not) into computers.

Don't be so moronish to delete AmigaONE article. Just don't make Wikipedia from other nations laugh at you of English version. Other language versions respect well Amiga articles. Here in Italy for example there is a good respect of Amiga invoices into Wikipedia.

Ciao, --Raffaele Megabyte 03:37, 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. --Ezeu 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third holiest site in Islam[edit]

Article misuses WP:V to present numerous sources of dubious reliability and violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Amerique 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology 3rd site by its virtue came from a hadith by Prophet Muhammad. It is really wrong to cite from here and there to prove otherwise. If this article is written to explain this terminology used in Islam, it is fine. The article went far beyond explaining this to actually try and dispute it. Something that cannot be really understood and is certainly not anymore explaining an Islamic terminology. Almaqdisi 10:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But surely you realize that the article makes no attempt at distinguishing between so-called "claims," beliefs or opinions gathered from various sources, that could be mistaken, from any actual differences in theology between various sects of Islam? The article regards any and all sources with any reference to a third Islamic holy site as equal, rendering undue weight Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to spurious material and suggesting that all these assorted assertions should be taken equally seriously. This is specious logic. Any actual differences between various sects of Islam, or any religion, would be appropriately discussed within the pages devoted to documenting these distinct religions, including the pages devoted to particular sites that for reasons I can't pretend to know are holy to them, rather than mixing all such sites up with spurious references in an apparent attempt to denature the significance of all forms of Islam and the meaning any such site has within particular forms of Islam. This page seems to me entirely intended to stir up unnecessary conflict and while this is not strictly prohibited on WP I don't find it at all usefull for most users except those users who would get a laugh out of doing this.--Amerique 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That claims, beliefs or opinions could be mistaken is a very strange thing to assume. Let’s take the example of the tour guides. They are not just bits of information thought up by the writer. Someone has actually gone to the place, done research, interacted with the locals to get a review of the place. These are then placed in the guide. Their beliefs are mistaken according to you because in your opinion they are wrong! But I agree we could tidy it up and emphasise more clearly where the theological disputes lie. Undue weight doesn’t apply here, because the original article was included under Al Aqsa Mosque, but was considered to be “undue weight” and therefore a new article was created to conform with the following statement in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. This article is devoted to the subject. Additionally, if all the views were to be added to their respective articles it would be difficult to assess all the claims simultaneously. Chesdovi 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Someone has actually gone to the place, done research, interacted with the locals to get a review of the place. These are then placed in the guide." Are you forgetting that travel agencies exist to do business? Do you think that they'll show any miserable poverty, organized crime and such in a tourist brochure?. And there is 1 dead link, and another outdated faculty handbook that the author himself said contained an error, yet you insist that the old version be linked to and you uploaded it to a freewebs account bearing my username. Also this topic is very well discussed in the List of holy cities article [25]. There is no need to make separate articles for such things like "The fourth tallest building in every country in Asia" etc. Then why not create several articles like "Sixth holiest city in Christianity", "Fourth Holiest site in Buddhism" etc. Thestick 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick, you state that the old edition contained an "error", an error left undetected for 2 years 4 months? Was it you who has been in touch with the author for the sole reason of discrediting the source and arranged for a new version to be downloaded on the same link dated 2003 (not 2005)?! The new edition may not mention anything about the mosque, but neither is there a “places to visit” section. In the new version the whole section was left out completely; so who’s to say that just the mosque bit was an “error”?!
Btw travel guides regularly warn tourists of “no-go” areas and to be cautious of pickpockets, etc. They also give a brief synopsis of the area, including details of whether there is poverty, etc. Take the following from wikitravel as an example: Gaza isn't quite the pure hellhole you might expect given TV coverage, although needless to say the birthplace of the Intifada and one of the most overpopulated bits on the entire planet isn't exactly paradise on earth either. A UN report in 1952 stated that the Strip is too small to support its population of 300,000; there are now well over one million inhabitants and the January 2002 latest figures from the Palestinian Authority put unemployment at a whopping 79%. Most inhabitants are Palestinian refugees who fled the 1948 war but were denied entry into Egypt proper. Chesdovi 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“There is no need to make separate articles for such things like "The fourth tallest building in every country in Asia”
That’s because they are concrete (excuse the pun) facts and are not the subject of ambiguity. (They are listed on wikipedia’s more exclusive pages, e.g: List of tallest buildings in Toronto). However the third holiest site is a common term, and itself a matter of debate with numerous other sites vying for the position! That is why it requires its own page.Chesdovi 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to bother arguing since any source that states anything else other than the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in Islam is perfectly acceptable to the creator of the article. Wikitravel is different from some travel agency that needs to make money. And yes, that error went undetected for more than 2 years, until you brought it to their attention. Also, there is no other source on the internet that says the Jawatha mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. To understand the political inclination just take a look at the first version of the article [26] Thestick 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, till I did (sleepy) but let's not deviate of the topic Thestick 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no question that this article is not written to explain an Islamic concept but rather to spread confusion about it and false information. You cannot just bring any claim and say that some muslims believe that this is a 3rd Holy site etc. I wonder why not finding out also what some muslims consider the fourth site in Islam? What might be also the Second? What is the first? This article is becoming a polling station and not explaining a well-established undisputed Islamic terminology appearing in authentic Islamic texts? When saying "in Islam", is different than saying "by some Muslims". I believe the article is just written to dispute the Importance of Jerusalem in Islam. Almaqdisi 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick, it is interesting that whenever the al aqsa mosque is mentioned the need to assert it as the “third holiest site”, goes hand in hand. THIS is the recent creation. A recent creation aimed at aiding the political intentions of the Muslim world. If, as you demonstrated, it IS the 3rd holiest, why stop there, whenever a Muslim holy site is mentioned, say what number down the list it comes? Is Baghdad known as the fourth holiest, Samarkand as the tenth holiest? Etc. I will settle for deleting the page if on the Al Aqsa mosque page or any other on wikipedia, no reference is made that it known as the “third holiest site”.
  • Almaqdisi, no one doubts the importance in Islam of Jerusalem. However whenever the term “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined. Why the need to emphasise the third, fourth, etc.? It is to bolster the claim. This is an unnecessary politically motivated term which should be discarded. Chesdovi 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick: "why not create several articles like "Sixth holiest city in Christianity", "Fourth Holiest site in Buddhism" etc. Well, it seems it is only Muslims who insist on short listing there sites! If there are enough of a variety for the other religions, why not? In fact I intend to do so, and I'm sure it won't cause such a ruckus as it has done with the Muslims. Chesdovi 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick: Google search: “third holiest site Buddhism”, Result: The noble sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam. Google search: “third holiest site Christianity”. Result: Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam.
You see, it’s only the Muslims who refer to any site as the third holiest. This is for a reason, not just because it happens to be so! Chesdovi 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ The above responses confirm the political/religious/whatever inclinations of this article.. Furthermore, this is an AfD page, not a page to discuss politics, anyway I'll answer your points one by one :
  • "I will settle for deleting the page if on the Al Aqsa mosque page or any other on wikipedia, no reference is made that it known as the “third holiest site”. ". -Then to be fair, any reference made in the temple mount article that it is the holiest site in Judaism will have to be removed too (This is based on your argument, I don't feel this needs to be done).
  • You cannot compare a site which is considered the holiest to a religion to one which is third holiest. Once upon a time a site considered the holiest was a point of interest, now because of Muslim discomfort at the situation in Jerusalem, it has to be extended to the "third holiest"!? Chesdovi 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Al Aqsa mosque has been mentioned as the third holiest site in Islamic doctrine for over ~1400 years. This has already been shown to you time and time again, yet you still keep saying it is a recent political creation based on an erroneous and hardline article circulating through some hardline Jewish POV websites that does not qualify for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. If you want to post information based on that article, this is not the place to do it.
  • "it IS the 3rd holiest, why stop there, whenever a Muslim holy site is mentioned, say what number down the list it comes". - There are only '3' according to mainstream Islam, and the articles about all 3 of them contain which number down the list it comes.
  • "It is to bolster the claim. This is an unnecessary politically motivated term which should be discarded." - This is nothing but your personal POV.
  • "Thestick: Google search: “third holiest site Buddhism”, Result: The noble sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam. Google search: “third holiest site Christianity”. Result: Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam." - I seriously dont understand what this has to do with the AfD proposal of this article, but - Try running those searches again, this time with the whole phrase in double quotes.
  • Doesn't help, I even tried with quadruple double quotes and it never fails to come up with Islam’s third holiest site, the first result noch! No third holiest site in buddhism. Sorry! Chesdovi 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However whenever the term “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined." - Once again, this is nothing but your personal POV
  • "You see, it’s only the Muslims who refer to any site as the third holiest. This is for a reason, not just because it happens to be so!" - They are most certainly not the only ones, and again, just your erroneous POV. Thestick 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Chesdovi, The word third comes from a hadith that says, that the virtue of praying at the site of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, or al-Masjid al-Haram or Masjid al-Madina is not like any other place. The hadith talks about the virtue and reward of praying at these sites. It does not talk about Holiness. The word Holy, 'Mukaddas' is not mentioned in the Hadith. Therefore, the Hadith continues, only to these 3 sites you may go on journey, and anywhere else on this earth, the prayer has the same virtue. There are no political agendas etc, this has been said 1400 years ago. These sites were chosen by the following Prophets of Islam: Ibrahim and his sons, Yakub and his sons, and Muhammad.
According to Islamic teachings, the Quran allocates much of its text arguing that the Message of the Prophets of Islam as being one message, from the same God (Allah, or Elohim). Furthermore, regarding the Temple Mount, historical sources show that when Muslims entered Jerusalem during the time of Umar, they did not find Jews having any temple or worshiping at the site. Hence, the Covenant of Umar did not address that, and only mentioned protecting the Churchs of the Christians etc. No mentionig of protecting the Temple Mount as a site for Jews. Having said so, Muslims believe they fullfilled the Prophecy of other previous Prophets of Islam by re-constructing the Masjid, 2nd after Mecca' masjid, that was mentioned and illuded at various places in the Quran text. Almaqdisi 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almaqdisi, a few observations:
"The word third comes from a hadith that says, that the virtue of praying at the site of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, or al-Masjid al-Haram or Masjid al-Madina is not like any other place. The hadith talks about the virtue and reward of praying at these sites." Please provide where it says that the mosque in Jerusalem is Third and Holy. The following hadith places Jerusalem second in the list: Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:31:215, maybe it is therefore second holiest? It may be more virtuous, but is that isn’t the same as holiness. Maybe it should be called third virtuous site in Islam?
"It does not talk about Holiness. The word Holy, 'Mukaddas' is not mentioned in the Hadith. Therefore, the Hadith continues, only to these 3 sites you may go on journey, and anywhere else on this earth, the prayer has the same virtue." If it doesn’t actually say holy – why is it called third holiest? The temple is called beit haMikdash – the Holy house – no ambiguity there! Maybe it should be called "the third pilgrim site in Islam".
"There are no political agendas etc, this has been said 1,400 years ago". What has been said 1,400 years ago? Provide the word holy. Did Muhammed say it was a holy place or just a good place to say a pray in? Jacob also never said it was a holy place but he summed it up 500 times better than the hadith does: "He was afraid and said: How awesome is this place, it is none other than the house of God and the gate to heaven":
“they did not find Jews having any temple or worshiping at the site. Hence, the Covenant of Umar did not address that, and only mentioned protecting the Churchs of the Christians etc. No mentionig of protecting the Temple Mount as a site for Jews.”According to you, Neither was it a place of muslim worship as the Masjid had to be re-constructed. Umer found Jews in Jerusalem did he find any Muslims? Yes the ones who he had come with him, sword in hand, to occupy the city and the Jews holy site as Kaab al-Ahbar told him.
"Muslims believe they fulfilled the Prophecy of other previous Prophets of Islam by re-constructing the Masjid, 2nd after Mecca' masjid". I thought the second mosque was Jwatha, the site of Muhammad second Friday prayer?
There are also other hadiths which say otherwise:Our sixth imam, Imam Sardeg, says that we have five definitive holy places that we respect very much. The first is Mecca, which belongs to God. The second is Medina, which belongs to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the messenger of God. The third belongs to our first imam of Shia, Ali, which is in Najaf. The fourth belongs to our third imam, Hussein, in Karbala. The last one belongs to the daughter of our seventh imam and sister of our eighth imam, who is called Fatemah, and will be buried in Qom. Pilgrims and those who visit her holy shrine, I promise to these men and women that God will open all the doors of Heaven to them. Is there something missing? Chesdovi 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is among the 3 holiest sites in Islam. First it is the Masjid Al-Haram, second is Al-Masjid al-Nabawi at last is Al-Aqsa Mosque. There are several virtues of the Al-Aqsa Mosque which ave been shown to you time and time again yet still fail to understand it. It's obvious from your previous comments that all you are trying to do is discredit this well established historical and theological fact by any means necessary because for some reason you feel by saying it is the third holiest site in Islam "the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined.".This article is a result of that, and it's content is just WikiLawyering Thestick 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, I repeat. There are many hadiths that discusses al-Masjid al-Aqsa. There is one of them mentioning that it is the second masjid designated to worhsip Allah on earth. The first was masjid al-Haram, the second is masjid al-Aqsa. These spots were chosen by God according to muslims long long before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. In Quran, prophet Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets of Islam. Prophet Muhammad called to the same Religion of Ibrahim and Ismail and Isaac and Jacob according to Quran. These are Quranic statements. Hence, 1400 years ago, these Hadiths mentioned the virtue of praying at al-Aqsa mosque. Only these sites which were built by Prophets have such a virtue. Anywhere else, does not. This is mentioend in [Mosque] article anyway. There is really no need to confuse things up. It is not true to keep arguing that the Shiites discredit Jerusalem position in Islam. Do you have a conclusive evidence. Hezbollah, which is Shiite, would strongly disgree with this. AhmadiNajad himself disagree with that. Finally, there is no point to keep looking around to find and Quote just any muslims who talks about what he thinks is holy and what is not. I can find many websites on the internet which mentions that no vistited that moon!! This is a distortion and are not considered authentic sources. Just giving names here and there will not be as credible as sources muslims continue to use for 1400 all attributed to the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Almaqdisi 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sahih Bukhari quotes Abu al-Dardaa as saying: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsa is worth 500 prayers more than in an any other mosque.
  • Then Mecca should be known as the most holiest site in Islam and Jerusalem as “the least holiest site in Islam”? I mean 500 is quite a drop from 100,000. Should Al Aqsa be on the virtuous list at all? Chesdovi 12:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Praying anywhere else on the earth apart from these three mosques has the same virtue according to the Islamic teachings. It is also described as being the second masjid established on earth (by Jacob) after the one in Mecca (by Abraham). Finally, the same spot was the first Qibla. Hence, if the terminology Third Holiest is used by some, it is really meant to be Third masjid by its virtue. Almaqdisi 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about the following: It should also be noted that in regard to Fazilat (auspiciousness), as per few references, it is learnt that the Great Mosque of Kufa is better than the mosque of Al-Aqsa. Hazrat Imam Muhammad Bakar had told that if anybody who performs his essential prayer in this mosque, shall be given a benefit of one Haj and if any person performs non-essential prayer in this mosque shall be given the benefit of one Umra. And Dargah Sharief in Ajmer, the most famous Muslim pilgrimage center in India. It is considered the second holiest pilgrim site after Mecca - it is believed that seven pilgrimages to Ajmer equal one to Mecca.Chesdovi 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source which says the great mosque of Kufa is the third holiest site in Islam is someones personal 8m website which Im sure isnt qualified for WP:RS. And the only source of the Dargah Sharief claim is travelvideosonline.com . Same goes for the erroneus KFUPM faculty handbook which you seemed to be so keen on preserving it by uploading it on a freewebs account bearing my username (You thought it was funny?), and the only source of that blue mosque in Afghanistan is dead!According to WP Policy and guidelines Im confident a big chunk of this article can be deleted with no contest the'''s'''tick 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don’t think Syed Mazhar Saeed Kazmi report is a WP:RS and that his assertion the at he great mosque of Kufa is more auspicious you better had check his CV: He was is a member of The Council of Islamic Ideology and taught as professor at Baha-ud-Din Zakaria University, Multan & the University of Karachi. He is on the Advisory Committee of the 1st International Conference on Advances in Space Technologies for Disaster Management and Rehabilitation, Islamabad, Pakistan, and the Deputy Director of WAPDA.
  • With regards to the KFUPM faculty handbook, I thought it was only natural that you would want to be associated with it as you went to such lengths to get the latest version uploaded on the same link.
  • It is the Place where Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ascended into the Heavens ("Israa and Miraaj).
  • In the Holy Qur’an, in the first verse of Chapter 17 entitled 'The Children of Israel / Bani Israel. '
"Glory to Allah, Who did take His servant for a journey by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless - in order that We might show him some of Our signs. For He is the One who hears and knows all things." (17:1) Qur’an
  • Jerusalem was the first "Qibla" for ALL Muslims.
  • Prophet Mohammed said: “"There are only three mosques to which you should embark on a journey: the sacred mosque (Mekkah), this mosque of mine (Madinah), and the mosque of Al-Aqsa (Al-Quds)”.
  • Since Muslims believe in Prophets Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus, then they also recognise the sacredness and importance of Jerusalem in Islam.
  • The site of the Haram al Shareef (temple Mount) was a garbage dump, a dunghill for the people of Jerusalem. But Caliph Omar, upon learning this was the site of the Masjid of Al Quds-Jerusalem cleaned the place with his own hands and put his forehead in payer on that ground.
  • Muslims rule of this city was longest out of the three faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism), this proves that Muslims regarded the city with respect and sanctity.
  • Many Muslim scholars also migrated and settled in the city.
  • Add to that the Google search experiment it becomes clear that the only SANE option here is to delete this article.

As for the other supposedly third holiest sites, they can be mentioned (if referenced thoroughly) as part of Jerusalem’s religious significance or as a foot note in Al-Quds article since the other sites significance represent a largely non Muslim misconception. The points I listed above distinguish Jerusalem from the other suggested sites. Palestine48 06:38, 25 October 2006

Please restrict your ad hominem attacks on fellow editors of Wikipedia, please. This article is on a discussion on an issue. Wikipedia is not a place to promote specific ideals and stifle other views. Whether or not the Quran may call it the third holiest site, or no matter how much you wish to quote from it, it does not change the fact that there are views on the third holiest site of Islam, and hence this article will be pertinent. If you have a view that opposes these arguments, do put them on the article. This is what Wikipedia is for. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of the article clean-up, and I should stress that none of this even begins to support deletion in my view, I would encourage the article's editors to (1) write a clear and sourced introduction laying out the issue neutrally; (2) maybe request peer review to get some outside suggestions in how to improve the article; and (3) invite the members of Project Islam to chime in, particularly if they have access to more resources identifying the various contenders. Thanks, TheronJ 13:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso could just have well started an article on poodles with the first sentence saying that it is a type of dog but then diverting to Blair and framing the whole article around the relation Bush-Blair. AFD would then be warranted because the issue then has nothing to do with a POV debate on poodles. It's also no good saying that the article should be kept because an article on poodles has potential. A genuine article on poodles would be so different from the original that it would be best created by a good faith editor who wants to write about poodles. Also, by keeping the article Amoruso would have shifted the burden on writing a NPOV article on poodles to others. The only good reason to vote to keep would be if you are willing to put in the effort to transform the article to a genuine article about the subject yourself.
This issue reminds me of the recent AFD debate on Heim theory. There the source of the problem was different than in this case but there are some parallels. There you have POV pushers who want to promote a particular pseudoscientific topic. It then became too much of a burden for the editors of wiki project physics (who are mostly professional physicists) to keep the article in a "NO OR" and "No POV" form. They wanted to delete the article. I voted for keep because like some who voted for keep here, I am of the opinion that the pseudoscientific topic was notable. But then I was told by the others of the physics project that I should then become personally involved in editing that article. It is no good to just say "keep" because it can be made NPOV and then run away from the task of actually putting in the effort to improve the article. After the AFD vote I rewrote the article in an aceptable form.
So, in conclusion, my opinion is that the article should be deleted unless good faith editors with no agenda stand up right now who are willing to invest the time and effort to rewrite the article. The option of keeping and "let's see later how we improve it", is not adequate because Amoruso can create new articles written in bad faith faster than good faith editors can be found to step in every time he does so. Count Iblis 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this editor also has his own agenda; you can see how he messaged no less than 9 (at my last count) pro-Arab members to vote against Amoruso’s latest article. He is against anything considered by him/her to be remotely conceived as anti-Arab. This article was in fact not "created for POV reasons relating to some other topic" but was originally part of the al aqsa mosque page but was considered to be “undue weight” and therefore a new article was created to conform with the following statement in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. This article is devoted to the subject. Chesdovi 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I'm for neutrality which perhaps to some pro-Israeli editors is seen as "against anything considered by him/her to be remotely conceived as anti-Arab.". You obviously did not see my edit on the Hamas page changing "attacks" to "military action and terrorism". I don't shy away from being neutral at all. I stand by my opinion that the article was created in bad faith. Such articles should be deleted unless others stand up and write a serious article on the topic.Count Iblis 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The above is a completely unnecessary personal attack accusing Amoruso of poor faith. It is counter to wikipedia policy WP:AGF. Various editors here have various opinions here on Wikipedia; that's a reality. According to the WP:NPOV policy, the truth is in the combination of all the well cited neutrally stated views, not in any particlar POV. Wikipedia is not a product of a totalitarian regime and is not propaganda. Therefore, everyone is going to disagree with some content here or other. AFDing articles that are not agreed with is really a form of censorship and violates WP:DEL. Elizmr 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) NOTE: edit conflict; the user being discussed here is Count Iblis. Elizmr 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of poor faith is in the original version of the article, and it wasn't the first time. As explained above in detail this is not a mere POV issue. You can have a POV discussion on poodles but you should not create an article on poodles because of your POV on Blair. Count Iblis 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Chesdovi demonstrated above, your allegations make no sense what-so-ever. Not only you've recruited many POV pushers including the banned Yas121 to influence articles violating the basis of wikipedia, now you have the audacity to attack other users. Sad. This original article was part of the Al Aqsa Mosque article, and it was moved to an own article as part of a proposed compromise - I suggest you see the discussion of the original article first before spreading any bull around again. Just look at this person sick recruitment attempt of POV to censor another legitimate article that was speedily kept. [27] Amoruso 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked some people to look at the policide article which was written for POV purposes. The fact that some of them may not be neutral in Israeli-Palestinian conflict exactly undermines your argument, because the concept of policide should have nothing to do with this conflict. To use the "poodle" analogy, it's like accusing someone for recruiting people with a pro-Blair bias to take a look at the poodle article. The article was only speedly kept because the POV aspects were being edited out by other editors and I wrote on the AFD page that I was satisfied with that. Count Iblis 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • When the original article was written is was not to put at rest my personal POV. The quote of mine you bring was commenting in a discussion with Almaqdisi on why I think the term has been used, not the raison d’etre why the article was written. Besides I have already answered thestick regarding this by saying that this is actually a fact; it’s human nature that when “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined. It suddenly isn’t an exclusive holy site for one religion but also has a great deal of significance for another one. Chesdovi 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"One should travel only for visiting three Masajid (Mosques): Masjid-ul-Haram (Mecca), Masjid-ul-Aqsa (Jerusalem), and this (my) Mosque (at Medina)." - Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31, Number 215

This hadith and the others arguments provided by Palestine48, and are much more reliable as evidence, as opposed to quotes from tourist brochures, travel websites, and other such dubious sources. - Mlaheji 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have yet to find where on Wikipedia it says that tourist brochures, travel websites are dubious sources, if anything they represent the views of the local population who were no doubt consulted of their views on the site. Chesdovi 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if there are muslims who still believe otherwise? Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever action is taken, we should make the best decision based on the perspective of these people both for the people searching information and for wikipedia's reputation. A large fraction of the people who read [this version] will probably never use wikipedia for reliable information about the Mid East anytime soon. Count Iblis 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is not an article that is devoted to any sort of minorty view. All it does is personify websites regardless of their reliabilty and accuracy and gives the illusion that there is a group of people that believe so. Just look at some of the statements - "IslamicTouism goes further and bypasses Medina stating “Najaf, home to the shrine of Imam Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia”. [13]" . And again, the creator himself mentioned his personal agendas behind the article on this page itself. To summarise it's WikiLawyering, not in line with principles of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and is openly Bad Faith Also, THIS is the original version of his article --> [28] the'''s'''tick 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is being attributed to my POV, but in fact this was an introduction to the subject I took from a website (later on to be added as a link) after I proceeded to do more research on the matter. Initially I had found that Hala Sultan Tekke was also considered as third holiest and thought the best way to including in the page was by providing the short introduction. Subsequent edits rephrased the introduction until it was considered NPOV. So what’s the problem? Chesdovi 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not attributing it to your POV, you quoted and for some time vehemently defended that statement from an external link that was already shown to be erroneous and biased until the article was submitted for review. And you still keep restoring those sections of which the only sources (dubious sources too) no longer exist. the'''s'''tick 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "you quoted and for some time vehemently defended that statement from an external link that was already shown to be erroneous and biased" I don’t remember – In fact I have checked at it was I who removed the alleged POV! [29] Chesdovi 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the location of the Jewish Temple has also been proposed by some sources not to be in Jerusalem but other places. If you are okay with creating an article entitled "Holiest City in Judaism" based on those sources and commence with a list of every bigot, racist, or purely mistaken (or mistyped) source that has said that the Temple was actually in Saudi Arabia or Nablus or the Sinai, then you would have more of a reason to argue for the existence of an entire article dedicated to such nonsense. Ramallite (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a useful comparison, Ramallite. If there are sources for it, I think an article on "Locations argued to be sources of the Jewish Temple" would be a reasonable topic. I imagine there would be some vigorous disputes over how to fairly address the balance of evidence, but those disputes wouldn't support deletion, IMHO. Thanks, TheronJ 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BEAUTIFUL. Without realising it, you've just proven the whole point. Jerusalem is not holy to Jews because it has a holy site in it. It's holy to Judaism as a CITY . You'll have a hard time to argue with the thousands of its mentions in Jewish bible, history, folklore, poetry, prose, Mishnah and Talmud and it's importance to Jews. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant even if it was based on anything. Amoruso 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UGLY. Fully realising it, you've just missed the whole point. The point is not the status of Jerusalem in Jewish folkore (or Islamic/Christian folklore, of which there is also plenty), the point, as you know, is the false pretenses and sloppy sources involved in creating an entire article about the importance of Jerusalem in Islam. We can argue about which houses in French Hill and which shopping malls in Telpiot have more songs sung about them by which group some other time, when I'm really really bored. Besides, what you wrote above is not accurate because you've confused 'holy' with 'historic capital'. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I did not confuse it. For Jews, JERUSALEM IS HOLY. Yes, the city. For Muslims and Christians there are HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM. You see the difference ? That's the difference, and that's why arguing over Jewish sites in Jerusalem like you suggested is irrelevant. Amoruso 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us not only rely on theological viewpoints, let us also take into consideration the view of the “man in the Street”: The following is from a blog: For us Shias - Karbala, Najaf, Kazmain (all in Iraq) and Mashad in Iran all precede Jerusalem by many a mile.[30]Chesdovi 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You might not realise it but the question of the place of Al Aqsa was highly disputed in Islamic circles at the time. As the sources show, it's still disputed by some today. Other muslims believe that other sites are more important. Even the pov proposer like Almaqdisi admits that there's a big difference between what sunni and shia think on the subject, and this is all relevant info to depict. It was already in the Al Aqsa Article but people thought it was given undue weight so it was moved in compromise. Obviously, this is all pertinent information. These other sites exist and are very imporant for Muslims and many regard them as the most important behind the undisputed Mecca (and Medina). Amoruso 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "dispute" you speak of is because 'some Muslims did not feel comfortable with the notion that the Masjid Al-Aqsa is the very same "Temple of Bani Isra'il" (Bnei Yisrael) because that's (according to how I've always interpreted it) how it's described in the Qur'an. The verse that describes the 'Masjid al Aqsa' in the Qur'an is immediately followed by sentences mentioning 'Bani Isra'il' a number of times. In Islam, G-d has commanded the 'faithful' to fill in and take over from the followers of Moses and "the son of Mary" because they betrayed their covenant with Him. So He sends his final message to the world through the Qur'an. Jerusalem was the first Qibla in Islam, partly because of the Jewish influence on Mohammad in Medina. Things changed after he had a falling out with them. But there is no question in my mind that any dispute over the 'Masjid al-Aqsa' is marginal and irrelevant. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've moved a discussion on whether an OIC statement supports Chesdovi's hypothesis to the talk page; everyone now seems to agree that the OIC statement does not provide support for the idea that there are alternate contenders for the status of "third holiest site in Islam". If anyone wants to see or continue the discussion, it's on the talk page [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam#OIC acheivements in "creating consensus"|here]]. TheronJ 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion on this board for quite sometime, and I could not let this go on without intervention. This article deals with a Islamic site. This, then has to be decided based on Islamic references, i.e the Holy Quran, Prophet Mohammad's Hadith, and trusted time-proven text that rely solely on those two. Citing any text or references other than those is, by all means, an attempt to cause confusion and dispute over facts that are known for all muslims. The site of al masjid Alaqsa is 3rd in virtue, that is they believe that praying in these sites multiplies their hasanat (the good deed for the judgement day). Muslims do NOT pray for these sites. I strongly believe that since this site deals with Islamic understandings, it should be STRONGLY DELETED, due to its unprecedented inclusion of disputed material that does not rely on the Islamic references mentioned above.Aboosh 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Aboosh[reply]

Aboosh, I know I am assuming bad faith and that you are a newcomer here, and I apologize, but I find it strange that you would create an account and edit for the first time just to defend another user User:Almaqdisi and vote on this issue. I think you might be a sock puppet and have filed a report. Again, please excuse the incivility if this is not the case. Elizmr 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He said he has "been following the discussion on this board for quite sometime" - Mlaheji 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Puppet Suggestion Dear Elizmr, I appreciate the fact that you appologize before you made your comment. This is not the first time for me to make any editing. I have been editing anonymously for sometime on other articles, and I am Wikipedia editing literate. But this article has made me make the conscience discision to make myself an account for editing. I noticed that their have been many voices calling for an open discussion about a non-debatable issue. Best regards.Aboosh 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for DELETE, Amoruso, you are very wrong if you think that Shiites dispute the importance of Jerusalem and its rank after Mecca and Medina. The narrations regarding Prophet Muhammad Hadith are the most studied of any other human being ever existed. The narrations are divded to more than 70 degree, and Muslims have rigorously studied these and settled whatever controversies or mis communication regarding some of the Narrations by weakening some and strengthening some. Hence, I noticed that Amuroso and Chesdovi are putting themselves at a level of what is called in Islam Faqih. The title of this article is about 3rd Holy cite in Islam. Okay, then it is Islamic sources that are verified here then. This article is instead talking about 3rd travel destination preference by some muslims. This does not qualify these preferences to compete with the title of 3rd Holy Sites in Islam. IT is VERY VERY wrong again to say that the Shiites dispute that. You better go and listen to nearby Hezbollah speeches, and your beloved Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for some info about this. In anycase, Amoruso believes that muslims disputed the location of al-Masjid al-Aqsa... Wrong again! The Prophet Muhammad's journey is well documented in his narrations and the notion that al-Masjid al-Aqsa being in Jerusalem or Bayt al-Maqdis, was well established and well understood and explicitly mentioned in the words of the Prophet and the majority of Muslims read these narrations at his time and understood it. You keep arguing and mentioing that Jerusalem was never mentioned in Quran etc... Well, the Quran is not a travel brouchure and was not to my understanding written by Human beings! The word Mecca itself only appeared once in the Quran and illuded at others. The word Moses and Jesus appeared at least 128, 22 repectively. The word Muhammad appeared only 4 times... Please let me know Chesdovi and Amuroso some Islamic interpretation, Fiqh, about this? It is clear from Amoruso's input at the [31] Dome of the Rock discussion that this is all politically driven dispute of Islamic authentic reports regarding the al-Aqsa mosque in general. Amoruso for some reason favors reports discredited by muslim scholars. Furthermore, Amoruso also disputes the definition of al-Aqsa mosque [32] or the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa which denotes that whole area surrounding the Rock and not only the congregational mosque per the correct Islamic terminology. Hence the issue is really larger than this article. Please note that Amoruso created this article and at the same time continues to remove the correct Islamic view and definitions regarding al-Aqsa congregational mosque and the Dome of the Rock mosque to prove his own wrong non Islamic theories part of which only appears in this article. This way, Wikipedia is getting turned to an unreliable source regarding Islamic sites and concepts. A great favor and preference should be given first to the better understood and well explained Islamic resources and cannot just be left open to travel brouchures and travel preferences by some muslims googled on the Web. Almaqdisi 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short response for comment : Almaqdisi has repeatedly used this incivil with no basis language to maintain his narrow unreferenced and WP:POV and has went as far as uploading copyright images under false pretexts of public domain to try to maintain this POV. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Amoruso 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, your position has always been based on on tottaly rejected or marginal propoganda citations like this [40]. I am including the 1400 continuously used Islamic resources in my inputs regarding Islamic articles or Islamic terminologies. If you have problems with these sources, say it. Also, I will correct these copyright issues when I have more time and more experience using Wikipedia's image editors. Almaqdisi 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly lying, as the history can show you've rejected dozens of WP:RS such as Oleg GrabarProfessor Emeritus of Islamic Art and Architecture at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, one of the most authoritive subjects on the issues [41] Amoruso 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, watch out WP:NPA Almaqdisi 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should watch out ? :-) lol. Amoruso 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a fundamentally unsound topic to be discussing in any kind of "multi-cultural" Forum. The only way this article could be valuable as a reference is if it were written entirely by Muslims (and they were going to come to some kind of consensus, which I doubt). But it still wouldn't belong here, just as a discussion on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" wouldn't belong in here. PalestineRemembered 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Islamic terms and authentic evidence must be used when Islamic issues are discussed. Alathiri 19:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete:Amoruso, I do not see any uncivil behaviour that Almaqdisi has showed in his comments. He has explained to you the concept of Fiqh in Islam. His explanation is very accurate, and there is nothing uncivil about it. It is a very extensive well-founded science and you cannot dispute whatever you feel like. This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY. Also, Beit Or, Islam does not open a wide door for discussion and interpertations as many non-muslims wish for it to be. So, this discussion must be ended and for this page to be deleted.Aboosh 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. Amoruso 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Amoruso, I think whats dubious is your intentions of writing this article in the first place. You cannot continue to shift your argument from the core of the issue like what you showed in your response to Ramellite. Your neutrality towards the issue is questionable. The 2nd Resulotion of 2nd Islamic summet of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) (see [[42]]) has clearly stated that the city of Jerusalem represent the Third Holiest City in Islam. There is no logical reason for debate beyond this point, other than the intent to confuse the average Wikipedia user with dubious conflecting information.Aboosh 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, my comment in that instance had to do with whether just a link or a whole section on the contested topic in the Al Asqa article was still appropriate, after you forked the content into this article. My "support" towards any solution in any case is always contingent upon critical examination and open discussion, which we are attempting to have here. The rest of my statement in that post, including my final comment, I don't think a whole section on "third holiest sites" is at all necessary obviously extends to the content in this article. Whatever the outcome, I hope you agree the discussion has been worthwhile. Regards,--Amerique dialectics 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I mentioned above you seemed to object to it back then too, but it also seemed like you agreed to the compromise and I think a compromise should be kept. Anyway, I do believe your AFD is in good faith of course even though I disagree to it. Amoruso 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are correct that this is "an attempt to use AfD to resolve a content dispute." I wholeheartedly wish this dispute could be resolved here. However, this is not fundamentally about me or my politics, or even about the politics of the other posters here. What this matter is about is whether this content is at all appropriate within the goals and policies of this encyclopedia. I've said before that any actual theological question here should be discussed strictly within theological scholarship, I would think this would be a standard policy for any encyclopedia article on any religious topic, and it frankly shocks me that I seem to be the only non-Islamic editor here that has at all voiced that opinion. Moreover, I am also shocked and suprised that editors with no possible interest in what is a completely specious article have lined up with "strong keeps," as if the subject actually meant something to them. The plethora of negative responses to this AfD from editors knowledgable about Islam clearly shows that this article is flamebait and cannot be redeemed through ordinary editing practices. I reiterate my strong opinion that the best option for Wikipedia and its readership would be to delete this article completely.--Amerique dialectics 06:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I find your comment as somewhat not understanding and grasping what wikipedia is about IMO and from my very modest experience. Wikipedia is about sharing sources by users on a variety of subjects. There are both muslim and muslim experts WP:RS that are relevant to the article and there are also other sources which can be used, and it's all good. There's no need to back down simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrow islamic thought as falsely one sided represented by a few users. wikipedia is open to everyone and for anyone to have research using WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V. It's exactly informative articles like this that make wikipedia such a convenient encyclopedia and censoring information rather than discussing, changing, improving it and so on stands in contrast to everything. Therefore, the result should have been speedy keep... Amoruso 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is what Wikipedia is and there is what an encyclopedia is. That Wikipedia does not rely on "well-educated, well-informed content experts" does not mean that WP:Verify is so loose as to accommodate any and all references from people that might not be so well-informed, especially as presented on a topic guaranteed to piss off a huge portion of its likely readership, as this discussion has clearly shown. I still think that realistically, articles on sites sacred to distinct religions should be respectively separated, and that mixing together content on various sacred sites along with non-scholastic references in a single article can only offend religious believers, again as this discussion has clearly shown. Wikipedia is not about anyone's right to piss anyone off on the basis of race, creed or color, and if this site is to become an authoritative resource it must rely on scholastic references, especially on controversial topics, and present information with appropriate respect for the subject matter. I don't see how keeping this article can at all be justified after comments from Wikipedian Islamic experts.--Amerique dialectics 09:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be intidimated by a couple of people who will be offended by the truth... Wikipedia is not a place to be intimidated by a sect of Muslim fanatics. The very fact you consider this as possibly offensive is strange. Amoruso 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I agree with with Amerique . Moreover, it seems there is an attempt also to CENSOR OPINION like this recent one [44]! I think the purpose this article is badly written for POV purposes is really evident from this [45], and this [46] Almaqdisi 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're in favour of using sock puppets and in favour of censoring information ? I didn't understand . Amoruso 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Almaqdisi has said that “IT is VERY VERY wrong again to say that the Shiites dispute [that Jerusalem is 3rd holiest]" and Aboosh has stated: “This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY”. I repeat: Let us not only rely on theological viewpoints, let us also take into consideration the view of the “man in the Street”: The following is from a blog: For us Shias - Karbala, Najaf, Kazmain (all in Iraq) and Mashad in Iran all precede Jerusalem by many a mile.[47]. Of course this is a not a RS and I have no way of proving the writer is actually a shia muslim, nevertheless, assuming it is an honest statement, it does go someway in disproving what Almaqdisi is trying to lead us to believe. Chesdovi 12:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almaqdisi I am not going to pretend I am a scholar of the stature of Yusuf al-Qaradawi but all I can say is that since Jerusalem is not mentioned (Is bayt-ol-maqqudas mentioned?) it gives us no conclusive evidence that Jerusalem was intended. See Location of the “farthest mosque” for elaboration. If Jerusalem would have been mentioned only once, like Mecca, there would be no basis at all for most of the arguments on this page and others. Just that one mention would have dispelled any notion that Jerusalem was not the intended place. Unfortunately it was not, hence the ongoing debate. You are correct in saying that it is not necessarily the mere mention of a place that gives it it's importance: there are tens of name places in the Bible, most of them insignificant to Judaism. However, the fact the masjid al aqsa was not identified in the scripture as being in Jerusalem is just a strong argument whether Jerusalem was the place intended or not. Chesdovi 12:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But unlike yours, his "POV" is backed by over a billion Muslims, is verifiable by authentic, historical texts, established since the very beginning of islam, readily acknowledged today, mentioned in several Islamic texts that unfortunately arent there on the internet but readily available in any bookstore selling books by Islamic scholars, and a whole lot more. Unlike your theory mostly surviving on your painstaking search for any page on the internet and which IMHO is as credible are those rumours and chain emails circulating on the internet like "Secret corporations headed by the Jews were behind 9/11", with all the alleged "evidence" they provide. - Mlaheji 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesnt have it's own page, so why not move this article to the "Israeli denial of palestinian history" section of the Israeli-Palestinian_history_denial page? - Mlaheji 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong -- it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the vast majority of authorities consider Al-Aqsa to be the third holiest site, but that some groups of Muslims, such as the Cypriots, consider other sites to be the "third holiest." In fact, assuming that that's true (and I due), WP:NPOV requires that "due weight" be given to each opinion. However, "undue weight" isn't a good ground for deletion, IMHO, just for a ((sofixit)). Thanks, TheronJ 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, are you saying that Al Aqsa holiness is a Palestinian issue ? :-0 Now I've heard everything... It would make very little sense what you just proposed. Although this didn't have its own page either - it was in the Al Aqsa Mosque article and moved to its own page after the same people who now wants it deleted wanted it to move. See previous discussion. It can be moved back, just decide. Amoruso 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by the the methodology of "find any page of any title which remotely mentions what I want to prove", in ~45 minutes, I have compiled the following sources supporting that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam :
Time Magazine [48] Time Magazine[49] Al Jazeerah[50] Al Jazeerah[51] Gulf Times [52] The Hindu [53]Middle East times [54]
Moment Magazine [55] BBC [56] BBC [57] FOX News [58] Times of Oman [59] IslamOnline [60] Yahoo News [61] SpiritHit News [62]
CNS News [63] CBC Canada [64] IslamicNews.org [65] ABC News [66] Lycos News[67] Presence TV [68]
Ma'an News agency [69] Sudanese Times [70] Middle East Times [71] Jerusalem Times [72] CBS4Boston [73] IOL [74] LA Times [75] Associated Press[76] MSNBC [77]
Federal News Radio [78] Global Security [79] International Herald Tribune [80] WorldNet Daily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34776] Boston Globe [81] News24 [82]
Realtime News :[83] CBS 5 [84] The Guardian UK [85]
Public Broadcasting Service [86] Public Broadcasting Service [87] MSNBC [88] Townhall [89]
Some research journals :
[90] [91] [92] - Mlaheji 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amuroso and Chesdovi, Please listen. Jerusalem was mentioned by the Prophet when he embarked his night Journey. There are several authentic narrations to this regard one of which is this found at al-Aqsa mosque page itself! Here is is again:

The hadith narrator Imam Muslim reports that the Prophet's companion Anas ibn Malik mentions that the Prophet said:

Comments: If you do not want to believe this Hadith of the Prophet, it is a problem because Islamic terminolgies we are discussing here started there and not in the Torah or the Bible. There is two more Hadiths regarding the night Journey where the term Bayt al-Maqdis is used too. I do not see why you do not want to listen to these narrations and instead favor other sources to discuss a purley Islamic term. It seems to me that you are now discussin if the Furthest Mosque was in Jerusalem at all apart from it being the third virtous mosque in Islam. Finally, Jerusalem and it surrounding is what was described in Quran as "al-Ard Al-Mubarakeh" meaning the blessed land, or the land God has bless to all nations. Almaqdisi 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso, the fact that you keep saying that The Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [93] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [94] should really tell a lot about the sources you have been reading to edit and comment on this article. If you use the title Islam in the topic, you should use and give priority wieght to Islamic resources. Else, the article should be changed to travel preferences by some muslims. Or the word Third should be removed from the title cause your sources are not discussing what they believe about one and two, or just delete the article as it has no basis whatsoever in Islam. Chesdovi, with my due respects to your entries, I believe you need to have your self more familiar with Muslims resources. Finally, Sock pupperty accusations [95] by Amuroso, I consider as an attempt to block my entries here and to censor my voice! Almaqdisi 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speaking for myself, to me the matter is about what consitutes reliable sources on what is purportedly a theological issue that would be most appropriately discussed within authoritative scholastic literature. We all should know that it would be impossible and entirely against Wikipedia policy to screen editors on self-disclosed cultural or political affiliations to any or all articles. However, it does seem to me that the practical matter of "what constitutes reliable sources" is being obscured by the political matters you've just described, which however this article seems entirely designed to evoke.--Amerique dialectics 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not talking about who should EDIT here, I'm also talking about the SOURCES that editors can cite here. What I'm saying Wikipedia policy on citations for a Wikipedia article on Islam does not and should not equal Islamic policy on citations for a Wikipedia article on Islam. To choose a maybe extreme example, including Salman Rushdie's pov on the satanic verses would be ok by Wikipedia policy but not by Islamic policy. Elizmr 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with that, provided the sources are authoritative, that is, the peer-reviewed literature in this area. What do you think about the idea of forking content that is notable and well-referenced into articles on particular sites, as opposed to maintaining this article in it's current form?--Amerique dialectics 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might use the word "peer-reviewed" differently. I usually think of it as a situation where an editor sends a paper out to various experts in the field for review before deciding on publication. This is not necessary for a Wikipedia source, see WP:V. It really seems to me like the sources cited here are in compliance with that guideline. Elizmr 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comments to Elizmr: WikiPedia is not an Islamic Project I agree. But it is an Encyclopedia that should be informative. The title of this article has problems because of two things. First, it has the word "Third" and the word "Islam" in it. This article would be reasonable if it discusses holy site regarded by muslims in general. In that case, there is a space for this article. However, the people behind this article insist on using the word "Third" which comes from a narration from the Prophet Muhammad. If the word third stays there, then the authors of the article are obligated to stick to the Islamic resources discussing the word third. The problem is right here. This article if you notice is not written to discuss the first or the second site in Islam. It is only written to argue about the Third site! The numbers First, Second and Third are ranks of how virteous is a mosque. This is the only reason these are ranked in Islam and have a designated number. The article would be fine if the authors do not focus on the rankings because they are then entitled to come up with a narration or a resource which explicitly mentions that this sect of muslims reject the narration of the Prophet Muhammad regarding the Bayt al-Maqdis and explicitly demonstrate the argument of that particular sect on what is the first, second, and third site for them. The resources should include what sect is this, and whether there is a consensus in that sect regarding this site, and so for. This article is therefore failing to do so. Some users here say there are articles about the Hoax of Jews and 9/11. That is okay, but still the title say it is a Hoax. Unfortunately, this article we have here give no useful information because it gives all resources equal weight, and is written by people whom main objective is to Challenge and dispute a well established fact in Islam. They are therefore entitled to give their evidence about that from the Islamic resources itself. They need not of course to be muslims, but their evidence should come from Islamic resources and not from anything else. The reason again being in the fact that it has the in the title the word "Islam", and that it uses the word "Third" coming from an authentic narration. Almaqdisi 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almaqdisi: So, it sounds like you are saying that the article could be fixed if 1) divergent Muslim views were discussed more explicitly with what they reject, etc 2) The idea of ranking of sites in Islam and what it means was discussed more explicitly 3) and the sources and how relevant they are felt to by Muslims from different sects were discussed more explicitly in the article and 4) the article touched on the first and second sites more than it does and 5) the title did not include the word "Third" and the word "Islam". Elizmr 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Very fact Almaqdisi tries to add the word "the Prophet" after every mention shows why this request of deletion is so un-encyclopedic. It's also perplexing how this article is now accused of censorship? strange. Describing the importance of other muslim sites like in this article , as well as describing the history connected with the Jews that you mentioned - that's fact, there's nothing wrong with doing that. Amoruso 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, the fact that you keep saying that The Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [96] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [97] should really tell what you think and why you created a false article like this. You are creating a Hoax, and the word Hoax should be added to this title if it is to stay! Almaqdisi 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just copy-pasting your irrelevant info. The fact Jews also were connected to the Dome is widely known, and the original edit there wasn't mine at all. I've brought sources explaining Jewish connection to the original buildings in that other article. You can continue with your strange attacks and akward attempt at grand worldwide conspiracy - also I did not create the original info of this article , this was already discussed. In fact, I have very little to do with the article, perhaps nothing at all, don't remember writing one bit of it , except moving it from al aqsa mosque article by requests from those that now want it deleted. Amoruso 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, what about this one [98]? Stop this nonsense of your prpoganda wrong info! Almaqdisi 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest archiving these irrelevant strange comments by Almaqdisi. Also, cease your personal attacks. Amoruso 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you personally, but I have allergy to non factual edits! As long as you stay factual and authentic, nothing will be wrong with your edits. But loosing rigor and therefore credibility in citing info is very very non academic. Almaqdisi 00:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that title is much larger in scope than this one is, but the point is well taken. Is it possible to come up with a less polemical sounding title to cover this article that would make people happier here? Elizmr 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a proposal even. This is still a delete proposal and all those who voted keep found merit in the article. There's no compromise here.Amoruso 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an experiment I already tried it here[[99]]. I think saving some good content in different articles and losing the miscellaneous material would be a valid compromise in the interest of all concerned with the integrity of this encylopedia. Also, this saves the situation from remaining an "all or nothing" proposition for all parties involved.--Amerique dialectics 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, there's no compromise in it. A compromise like discussed above will be to rename the article possibly to "Islam holiest sites" and have the discussion on the third site there for example. There's no compromise possible to delete this - most of the users object to deleting this, there's no consencus obviously, and therefore article stays. You can propose possible name changes to this article in the talk page of the article. The information could have already appeared in the differnet articles like it did on the Al Aqsa mosque , and it's not related to the issue of keep or delete of this article. I find it very strange you write that this is a compromise of some sort, it's not even something new. Amoruso 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we wouldn't be strictly "deleting" if we saved some content that could be said to be relevant to some other articles... Problem is, I don't see any authoritative resources used for any of the material in question, other than the Boyle, Kevin & Sheen, Julie reference, so on second thought I can't support my own proposal that the material should be saved. I would withdraw it, but I'll leave it to others to decide if a compromise on these terms is potentially feasable. It could be feasable, provided better references could be found for these assertions for the sites in other articles, but right now I don't see what the use would be of forking over the bulk of this badly referenced content.--Amerique dialectics 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support Amerique's Proposal for two main reasons:

This all does not make sense. It is obvious that this subject is a new creation and is not a mature subject worthy of attention as of yet, and this article is creating a DISPUTE and not REPORTING A DISPUTE! Therefore, my opionin continues to be a STRONG DELETE and a SPREAD OUT to have more input from other users. This is for the sake of Wikipedia and its reputation as an informative resource and nothing else. Almaqdisi 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a strong argument why this article should be deleted :). Wiki articles should be free of propaganda. "The media" will also convince you that global warming is real, so that's reflected in the global warming article. The fact that it is disputed by many isn't relevant as long as these persons don't know that they are talking about and only make their claims for propaganda reasons. Count Iblis 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so you feel this the proper place to try to convince more people to help with your extreme WP:POV and copyright violations and distruptions ? You have violated so many wikipedia conventions by now that it's not even funny. I note to everyone you already violated copyright on articles [106], on images [107] [108] [109] and used sock puppets [110]. You of course also used personal attacks, and now this. What next ? Amoruso 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amoruso Before you attack Almaqdisi and accuse him of having an extreme POV and discredit his knowledge on the subject to support this article, Tave a look at Chesdovi's little episode on the Talk page [111]. His POV is so neutral (*cough*) that he seems to see things that aren't there, and he's the one who started all of this. Why dont you have anything to say about that? I would love to read it.This article openly violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, is not a Soapbox,is not a directory, WP:RS.thestick 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could people take a look at the new lead I wrote and see if this makes things better. I might have made mistakes becasue I am not a Muslim, but I tried to address the concerns that have been addressed regarding scriptural references by Almaqdisi and others. What I did in the lead was to distinguish the scriptural basis for the 3rd holiest from other considerations that are more important for the other sites. Does this work/help? Elizmr 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look, and it seems well-intentioned and well-written, but it is beyond me to evaluate the content issue in this case. All I have been doing is applying my understanding of WP policy to the references used to support these assertions, as that is where this article seems weakest and how it seems most likely to spread misunderstanding and confusion both as to the subject and as to the goals of this encyclopedia. I have nothing against what you've done, but my own concerns were mainly about the references as opposed to the language per se.--Amerique dialectics 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second vote ruled out. Thank you for pointing it out. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize about 2nd vote! Aboosh 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Al-Aqsa Mosque is third holest site of Muslims. It has room for improvement but still enough reason to keep it. --- ابراهيم 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... the ones that want to delete it seem to have only the argument that Al Aqsa is the third. That's an argument to KEEP the article with what Elizmr did. Amoruso 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tewfik, have a look yourself at the Quality of the sources. Almaqdisi 02:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the sources before forming an opinion on the matter. I apologise if the rhetorical statement was lost on others, but I was highlighting what I saw as the absurdity in comparing a typo in a single news dispatch with >35 sources explicitly documenting this idea. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:56, 30 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 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building[edit]

The history of getting World Heritage status for the Royal Exhibition Building. Source material - an article by Arnold Zable and minutes of various meetings. Unencyclopedic: shimmer in the crackling heat or emerged, triumphant, from the mists. The subject warrants a few lines in the Royal Exhibition Building article not an whole article by itself. -- RHaworth 08:50, 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 delete. In this case consensus to delete is clear. Similar articles by the same nominator have been kept as consensus was not as clear. --Ezeu 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. 7 On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[114]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is not "Rajputs are not notable". The reason is: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Rajputs - per utcursh's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbei78 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not always consistent; the existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. Moreover, verifiability is very important. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it verifiability is very important for List of English people (not cited) List of Scots (not cited) List of British Asians (not cited) List of Northern Ireland people (not cited) Then why they are not AFDed ??? If some one is very particular and wants reference to say that Abdul Kalam us Muslim and Manmohan Singh Siks, he/she should get all those articles for AFD and not just India related articles alone. Why the above lists are not listed under Articles for deletion ???. Can some one who is very particular about Verifiability explain this bias  Doctor Bruno  08:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your analogy is flawed. List of Northern Ireland people, List of English people or List of Scots is more like List of Indians. A list of Famous Bhumihars or List of famous Nairs is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. If you need to verify the lists that you've mentioned, you are welcome to put ((fact)) tags (or even move them to deletion, if you are very sure that those lists are unverifiable) -- the burden of evidence falls on the contributors. Please don't complain of systemic bias here. This AFD nomination was by an Indian editor (me), who has not got enough expertise on subjects like Scots and English people. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not some one who wants this article to be deleted. If that be the case I will definitely bring an AFD. In my opinion those lists as well as these list are verifiable. I am not comprehending your analogy. As far as I know List of French people and List of Japanese are like List of Indians (Country) Where as List of Northern Ireland people or List of Scots are like List of Rajputs or List of Pandits etc. If you are keeping one, keep every thing. If you are deleting one delete every thing  Doctor Bruno  14:10, 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 keep. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Jats[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.

On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since quite a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[115]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions and list of Pakistan-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbei78 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user has a total of 37 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the reason for AFD nomination. I have not nominated this article for deletion because I consider Jats non-notable. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user has a total of 26 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is not wrong because the process began after nomination deletion[116]. Providing four citations for such a long list is not enough, in my opinion. utcursch | talk 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of your opinion the citation process has already begun and will be increased. --Pethj 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is Citation really needed for such things. If we go on like this, the some one may even ask citation to show that Abdul Kalam is Muslim and Manmohan Singh Sikh.  Doctor Bruno  07:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are needed whenever they are demanded -- the burden on evidence is on the contributors. I won't probably demand citations if this were a List of Indians, List of English people or List of Scots (unless there was some obvious flaw in the list). But this list is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is user's second vote. utcursch | talk 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment,That wasn’t a second vote; I was just reiterating my original position (one vote). Moreover, it is highly arrogant of utcursch trying to belittle any user who disagrees with his point. I think it shows someone who is highly insecure and can’t handle anyone having a different opinion to him. It's amazing how whenever someone disagrees with him, he tries to belittle the members’ opinion through introducing things to question the person reputation, it shows someone who is very insecure within himself about people having a different opinion to him (almost fascist/extreme or intolerant).--Pethj 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have seen the list and have edited it many times,the list to me sounds pretty much authentic except a few names perhaps,especially that nishan e haider thing was not true..

Although most of the names are verifyable..may be the names underdispute s can be delted until a link is provided..

  • Comment: the question is not whether these people deserve to appear in a list on Wikipedia; the question is whether "Jat" is a verifiable category under which they can appear. Relisting these people by region might be more appropriate. Xtifr tälk 21:09, 31 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. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Nairs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list.


The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since over a year now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV. Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[117].

Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not. Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I dont think either the Telugu Brahmins nor the Reddys were ever written about in the Lusiad or the Enclycopedia Britannica Ivygohnair 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be a place for discrimination against any groups of people either Ivygohnair 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discrimination here. I've is no doubt on notability of Nairs. The article on Nairs is not on deletion. utcursch | talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guidelineIvygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

--Sbei78 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think to be fair, what is more important is to consider whether what this user is saying makes sense or not, and not use technicalities to silence or discredit him/her.Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 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 keep. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Tarkhans[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.

On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[120]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbei78 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per wiki convention and Keep but add references and claen upRaveenS 19:10, 31 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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Freddi[edit]

Youth player and not yet played for first team. Matt86hk talk 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sorry about not checking he made debut or not. Not info. in http://www.asroma.it . But the article is lack of information, not stub tag, and no cat, and confuse with other speedy creation problem in Liverpool F.C. youth player , S.S. Lazio and F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera . Matt86hk talk 13:04, 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 Keep, nom withdrawn, no delete opinions - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Westinghouse High School (Pittsburgh)[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:SCHOOL, and it shouldn't get it's own article just because it's a public school in Pittsurgh; what's stopping me from making seperate articles for each public school in my city? Also, Google refers to a whole other school located in Buffalo, New York,, even when I type "George Westinghouse High School Pittsburgh." Lastly, I added a Prod tag, but was removed with no edits to justify its removal.SuperDT 09:22, 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 delete. Dakota 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Byron Insert[edit]

Non-notable sexual technique. Was deprodded by article's creator. (For reference the included images have since been deleted as violating CSD I3 - uploaded under a non commercial use license). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hifey Ball[edit]

Seems to be something made up one afternoon in the park. No sources given. No links. Google gives 7 hits, all referring back to this Wiki article. Emeraude 11:15, 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 Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable movie screen[edit]

Spam. Majority of edits are made by User:Openaircinema, pictures were uploaded by User:Openaircinema, and are copyright (though waived) Open Air Cinema. Emeraude 11:32, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narutofang[edit]

Prodded once, removed by article's creator, claims no notability in article (3000 hits), fails WP:WEB. Delete --Richhoncho 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly said prodded, meant speedied. --Richhoncho 12:01, 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 Delete - apart from the perosnal endorsements, nobody has provided any evidence he is notable. If we "watch this space" then I'm sure we can recreate his article when he does become notable. Yomanganitalk 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sterling[edit]

Advert for a NN amateur athlete & stunt man. Has one IMDb credit but it don't look like a speaking role. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me at least as notable as many other people listed on Wiki. --Ughmonster 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'*KEEP' - I have seen the guy in person at a martial arts seminar and the guy is amazing. Watch this space. I would not be surprised if we see more or Mr. STERLING in the movies. His win in Final Fu alone should give him notability. The guy can fight and his aerial ability has to be seen to be believed. And then there are his 23 world titles....what more do you guys want??? Nicho5150

'*KEEP' - I am a personal student of Daniel and I have seen his trophies in person. Also, he may only have 1 listing on iMDB.com, but he has been a stunt double and fighting henchman type character in several films.

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Banter[edit]

Totally non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 440,000 plus. Delete. I did prod this, but prod removed by anon user who has only edited this page. --Richhoncho 12:40, 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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it real[edit]

Reads like an urbandictionary entry. The phrase itself does not need its own page, considering it already has an entry in List of slang used in hip hop music. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:42, 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 delete. —Cryptic 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southview Camping[edit]

From the website, sounds a nice place and I might even use it. Article though is no more than a directory entry/ad. Only article by author (owner?). Emeraude 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Arnoutf 13:54, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cap'n Brownhand[edit]

Hoax Rhialto 12:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article to be a hoax. As I noted on the article's talk page:

"Anyone else think this is a hoax article? No google hits beyond the wikipedia mirrors, and no less than three puns within the article body too. The original maker of this article has only ever contributed to this article, and his user name is the same as this article." Delete. Definite hoax. Emeraude 14:45, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerCinema[edit]

One of many Netflix clone sites, with no documentation on meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Similar to RussArt.com, under deletion here, where consensus so far among established users is to delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFlix[edit]

One of many Netflix clone sites, with no documentation on meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP, but with information on their prices; seems to be advertising. Similar to RussArt.com, under deletion here, where consensus so far among established users is to delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism[edit]

This is an article about an open letter published in some French weekly. It reproduces the entire text, but is otherwise uninformative and useless. If the letter is notable at all, which I doubt, it could be a footnote in the article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Charlie Hebdo. Skarioffszky 14:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrasexuality[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programs about animals[edit]

Firstly, it is not what the title says, but a list of programmes with animals in important roles. Secondly, what defines "important role" (compare Flipper with the dog in Frasier)? Thirdly, in over 18 months, the list has reached the grand total of 10 articles. Fourthly, to create an exhaustive list on either criteria is impossible, if worthwhile, which I doubt. (And, fifthly, what about Mr Ed?) Emeraude 15:03, 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 Keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating in Counter-Strike[edit]

Not important and not encyclopedia worthy to me. ASDFGHJKL 15:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This seems to be original research without proper inline citations. While I don't think this is all original research (so I'd actually lean towards keeping it) there may be major portions of the article which would have to be cut (unfortunately, I don't know which parts, because of the lack of inline citations). ColourBurst 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armanalp 18:25, 26 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. — TKD::Talk 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Pleasant[edit]

Unverifiable biography. I can't find any sources for his accomplishments (specifically his knighting and his Puffin award). Metros232 15:39, 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 Keep Naconkantari 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia[edit]

This article was previously deleted at AfD, and had its deletion confirmed at a DRV in July. A new DRV consensus just overturned the deletion, in light of new evidence: the wiki-site's frequent mentioning on ABC. Please consult the new DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's bad enough that the Motion of Confidence page now seems to have fictional mentions of occurences of Motions of Confidence, I notice that there is even a Wikipedia article on Darth Vader - what next! Maybe there needs to be a Fictionopedia seperately - probably already is.--Lord of the Isles 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Controversy about links
Lostpedia fails WP:WEB:
  1. “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” – So far they’ve only really been able to post “blogs” and point 1.1.2 = Fail.
  2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – No awards cited so = Fail.
Lostpedia fails WP:EL:
  1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft.
  2. “Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” – Blatant fail.
  3. “A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.” – Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?
  4. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – 3 adverts are pretty objectionable, imho, (left, under content, both Google, and bottom selling hosting.)
  5. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE.
  6. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered.
The behaviour of their sysops attempting to get a link to articles and even creating spam articles does not settle well with me, furthermore the “if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” approach by filling retaliatory AfDs, Prods and Speedy Delete requests was just patently pathetic imo (see history for Memory Alpha). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MatthewFenton, I'm guessing you're in favor of deleting the article. If so, the strike-through on your recommendation is confusing. It makes it look like you no longer support deletion. If this is not your intent, you might want to fix that. --Loqi T. 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Comparison to Star Wars and Star Trek
— Possible single purpose account: Nickb123_3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leflyman (talk • contribs)
Lostpedia meets WP:WEB:
  1. “The website has a list of Media Coverage [125].
  2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – Wikipedia has won Sci-Fi's site of the week [126].

Lostpedia meeting WP:EL:

  1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Precident has been set via Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia's entries. It is a far more detailed resource than the LOST article here.
  2. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – Adverts are subtle, more subtle than for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia ones, where precident has been set. Adverts are solely used to cover the costs of the site, which are greater than the advertising revenue.
  3. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses same CSS as a standard Mediawiki installation.
  4. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Lostpedia licenses all images with correct license information to avoid violations of copyright infrigement in the United States. --Plkrtn 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Above user has been involved in two bad faith "retailiatory" AfD nominations for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia)--LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't have to look long to find this image; it was on the front page of Lostpedia. The image is described as "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media." It is also stated that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material ... [conditions removed] ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" (emphasis mine). However, a high-resolution version of the image is provided! This is not good copyright policy. On the other hand, this is really a straw man. The question is whether the site is notable enough for its own article, not whether it can be linked to from Wikipedia. --N Shar 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this, Wikipedia itself is no greater in this respect [127] --Nickb123 3rd 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: remaining interpersonal issues among some users voting “strongly” for delete:
The first "Strong Delete" vote above is made by a user with a long-time history against Lostpedia, and was banned from Lostpedia for making bad-faith edits-- his opinion is clearly biased from reasons external to WP. Similar editors have likely been recruited by this editor (and/or have their own pre-existing polarized biases) for voting; note the vote histories and comments on past afds on this article, as well as at the main article Lost (TV series), for a list of these editors; these include Seargeantbolt ("Speedy Delete") and pktm ("Strong delete").
Also quoting from the closing comments of the DRV:
"So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability.(snip)
"Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards." --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
*"Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis." Angela 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(End quotes from DRV)
In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#DRV discussion
Please also see Wikipedia's list of wikis for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Wikipedia. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Some of the statements to notability are not currently noted on the article page, as it was protected/speedy deleted while being written. It should also be noted that MatthewFenton seems to have a vendetta against Lostpedia, submitting a Speedy Deletion (overturned), and adding lostpedia.com to the SPAM blacklist (overturned). He is currently banned from editing Lostpedia, which could be the source of his frustrations. --Jabrwocky7 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Above user initiated the Lostpedia article (as his first edit) and was responsible for a WP:POINT AfD nomination of Wookiepedia.)--LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. GassyGuy 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#AfD noms
WP:WEB:
"So far they’ve only really been able to post 'blogs'" Untrue as shown by lostpedia's media coverage page [[131]]. References include businessweek, newsday, and wired news (those aren't "trivial" sources, are they?). It is true that there are blogs listed as well, these include ones hosted by sources like the Chicago Tribune, USA today, and the guardian, in most cases written by the TV critic or pop culture columnist for that publication.
"No awards cited" SciFi weekly site of the week[[132]]. For comparison, this is the only reference provided by Wookieepedia, which has its own page. It should be noted that WP:WEB says that only one of the three criteria needs to be met to merit inclusion.
WP:EL
"Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft"
A comparison of the two sites shows this to be wrong. For a specific example, compare the wikipedia page Lost Experience with the Lostpedia page for the same topic [[133]]. The wikipedia page is fairly detailed, but it is mostly highlights, while the lostpedia version (as far as I can tell) documents it in enough detail that a reader could access every bit of content in the lost experience. This was particularly significant during the online game, as people trying to figure out the puzzles were able to use Lostpedia as a repository of game information while someone referring only to wikipedia wouldn't have sufficient information to solve the puzzles.
Trying to write off Lostpedia as "unverifiable fan cruft" seems like a circular argument to me. It's not a legit site because it has nothing unique beyond fancruft, but the info that goes beyond what wikipedia has is defined as fancruft because it is on a site that's not legit. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases. And while "cruft" is generally frowned upon on wikipedia (while there's still a fair amount on wiki's Lost pages), wiki policy doesn't list it as a reason for excluding links to external sites.
“Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” I'm not sure what you consider factually inaccurate or unverified. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable or inaccurate than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases, and the information can be verified by watching the show. Obviously, the information on a site operated using wiki principles will never be 100% correct or verified, as I'm sure wikipedia editors will readily admit, but I'd argue the vast majority of information on Lostpedia is accurate, and as inaccurate info is found, it is corrected. Lostpedia does contain fan speculation, but it is clearly marked and kept separate from the factual information. Such speculation is certainly not inappropriate for a show that actively encourages it, and as long as it as it is presented as opinion and not fact, I don't consider it unverified or original research, not any more than a movie data site would be disqualified for containing user reviews in addition to factual info.
"their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" In fact, independent parties have added links to lostpedia, here's an example from a user who is a longtime wikipedia editor, doesn't mainly edit Lost articles, and as far as I can tell, isn't a lostpedia participant [[134]]. This link was deleted with the reason given being "rm spam" [[135]] even though that was clearly not the intent when it was posted, evidence of bad faith editing on the part of MatthewFenton. From what I've seen (and obviously, I admit it's difficult if even possible to find every instance where links to lostpedia have been added) it's entirely possible that links to lostpedia are automatically assumed to be bad faith "spam" edits, whether they are or not. Above is certainly one example of that happening.
I'd also like to see a reference to where the owner of Lostpedia has added a link to it. If this has happened, I'd agree that this is a neutrality violation. However, in the case of a site that is open to public contribution, it seems likely that many people who would find the site notable could choose to participate in it themselves, thus disqualifying themselves from writing about the site.
Also on the topic of neutrality, if it is a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to add links to it, I'd argue that it's also a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to delete links to it as well. Specifically in the case of MatthewFenton, he declared his bad faith intentions on Lostpedia [[136]], immediately began a major edit that would have had an effect on the entire site, without getting any input from other users [[137]], and as a result was banned from the site. If the opinions and edits of those involved with Lostpedia are to be ignored (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it has been argued), I'd suggest that MatthewFenton should be included in that group. And after all, if Lostpedia is truly not notable as some argue, wouldn't someone independent remove the link?
"adverts are pretty objectionable, imho" Your opinion. There are quite a few similar sites that have pages on wikipedia that have quite a bit more advertising. And lostpedia certainly doesn't "primarily exist to sell products or services", especially since the site doesn't sell things at all - looking at the site, I don't find a way to send lostpedia money if I wanted to.
"Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE." I just looked at lostpedia and was able to access it just fine with MSIE. If you're talking about a cosmetic feature not being supported, that doesn't make the site "inaccessible". If you weren't able to access the site, how were you able to create a user account and edit the site, much less read the site to determine whether it's deserving of inclusion on wikipedia?
"Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered." Simply not true. Since MatthewFenton was at lostpedia and edited there, his recommendations for GDFL and copyright notices were taken, and the images he referenced in his comments there now have GDFL and other copyright notices. "Unwilling to fix" isn't the same as unwilling to let a brand new user singlehandedly implement a copyright notice policy with no input from the community (particularly one who had made a public declaration of bad faith).
“if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” While I frown upon Lostpedia users creating AfDs for other articles in "retaliation", I think an argument can be made for doing that in good faith. Articles like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have been referenced in comparison, and those arguing that Lostpedia doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:EL have made arguments that, when applied to those other pages, those pages fail as well. In each of these discussions, there have also been wiki editors who have spoken in favor of deleting Lostpedia references, and have favored deleting the two above articles for the same reasons. If a Lostpedia reference is deleted, and criteria given for the deletion, shouldn't other articles that fall under the same criteria be considered for deletion as well? The question is simply, should a set of standards be applied to one article but not another?
"it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)"
Lostpedia sysops don't make money from lostpedia, if any profit is made at all (since obviously hosting a site costs money, and income has to cover expenses first), it would only go to the owner of the site. Such an accusation seems ad hominem and unfounded. A similar accusation could be made of the editors of the Lost pages on wikipedia - that they have been removing links to Lostpedia because they're worried that traffic there would decrease traffic to wikipedia. MatthewFenton has also made accusations that Lostpedia engages in google bombing. Are there facts to back up that accusation?
Sorry for the length of this, but I don't want to see a decision like this made based on incorrect (if not intentionally misleading) information. Thanks to all of you who have participated in this discussion - and for those of you have have voted "per MatthewFenton" to be aware that a number of his statements are factually incorrect and that he has shown bias and bad faith in regards to Lostpedia. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[disclosure: I have participated heavily in the Lost article's discussion on this topic. I am in no way affiliated with Lostpedia, as some have implied. I have occasionally read Lostpedia as a resource, and have been impressed with its scope. In particular, its unfounded speculation has been a source of some entertainment and insight to me. If competing sites meet or exceed Lostpedia in value and/or notoriety, I'd be prepared to support them in addition to, or instead of, Lostpedia.]
In the ongoing side discussion of the Lost article found here, the bulk of the arguments against a link to Lostpedia have been around claims that Wikipedia policy prohibits an external link to Lostpedia in any context. That is, according to some, a mere line item in the External Links section of the Lost article pointing to Lostpedia, would be a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy. The comments on this AfD page expose such claims as misguided at best.
Since this is a discussion on whether to delete an article about Lostpedia, and not about whether to link Lostpedia in the Lost article, I am forced to support keeping the Lostpedia article, if only as a means of notifying Wikipedia readers about a valuable Lost resource. A single link from Wikipedia:Lost(tv) to Lostpedia would satisfy all my concerns about offering potentially valuable outside resources to our readers. Failing that, I'll have to support a separate Lostpedia article, since an internal link could not be so mis-objected to, by some Lost article editors.
P.S. Lostpedia does not appear to be hurting for findability. The Google terms "lost wiki" currently turn up these results: Lostpedia, Wikipedia's Lost article, Wikia's Lost section, ABC's Lost wiki offering, and finally a large number of obscure Lost-related sites. --Loqi T. 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, what can I say? If it's good enough for Matthew Fenton, it's good enough for me. I'm switching my recommendation to an unambiguous keep. In general, I'd rather we include a page that no-one much is interested in, than to exclude a page that someone might be looking for. Not everyone shares this philosophy, or uses the same threshold of notability, but when in doubt, I tend to go with inclusion. Lostpedia seems to meet the notability threshold of more than a few people who know the ropes around here, and this has influenced my evaluation. In addition, if it doesn't get its page this time, we're likely to be right back here the next time it shows up as a news item somewhere; or worse, we might be too sick of the topic to give it another fair consideration for a while. --Loqi T. 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think thats pretty much the perfect closing summary in my opinion of this whole discussion --Nickb123 3rd 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm afraid I can't buy Loqi's sudden "influenced my evaluation" contention, as he's been campaigning for inclusion of Lostpedia in any way shape or form for over three months. The entire discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites was an outgrowth of his repeated promotion and forum shopping for a link to the site. Only two days ago, he went back to delete the excessive canvassing for his proposal which he had spammed 20 user pages with. The very first edit he made on August 8 was to push a Lostpedia link. He's even been commended by Lostpedia's owner for his "passion" in promoting the site. He attempts to imply that he's participated in other AfD discussions, when this is actually the only one in which he's ever been involved. (Oh, and incidentally, the place to put such a revised "Keep" comment is at one's original discussion above, not as a seemingly new "closing" recommendation.)--LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to use such acrimonious language, Leflyman? I think everyone knows I want Lostpedia linked from the Lost page. But now I beleive a separate Lostpedia article page is fully appropriate. It's true, as you note, that this is my first AfD participation. So it's only natural that I'd make some mistakes. I guess I was following Matthew's lead [in the proper placement of amended recommendations]. I've moved this thread to its proper place. And please don't criticize me for doing the right thing two days ago. --Loqi T. 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (clarified) Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a puppet. --Loqi T. 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I am now formally retracting all my previous recommendations on the narrow topic of this Afd. This is not because I have changed my views on the topic, it's because I want to signal to whichever administrator ends up tackling this beast that there'll be no trouble form me. I listened with interest, and have said all I care to on this and surrounding pages. With the exception of a few rash comments, which have since been retracted in various forms, I stand by everything I've said on the broader issues over the past three months. I am ready to accept any ruling which comes of this, without friction. Those interested in my final thoughts will find them posted on my personal user page later today. Peace. --Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Puppetry
  • Comment: Jimbo did not comment on the existence of this article; he was commenting on whether a link to Lostpedia was appropriate to include on the Lost (TV series) article, but as he acknowledges, he "really [doesn't] know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice". Add'l note: the founder of this AfD's subject should likely have recused himself from pushing for inclusion of his web site, as it is a conflict of interest in such Wikipedia discussions. --LeflymanTalk 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. Kevincroy has disclosed that he is the founder of Lostpedia. That should be sufficient when evaluating his "keep" recommendation, as well as any comments he makes. Recusal has no meaning here. I must say though, that the Jumbo quote doesn't really fit the topic of whether Lostpedia should have an article. --Loqi T. 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. Crossing out a "delete" or "keep" generally shows the person is changing/withdrawing their opinion, which isn't the case. Really, the creater of Lospedia has as much right as the rest of us to participate in a discussion as long as it's civil and in good faith; especially when he (and others) have admitted involvement in Lospedia. It shows how he is respecting the wikipedia process, and not trying to do anything dodgy (contrast to many people's suggestions that individuals from Lostpedia are puppeting here). Let's just let this be a discussion of the article, instead of about the people who participate. I'm sure the admin closing this will look into it extra carefully, considering how much debate/contraversy it's generating. --`/aksha 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
full disclosure: i'm a sysop on lostpedia as of a few days ago, but was not when i initially entered into this debate.
policy: i think that this debate has raised some interesting points regarding the notability guidelines on wikipedia, as well as some terms (specifically (fan)cruft, fansite, fanlisting) needing a clearer definition. i don't think the ones in place are sufficient or clear enough at present. if they were, this debate would not have dragged on so long.
regarding matthew fenton's contributions to this debate: i feel that this user's comments show a strong personal bias. whilst i strongly disagree with bad faith AfD nominations for articles such as Memory Alpha in 'retaliation' for the ongoing lostpedia controversy, i feel that the extraordinary lengths this user has gone to in order to ensure no mention of lostpedia is present on wiki show such a bias, and as such are borderline in bad faith in themselves --Kaini 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why were the lengthy comments from Mr. Fenton left on this page, while the comments specifically taking issue with them moved to the talk page? Especially when those comments contain a number of factual inaccuracies. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, i'm going to restore them. Comments from people explaining their vote (even if it was an abstain) shouldn't be moved. It's only the off topic discussions arising from people commenting on other people's votes. As for Mr. Fenton's possible bias, i think it is noteworthy. And going a bit too far (see this edit). --`/aksha 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended comments were moved according WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR -- however, the content was not changed in any way. The comments of Fenton were the basis of many of the subsequent discussion responses, and were appropriate to leave in full; as were the long Keep comments which followed a similar point-by-point format. The 1570-word, 3 page comments of Milo H Minderbender were trimmed to his "abstention" introduction about inaccuracies, and the continuation moved to the discussion page; they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discussed personal, off-site disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA. This discussion's length has far exceeded any comparable AfD discussions. As noted at WP:REFACTOR: Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility.--LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't disagree strongly enough with your assertion "These comments were appropriate to move to the discussion page, as they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discuss personal disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA." These comments directly deal with Wikipedia policy and more specifically to this AfD. How is disputing the claim that an article cited for notability is a blog (a link to one of the articles in question: [[139]]) a personal attack, much less irrelevant to the topic? From WP:NPA let me quote: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks." I also made accusations of bad faith, and backed up those accusations with examples and evidence. You obviously feel that the posting record of people voting here and their credibility is relevant because you have made accusations of SPA and conflict of interest. I believe I have made no personal attacks in my comments here; if you feel that something I've said falls under NPA, the more appropriate response is to single it out so that I may either clarify my remark, or withdraw it and apologize for it. In addition, WP:ARCHIVE (assuming I understand it correctly) applies to archiving an entire page, not selectively removing comments, so it doesn't apply here. (not to mention that it applies to talk pages, which I don't believe this is) I'm not sure that archiving an AfD while it is still in progress is even allowed by wikipedia policy. In addition, WP:REFACTOR says; "refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors", which you certainly didn't do in regards to my comments. In regard to length, I was unaware that there was a word or page limit on AfD comments, could you point me to the WP policy that spells it out? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood..."
"Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, and avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation." --LeflymanTalk 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to a number of points. I certainly wouldn't have written as much if there wasn't so much incorrect information posted that needed correcting. Are you here to discuss Lostpedia or to discuss users' posting styles? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guildlines are guildlines, they help tell us what to do in most cases. This AfD is far from being a typical AfD. Milo, i'd recommend you try and shorten your comments unless you don't mind having it moved. And put the quotes into italics. Just to make life easier for the admin who's going to close this - if nothing else, it means more chance the admin will actually read through your extended comments. --`/aksha 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Silver.surfer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment: 75.18.56.237 appears to be the IP of Iron Chef. See: User_talk:Iron_Chef. This user started The LOST Wikia article currently up for speed delete.--LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator abstained from voting due to this be a procedual nomination so how does speedyish Delete per nom apply? Also under what criteria do you believe that this should be speedy deleted? --70.48.173.247 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, MatthewFenton (the original nominator for this deletion) changed his recommendation from delete to "Keep". How exactly are you basing your recommendation on his? --Jabrwocky7 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a web site being reviewed anywhere constitutes notability enough for a WP article, then there are probably thousands of web sites that would get articles, which doesn't seem like the answer. There's a whole publishing industry out there covering new web sites, so a couple of citations (particularly one from a pretty minor publication like the St. Cloud Times) aren't exactly a rare commodity, and don't constitute true notability. -- PKtm 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WEB says "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". If you feel that the wikipedia policy sets the bar too low, the solution is to try and change the policy, not to ignore the policy. There's a more complete list of references at [[142]], some of which have been included in previous versions of the article. There are a decent number, although not many are the main point of the article; I certainly feel like there are enough references to qualify as "multiple", especially considered along with the fact that LP was inluded in The Lost Experience. Feel free to add appropriate ones back in. And if you feel that LP doesn't meet WP:WEB, how do you feel about the inclusion of Wookieepedia? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think accusing Wikipedia of being afraid of competition is a bit much, I think its more to do with the quite young keepers of the LOST article (I won't say moderators, as none of them are) feeling this fierce pride in their work, and a wish on their behalf not to link to other sites that also cover this content, arguably with better information. Many sites are like this. Digital Spy won't let you do this, and Lost Media won't either. Its a shame that something like Wikipedia, and the web in general, which are supposed to be for sharing knowledge and information, can be hijacked by people who are fiercely competitive, rather than collaborative. --217.65.158.91 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree saying WP is afraid of competition is silly, I think it was more an attempt at humour rather than the user's argument though --Nickb123 3rd 12:52, 31 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 as hoax/trolling article created by socks of banned user. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the South Beach Scene[edit]

Part unsourced essay, part nonsense, 100% deletable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do understand that the word "slut" is considered one of the worst insults there is in the English language, right? - Richfife 00:30, 26 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 redirecting to List of Latin phrases (P–Z). --Ezeu 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per se (phrase)[edit]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live! 2004[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G11. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paintballforum.com[edit]

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:27, 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tujunga underground[edit]

Band with only one homemade CD (which was discontinued in favor of giving it away free as a download on their website). Non-notable, vanity, fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 16:40, 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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodeo Boys[edit]

Folk/indie band that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:05, 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 delete. Dakota 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy beers[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant 07:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Girl[edit]

Fairly much the same as the first nom. This is NOT notable, even though many people say it is. This is frankly classism and stereotyping. The article is depraved and degrading. Delete. Snuogo 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Snuogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Previous afd:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essex_girl - speedily kept, but due to nominator being a sockpuppet. Bwithh 18:27, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Zimbabweans[edit]

thin copy of material from other articles with some opinion added BScar23625 17:43, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oli 'n' Clive, Oli N' Clive[edit]

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

The result was Delete the nominated article and moving User:Nixer/Space trade back to mainspace to take its place. (This has already been done as a cut and paste, I will move the history).--Konst.ableTalk 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space trade[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Matt Eason 18:44, 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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggerypipery[edit]

Notability not established, 1,450 GHits, and fails WP:BAND. Delete. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable.
Per the article Húsönd linked to, the drummer, Simon Crowe, was a member of The Boomtown Rats, who are considered notable enough to have a page here.
Weak Keep because I don't like that criteria... --Onorem 12:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spellings of "the"[edit]

This whole article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Not only is it poorly written and completely unencyclopedic, put it is without a doubt the puriest example of unverified original research I've ever seen in my year here at Wiki. I tagged it ((or)) over a month ago, as well as adding "Is this whole article OR?? It has pretty much zero refs after all?" to the talk page, and the only edits since have been vandalism and the resulting reverts. Seriously, this has gotta go. Delete Glen 18:48, 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 keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School[edit]

Please note there are two different Alex's in this discussion!

Non-notable primary (elementary) school. Does not appear to pass WP:SCHOOLS. --Alex (Talk) 18:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original article has now been expanded, referenced and more detail added, including links from UK Government and BBC. As such I have divided this into comments after and before revisions--Alex 09:48, 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. Punkmorten 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Albany Classes[edit]

An article on individual classes at one particular school is probably to be categorized as indiscriminate information. up+land 19:12, 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 merge to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry. --Ezeu 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees Suck[edit]

Does not require a Wikipedia article, but if there is a Yankees suck page, then there should be suck pages for all teams in the League. We can't have this. Patsyanks06 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking forward to the comments from the editors on the Yankees page if my original merge suggestion had gone ahead, but it looks like the guys below have a less incendiary response. (incendiary... herm... isn't that what Red Sox fans get up to in downtown Boston when their team wins? ) Bwithh 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a youtube reference is appropriate for the particular claim, which is simply that the chant occurs in venues outside of New England. Stilgar135 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a page about the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry that this could go into? --Hemlock Martinis 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response There's Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry which mentions the most important parts. Stilgar135 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yup. "Baseball lore" is exactly what this phrase has become as per articles in USA Today [144],[145] and MSNBC [146] or Espn [147] or the SanFransiso Chronicle [148] or the Detroit Free Press [149] or the Harvard Crimson. [150] It's also a book [151] -- No Guru 05:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel like I've heard a single convincing argument yet for why this requires a standalone article. Chanting, whether it's "Yankees Suck," "Boston Sucks," or "Cubs Suck" is clearly a part of baseball rivalry. This particular chant would appear to only be notable because it is part of one of the most notable rivalries in all of sports. Include it in the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page. Djdickmutt 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll do my best to expand on my points above. It a notable, well-documented chant that has also become a marketing phenomena and has sparked legal and civil rights debates. [152]. It is not simply a phrase that one team's fans yells at the expense of another team. This chant is well-documented and has influence in the way that a phrase like "Blue Jays Blow" does not. -- No Guru 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll concede that it is a more significant phrase than "Blue Jays Blow" or any other chant directed at a specific team, but it still seems that the main reason for the phenomenon is because of the Yanks/Sox rivalry, and don't you feel that all of that could be covered with a merge into the Rivalry's article? Djdickmutt 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The rivalry is well known, without a doubt. The issue is that this phrase itself has taken on a life of its own outside the rivalry. It's referred to in non-baseball contexts, it's cited as one of the more unsavory aspects of sports chants, and it's responsible for a fairly consequential merchandising situation, to boot. If people search for "Yankees Suck," they're not looking for information on the rivalry, they want information on the chant and the things around it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Infoweb access is explained on the talk page. Stilgar135 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Actually, I requested the Infoweb access, and it never worked as explained. Djdickmutt 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a merge to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry would make the most sense. Djdickmutt 21:52, 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 of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stuart[edit]

Vanity, borderline spam. Prod tag removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rewrite" is not a argument, "rewrite" is an instruction. If you think it can be rewritten to meet WP standards and not be blatant spam, please feel free. And do it quick! Blatant spam should be deleted on sight. A NPOV article can be created at any later date. And I, personally, couldn't be bothered. Xtifr tälk 10:23, 26 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 and merge. Please decide where to merge this article, then do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagisa City[edit]

One-line article about a fictional city mentioned in a Pokémon videogame. --Nehwyn 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There isn't enough information about the city to make it into a decent article. -Amarkov babble 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents, and we use them. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, also consider that the fact that similar articles exist is no proof of notability for this one. Also, even though my nomination is for deletion, I do think that merge & listify is definitely a better option. --Nehwyn 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the argument is not that they exist, so this one should automatically. The argument is that those HAVE lots of information, so this one will, too. And I'd love to see someone try to stuff all the Kanto city articles into one page. -Amarkov babble 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time will heal all wounds for this article, because within 6 months, we'll have an article the strength of our other regions' town articles, because we'll have Nagisa in the anime as well. Plus, it will be a bit more verifiable if they change it around. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good... then merge the article now, and in 6 months' time, if there is indeed so much material that the merged article is too long, split it. --Nehwyn 06:27, 29 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. KrakatoaKatie 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pederastic couples[edit]

  1. This is unimportant and unencyclopedic.
  2. there are no Sources, but al lot of Rumours. Again - not encyclopedic.
  3. a lot of the historical couples are not real couples, for instance in ancient literature it was normal to say obout famous men something of this kind to stigmate them.
  4. the most of them are in modern history rejected or in question. But here there are as truth.
  5. in this way this article van not be longer here at Wikipedia. It's pure horror.
  6. sorry, my english is not the best (but enough to realize, that the article ist very, very bad). Kenwilliams 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For an historican like me it's hard to read such rubbish like this article. Ofcourse they are stigmatized. Maybe you can imagine - not at all times in history it was OK to be gay. Such rumours were used to stigmate people. An other problem I forget - here the authors mixed gay and pererastic "couples". The wohle article from the beginning to the end is pure horror. But I belive the article will be keeped. The en:WP seems to the other WP's like a dustbin/ashcan. Such POV-articles without sources, without using modern literature will keep. And actually neraly the only argument for keeping is the reproach, I'm a POV-warrior. It's funny. But I have nothing against such a list (is not important who with who - but at the end it's also not bad) - but this list is to delete. Thers nothing more to say. Kenwilliams 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your vehemence renders your criticism suspect. It is not our concern whether accusations of sodomy stigmatized or not their targets. These people often went to their death, together with their lovers - are we expected to believe that they were all framed and drawn up on false charges?! And then you say that we mixed gay and pederastic couples. But does that statement not refute your contention - that these were indeed pederastic couples? As for the alleged mix, will you now argue that only those who bedded young adolescents were pederasts, and those who loved older adolescents were not? What are you basing yourself on for making your distinction? Sources? You are right, but that was discussed already. Haiduc 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is unimportant and unencyclopedic.

Let the readers decide what they find "unimportant" and what not. If I remember it correctly, nobody else has complained before that it would be unimportant. And it isn't more "unencyclopedic" than articles about movie stars.

2. there are no Sources, but al lot of Rumours. Again - not encyclopedic.

There are in fact some sources and there will be much more in the future. It's still in the making.

3. a lot of the historical couples are not real couples, for instance in ancient literature it was normal to say obout famous men something of this kind to stigmate them.

"A lot"? Name them all, please. I think you can say this about Caesar (whom I never really wanted to be in the list), but I don't see so many others, who are mainly there, because somebody wanted to stigmate them.

4. the most of them are in modern history rejected or in question. But here there are as truth.

That sounds as if you did a lot of research, which I don't believe you did, sorry. Who "is rejected", for example?

5. in this way this article van not be longer here at Wikipedia. It's pure horror.

It will look alright without the romantic sounding language (we should replace all this "fell in love" stuff) and more sources. Oder nicht? :-) Fulcher 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Information: Fulcher (I think he's the blocked User Roman Czybora) tries to relativate and romantisize Sexuality with Children in the german Wikipedia. Hes absolutely not trustworthy. Kenwilliams 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what "you think" is absolutely wrong. I'm NOT Roman Czybora. Verstanden? Ich bin's nicht! And where did I "relativate and romantisize Sexuality with Children in the german Wikipedia"? Hm? }:^( Fulcher 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naja, 'n typischer Ossi halt... Fulcher 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant is only one point of some. Interesting, that the Keepers try to reduct it to this point. I'm a studied historian (I know, this is in the en:Wiki a bad point, people who are experts are not welcome), with special subject (ancient) culture history. I know, how ta handle the sources. The author of the article seems to have a problem with this. And to the personal attacks: I think it's interesting, why people are for keeping the article. Instead to cry, the main author should work on the list - for keeping the List must be free from any rumours - only couples without any doubt could be list there. And there are much less than on the list. And all must be referenced with serious sources. In my opinion there should be a new start without the actuel main author - he seems to be a POV-pusher in his own way. Kenwilliams 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, what I#ve said. And I think you won't understand. Kenwilliams 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How small must a mind be, to say it would be important what a people like? I know here it's important if a person ist gay or bisexual. But normally people don't define themsolve about sexuality. Only if they are ill in some way. One of the biggest mistakes here at the en:Wiki is, that's more important what a people "is", than what he does. I know from the beginning this article will be keeped. Kenwilliams 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - your English is really bad. Fulcher 15:49, 2 November 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. RFerreira 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

Previously nominated four times: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Comment this nomination needs to be fixed. First the title on the top needs to be to the article in question not to the AFD discussion itself. Second this is the 4th 5th not the second AFD. Finally, there is no notice on the article about the article about the AFD. It needs to be added. --70.48.110.3 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the evidence for "bordering on a bad faith nomination"? I don't see any. Bwithh 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought up so many times that the nominator is either ignorant or trying to force an issue that should have been dead after, oh, about the third try. It is not clear which. Haikupoet 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly suspect just unaware of the previous nominations, given the brokenness of the nomination at first. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CCC. There's been a quite lengthy period since the last afd, and the current article is still not clearly within policy boundaries. As Saxifrage notes, promised fleshing out of the article into something encyclopedic has not occured. Last afd ended in no consensus as well. The article hasn't been nominated that many times anyway. If articles aren't brought well into bounds of policy, they remain vulnerable to legitimate afd nomination. No need to assume bad faith at all Bwithh 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LOL at the Stassen reference. (I think that may be the first time I ever typed LOL on Wikipedia.) But amazingly, it's not even close. GNAA has been up for deletion seventeen times. --Aaron 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is continuously "unclean", is that in itself a reason to delete? This is just a genuine question and not meant to counter. --Marriedtofilm 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. In some cases this is due to a lack of attention by editors, and that doesn't warrant deletion. In others it is a lack of attention by the rest of the world in a form that we can legitimately reference. Which one it is tends to be a judgement call. In this case there has been enough attention at AfDs and in managing vandalism of the article that I'm leaning heavily to seeing the lack of cleanup as a lack of possibility of cleanup rather than a lack of will to do it. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but being a definition makes it more suited for a dictionary. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered. I still think it should be merged, but there's not enough here to merit a standalone article. GassyGuy 03:42, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown: She's a Witch[edit]

This appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A google search for "Halloweentown: She's A Witch" (with quotes) brings up exactly 0 articles. A search for "Halloweentown: She's The Witch" brings up a few references that only state that the movie may be made in 2007. So IMO this article is all unverifiable rumor. Natalie 19:56, 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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Agency of Missiles and Artillery of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union[edit]

Article is almost incoherent. There's a lot of information here in raw form, but it's just a jumble of links and lists. It's not an article. This was tagged for cleanup 6 months ago, and doesn't seem to have gotten cleaned up much -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal in a mask[edit]

Although described as an "internet phenomenon", the phrase which is the subject of this article garners only one Google hit, from Wikipedia itself. [153] This phrase does not appear to be well-known beyond Wikipedia's own reference desk, if indeed it is well-known there at all. No Google Groups hits, either. [154] No sources are provided, making this article unverifiable. This was originally submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD was challenged. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 20:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. How do you penalise a nonregistered user?--Light current 20:34, 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 speedily redirected to grandfather paradox (which time traveler paradox redirects to) as a duplicate article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timetraveler paradox[edit]

It's crap. Miserlou 20:26, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outward Blonde[edit]

First AFD debate in April resulted in "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outward Blonde). As I said then, the last real news (i.e., not rumours) about this film was in February 2004 [155], and IMDb is not a reliable source. Not every film that might have happened but didn't warrants its own article - films get cancelled all the time. Extraordinary Machine 20:35, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri)[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited academy. I get almost 300 yahoo hits for "International Academy of Science Missouri". Arbusto 20:48, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Global University School of Medicine[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited school. Claims to be based in Latin America with headquarters in Ohio. I get 119 yahoo hits. Arbusto 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be voting keep based on the hope that a more balanced view will be presented. As you said it is "advertising quite heavily and untruthfully", but that's not really a reason to keep. Arbusto 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. Leuko 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it presents an accurate view because I was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status.[157] I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to let people know it isn't accredited. Arbusto 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is notable enough to be on the list of unaccredited institutions, then isn't it notable enough to have a blue link instead of a red link? Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And you feel that makes his/her opinion less worthy? If you are worried that it is me agreeing with myself, I invite you to do a checkuser. Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Within the first sentence, the word "unaccredited" is used - I fail to see how someone could be confused. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it does claim to be accredited by the World Association of Universities and Colleges [158], but this is not a recognized accrediting body, since it seems the only barrier to accreditation is a $1,000 check. As for notability, it is described as a "top Caribbean medical school" by educationandjobsonline.com [159]. (I am not arguing that this is a WP:RS, just that it has been the topic of independent press). If this is the same American Global University formerly of Wyoming, then use of its degrees are banned in at least 3 states (Oregon [160], Texas [161], and Maine [162]). Leuko 01:08, 29 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, leaning towards keep. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "institute." I get 342 yahoo hits for "Carroll Theological Institute". This "institute" does not even have classrooms, and while its website in 2004 said it hopes to have accreditation one day, there is no independent accreditation group/board that mentions this. The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable. Arbusto 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two church sources (from 2003, 04) make it notable how? It doesn't even have a campus. Or approval to operate in the state, which is required by Texas law.[163] Arbusto 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You again are falsely characterizing the sources. These are independent, verifiable and reliable sources that describe the institution and its no programs, satisfying WP:V; they are not "church sources". I know of no Wikipedia standard that requires an educational institution to have a brick-and-mortar campus; apparently, in our computer age, schools have the ability to offer classes electronically over this thing called the "Internet". The article you provide is completely and entirely accurate, but entirely irrelevant to the article in question. You again try to falsely imply that the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is offering degrees in violation of Texas law, and provide a source that talks about some other school. What on earth do you have against this school? Alansohn 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the lack of notability of the topic does not mean an editor has something "against this school". Removal of a non-notable school article from the encyclopedia is not a judgement on the school itself, but only on the appropriateness of including an article on it in the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of official permission to operate is by no means a barrier to mention an entity in Wikipedia, or we could not mention any rebel group, any subversive movement, or any underground operation. We only note whether there is a reliable and verifiable source to show notability. We are not a state licensing and regulatory agency. Edison 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the "sources" include "Fort Worth Star-Telegram": Obituaries Oct 19, 2004 that says "Those desiring, please make memorial contributions in Dr. Drakeford's name to the BH Carroll Theological Institute", "Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The: Amen Corner Nov 22, 2003 Baptists in Texas plan to open the independent Carroll Theological Institute."
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an obituary and the only reference to this "institute" where to donate money. Is that the best WP:V you have an obituary?
Do you have a source that this place is legally operating. Those articles mention that "Carroll Theological Institute" will be opened in 2004. Isn't it notable enough for press coverage since its been open? Arbusto 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto, do you even believe a fraction of the stuff you're writing? You pick the two least relevant sources included in the search to represent all of the other articles that directly mention the school and its programs, again deliberately misinterpreting the information provided to falsely push your agenda. Will you ever demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to address ALL of the information provided, and stop manufacturing requirements that you feel this article doesn't meet? Where is the criteria that specifies your made-up rules? Alansohn 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, ALL schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Show me where it says such a thing in Wikipedia policy. Anyone can start an unaccredited "school" and there's nothing notable about 99 percent of those who do. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources fails WP:CORP which states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Moreover, you need accreditation in Texas to be a legitimate school. Please provide a WP:RS that this "school" is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(a group that oversees higher education in Texas). Arbusto 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that you are either not listening or severely biased. First, "multiple" means more than one. So even if there were only two, which has been false for the entire time this discussion was underway, multiple is met. But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute. Then I pointed out that one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute. Your arguments hold no water. Plus we have JJay's statement below that it was covered by the city paper, even though their archives aren't freely available to use it as a source. And not being accredited is not a reason for deletion; we have multiple categories for non-accredited schools. GRBerry 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to turn down the attitude and keep your personal observations about other editors to yourself. And as for the other sources, I don't think publications like the Baptist Standard or the Biblical Recorder count, because they violate, at least in spirit, WP:CORP's dictum that the source be "independent of the company or corporation itself". It's for this reason that we don't give as much weight to articles about Scientology that come from Scientologist news services. Lastly, I think the authors of WP:CORP meant "multiple" to be more than just two, because even a hot dog stand in Iowa can manage to get two puff-piece articles written about itself in some paper or other. wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the issues raised regarding WP:V, the publications listed in the article are independent and verifiable in full compliance with WP:V. The fact that they cover church-related news makes them no different from any other "industry" publication that neutrally covers a particular subject. Additionally, it was only a lack of effort that fails to turn up other sources. Google News Archive provided several additional references in such "partisan" publications as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all of which should pass the WP:V test of even the most rabid deletionists. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP indicates that the school must be the subject of the articles, not just be "mentioned". Is the school specifically the subject of these articles? And are they actual articles per se, or are they blurbs on the "Religion" page of said papers? wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could always click on the link provided, and check for yourself. Sunject lines such as "Four leave Southwestern Baptist to join new seminary", "Baptist seminary may find itself at home in Arlington", "Texas Baptists to open independent institute" and "Theology education taken to churches" would all seem to be "about" B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, not just mere "mentions" as your scare quotes seem to fear. Though you (and all others who voted to delete) should click on the link and check the sources for yourself, and not take my word for it. The article has been updated with several of these sources, which have been included in the article with links to the references. Alansohn 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes? Um, no, they were quote quotes. I was quoting the editor above who stated "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." And a mention isn't good enough. Many of the articles you refer to came out before the school opened, and are apparently simply passing along what was received in the school's press release. This too, is dealt with in WP:CORP. Again, any hot dog stand in Iowa can accomplish same, but that doesn't make it notable. wikipediatrix 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First there are no sources. Then the sources are "biased" baecause they're church-related. Now the sources are indeed from widely-accepted news sources, but came out too soon, before the school opened. Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. I'd suggest spending more time rooting out Wikipedia's overflowing bounty of Iowa hot dog stand articles. Alansohn 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did quote me saying "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." You apparently didn't notice the immediately prior sentence (which you need to read to understand the quoted one, because the antecededent for "those" is in the prior sentence) that says "But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute." The bit about thirty-four is for people who don't think four is enough and are willing to look at the evidence that has been provided. I think four that meet every test in WP:CORP and WP:INDY is enough to defeat the claim about inadequate sourcing, so I'm not going to waste my time looking at the other thirty-two. If you feel that you need more in order to change your opinion, I point you back to the link I posted above so that you can go read all of them. GRBerry 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right not all. However, this happened last afd when the school inclusionists astrotrufted this afd. Arbusto 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does a professor leaving a seminary for this one make any difference regarding WP:CORP? wikipediatrix 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having independent reliable sources write articles primarily about it means that it is notable to the WP:CORP standard "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." This has been discussed extensively above.
In this particular use of the statement, it undercuts the argument that you could create an equivalent school out of your living room, and explains how the hypothetical AFD for your hypothetical school would not be equivalent. This is a real school, not a diploma mill. The evidence on this seems quite clear to me, even looking just at the sources already in the article, never mind the things I saw when I went looking for additional evidence. We have, between the article and this discussion, proof of staff that were college professors before they joined this Institute, a library in excess of 5,000 volumes, a founder that was formerly a college president, and multiple published articles in multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the Institute. GRBerry 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in your comments do I see an explanation of why this is "not a diploma mill". Saying it doesn't make it so. I see nothing in WP:CORP that says having college professors and college presidents associated with you makes up for its other shortcomings. (Tell me again, where exactly is this "library in excess of 5,000 volumes" if they don't have a brick-and-mortar building??) wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said the evidence was in the sources already in the article. But I'll copy it here for your covenience. To quote our article diploma mill "an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study, and without recognition by official accrediting bodies." (Emphasis added.) At the present they lack accreditation, as everyone knows - Wikipedia even sources the article to their statement that they aren't accredited. However, the other test for being a diploma mill is "awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study". A cursory glance at their admission requirements shows that they want students with the ability to do academic study. (This is most blatantly obvious for the advance studies program. "For admission each applicant must submit to the Committee of Senior Fellows for Advanced Studies a research paper either previously prepared (an ungraded copy) or prepared especially for the application on a subject in the student’s chosen major field of study. This paper should be 25-35 pages in length. The paper should represent the applicant’s best quality of research and writing. The form and style should follow the 6th edition of Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. The paper will be graded in terms of form, presentation, and content to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing research and writing at an advanced level." But it is visible in the admission requirements for all three levels of studies.) Since I went to a school where the typical course was 12 units of credit, I have trouble interpreting course units as used elsewhere, but I'm sure that 48 units in 24 courses for their lowest level or 78 units for one of the second level programs (PDF and PDF), plus a recommendation to take half as many courses per term as one would elsewhere (second to last paragraph), is not "very little or no academic study". See also second paragraph of their statement on accreditation, linked in the article.
I don't know where the physical library is; I'm not in the same part of the world as the Institute. I just know that we have reliable evidence that they have it. I'd guess it is in Arlington, Texas, given that they have a center there where the professors are. If you really care, drop them a line. GRBerry 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario", eh? Wow. Sorry, not taking the bait. wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No bait to be taken, especially when you can just grab a weiner at one of those mythical Iowa hot dog stands, avoiding the fish breath. Any response to the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standard issues? Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure relisting was a good idea(probably should have gotten closed as a no consensus). However the CORP matter is less than established. I'm not sure everyone is convinced this meets WP:CORP. In particular that these are actually non-trivial sources. Furthermore, if we lack sufficient sourcing to make an article that meets WP:V that's also a legitimate reason to delete, indeed one required by policy. JoshuaZ 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon! The school was not only covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, but was also listed in newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away). Which of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are you questioning in terms of WP:V? What more do you want to see? Alansohn 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a nominator relisting a discussion is almost always a bad idea. Relisting should be left to a closing admin who can decide whether more discussion increases the odds of having a clear consensus. Some participants at Deletion Review consider relisting by a partisan as reason to overturn a closure. GRBerry 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Your first edit on this page was an attack on me. Stop this. Arbusto 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight; In extremely poor faith, you open an AfD just weeks after your first attempt to delete this article failed. You write up an AfD that starts out stating that "The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable", attacking those (including myself) who made good faith arguments to retain the article and genuine efforts to improve this article. Please read your own explicit attacks in the nomination before accusing others of attacks. Alansohn 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As per my previous point about a hot dog stand in Iowa, just because something has press coverage sources they can point to still doesn't make something notable. My Uncle Ned has been in the newspaper many, many times - more so than this diploma mill - but he still isn't notable. wikipediatrix 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, WP:CORP is a guideline, not the Bible, and not WP policy. There's a gut check about whether something is notable. 400 students? I can name thousands of high schools with more. Coverage in the Fort Worth paper? I can provide tens of thousands of articles if local news coverage is all it takes to be notable enough to be an entry in an encyclopedia. Per your comment, there's also no criteria that says that I can't use a lack of accredidation and any shred of recent coverage to help form my opinion as to whether this Institute matters beyond its own walls. Lack of accredidation means it's not a school that can confer degrees, which means that it's in essence a Bible Study group. Typically, notable organizations will have ongoing coverage or be historically significant. This fails both. And by the way, the Dallas News article cited is future-looking ("hopes to start classes", "will be based somewhere between Dallas and Fort Worth", etc. Both Ft. Worth newspaper articles focus on the four founders resigning their prior posts and joining this new project prior to the Institute ever teaching a class. No secular (i.e. "independent") news coverage exists after the Institute is founded, so I'm not sure that helps the article's case. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On what basis are you claiming that the 2006 article from the news bureuae Associated Baptist Press [170] is not independent. There is no link between the ABP and the Institute. This independent coverage has been a source for the Wikipedia article since before this AFD began. The claim that both are Baptist is not a serious claim that they are related parties; as reading our coverage of Baptists could tell you. Baptists just aren't as organized or like minded as most other denominations are; they are splintery like the Independent Catholic Churches. Per Baptists in the United States, there are four separate major groups of Baptist denominations. The ABP self describes in part as "Working out of our Jacksonville, Fla.- based headquarters, and with bureaus in Washington and Dallas, ABP provides daily coverage of Baptist news, news from the nation's capital, and other general news and information of concern to Christians in the U.S. and around the world." GRBerry 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I understand how loosely affiliated Baptist Churches are. But the article's author, Marv Knox, is the editor of the Baptist Standard, and the article you cite by the ABP is a direct copy of an article printed by Knox's Baptist Standard [171]. Another "independent" article cited (The Biblical Recorder) is written by Mark Wingfield, who worked for the Baptist Standard directly under Marv Knox [172]. The third article is by Ken Camp. Camp replaced Wingfield directly under Knox at the Standard when Wingfield returned to ministry. So, although Baptist churches are very loosely affiliated, it seems all three of the authors of the four referenced articles currently work for, or worked for, the Baptist Standard (and they all worked together and know each other intimately). That's not independent. Two of the other references provided are directly from the school's web site. Okay, now deep breath... Take a look at this article Baptist General Convention of Texas. Guess who one of the founding members of the BGCT was? That's right - B.H. Carroll. Guess what the official publication of the BGCT is? You got it -- the Baptist Standard. I hope that helps clarify what I meant. Peace! SkerHawx 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: So let's get this straight, even though the article meets each and every criteria of WP:V, and the sources meet WP:RS, all of which satisfy WP:CORP, one of the most widely agreed upon standards in Wikipedia, if not THE Bible, we should ignore all of this. Why? Because each and every author of every single one of the articles published about the school are all part of the vast right-wing Baptist Cabal. Somehow, despite the fact that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are all independent nationally-recognized publications, with editors and publishers looking over reporter's shoulder's, each member of the cabal was able to pull the wool over their eyes and get an article published. Send your theories to Dan Brown, it sounds like a great plot for a new book. But, other than that, it's pure unsupported original research. You'd be hard pressed to find any group of reporters covering any one industry -- Recording, Iowa Hot Dog Stands or Baptist churches -- who haven't worked together at some point in their career. Alansohn 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm sorry, I don't see any citations from the San Antonio, Kansas City, or Atlanta papers in this article. The Dallas and Ft. Worth papers are responding to a press conference covering a notable event (the abrupt resignation of four faculty members at SBTS, as below.) And I searched the papers you mentioned, and they all have articles from (only) November 2003 indicating the same information (faculty resigns, to form new institute - note future tense). SkerHawx 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: Two of the three secular articles cited are from Nov 5, 2003 (Dallas & Ft. Worth papers). These articles were covering a press conference [173] on Novemeber 4, 2003 and seem to be covering the abrupt departure of the four faculty members from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as much (or more) as covering the new school. Of course, both articles are (as mentioned above) future tense, since no such Institute existed yet. I'm not paying $2.95 to see the full text of the third article, but the only visible paragraph just repeats the information already known from the first two. Look, the Baptist Standard is the official paper of the BGCT, and all of the religious articles covering this came from the Baptist Standard or its writers. All but one of the articles was published in the Baptist Standard directly (see my citations above). This isn't a conspiracy, it's a Public relations strategy. WP:V is crumbling on this one. Take care, SkerHawx 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost convincing Where this falls apart is the link between those editors and the Institute. Yes, the Institute is named after one of the founders of the BGCT. But he was also a founder of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which the staff broke away. We wouldn't say that the Institute was affiliated with SWBTS because of using one of their founder's names. The argument was enough to go make me look and see if the BGCT supports the Institute. The BGCT's page on the schools they support does not mention this Institute. The results of a search at the BGCT's page don't show any sort of affiliation. They show trivial mentions a scholarshiop given to a student at the institute, a member of the Institute staff leading a tour group in the U.K, an event being taught by folks from Baylor University held in part at the site of this Institute, that the Institute is one of ninety-seven exhbitors at the 2006 convention, and one of nine schools of higher education hosting a special event at that convention. (The policies of the BGCT do allow non affiliated organizations to exhibit, I checked, and the hotel chain exhibiting is adequate evidence of that.) I also checked the Institute's web You've convinced me that a lot of the articles were written by people who know each other. You've also convinced me that those writers are the world experts on what events among Texas Baptists are newsworthy. You failed to convince me that they have any affiliation with the Institute, which is what independence is all about; see WP:INDY. So I continue to conclude that the articles are by independent sources. GRBerry 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last one This will be my last post on this AfD discussion, simply because I'm just not that passionate about whether or not this article is ultimately deleted. I'll answer your question and then just let the facts speak for themselves. Everyone is welcome to vote for a delete or a keep. Alas, you asked for some more detail, so I'll respond this last time. Here you go... Check out the BGCT member church web site [174] and cross-reference it with the institute's teaching churches [175]. A 100% match on all 17 churches. Charles Wade, executive director of BGCT, welcomed the Institute in "...our ongoing effort to train effective Christian leaders..." [176]. Dr. Russell Dilday, one of the founders of the Institute was a former president of the BGCT [177]. This is the bottom line ... the Institute and the Baptist General Convention of Texas have the same deposit of faith. Their visions are aligned, whether or not BGCT explicitly supports the Institute or not. The Baptist Standard is an official publication of the BGCT, and as a religious newspaper it writes from a certain paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not unbiased. (If Catholics in Atlanta created a Catholic Theological Institute, the Archidiocese of Atlanta's official paper (The Georgia Bulletin) would cover it (so long as it was in line with Catholic teachings). I wouldn't consider that to be an independent source. Nor would I consider other Catholic publications an authoritative source to help establish WP:V. So I'm just saying that the beliefs of the official voice of the BGCT and the beliefs of the Institute are 100% on target. As such, the BGCT (and therefore the Baptist Standard) have a vested interest in promoting the Institute. That's all. Peace, my friend. SkerHawx 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. And let's get this straight - the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is NOT a school. That's a thing that kids go to and every school is notable and important in its community. It is argued often that every school is therefore worthy of an article in Wikipedia. I change my mind about this every week! But, I repeat, this is NOT a school - it is a non-notable, unapproved organisation with no classrooms. Emeraude 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mike 19:46, 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. Punkmorten 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Ridge Christian College[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "college." I get 443 yahoo hits including wikipedia (and mirrors), and forums. Arbusto 20:41, 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 delete. --Ezeu 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Open University[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "university." I get 2,300 yahoo hits including wikipedia and spam. Should be redirected to the New York Institute of Technology per the more famous program of the accredited school. According to the NY IT article, "the college launched American Open University of NYIT in November 1984." This Virgina unaccredited "school" has nothing to do with the NY accredited program. Arbusto 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this "university" is recognised by other universities, not accredited by them. Accreditation is a formal process with a specific meaning, and the article clearly states that this "university" is wholly unaccredited.


(UTC)

Please ensure those claims pass WP:V. Arbusto 08:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point. The articles (the three post articles) you cited is in direct contradiction with how the article currently presents itself. Thus, this should be deleted for WP:V issues.
Perhaps if the person named in the articles you mentioned is notable enough for his own wikipedia article, currently he is not, this article could be merged with him. Yet, clearly this minor news event didn't spark enough interest on the people mentioned, and doesn't warrant a separate article on the school. This isnt wikinews. Arbusto 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:V. As I stated with my first comment, the article needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. There are clearly a lot of sources available for that expansion. Hence, WP:V can be easily satisfied. Finally, your comment about wikinews is not relevant to this discussion. A school of higher learning that has been newsworthy enough to garner attention from major sources such as the Washington Post more than qualifies for an article here. --JJay 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very similiar argument you made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which you were the only one to vote keep. If anything ever came of these three 2004 mentions it should be included. However, all you have is three sources that MENTION the "school", but don't devote any space to the school itself. Arbusto 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baptist Bible College[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited "college." I get 1,160 links including forums and wikipedia (and mirrors). Arbusto 20:40, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Noetic Sciences[edit]

Unaccredited institute of unknown importance. Has various pseudoscientific claims that make it questionable. Note the article reads the insitute "studies on the efficacy of compassionate intention on healing in AIDS patients." Arbusto 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How it is "important"? To who? Why? Arbusto 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important within the field of parapsychology as a major source of information on and research into psi phenomena. Best selling author Dean Radin who is also notable for his contributions to the understanding of psi is the Laboratory Director. If you take a look at the What links here log you will see there are around 26 relevant links to this page, underlining its notability. Your POV that the institute makes "pseudoscientific claims" would still not be grounds for deletion within Wikipedia policy even if it were in fact true. There are many eminent and respected scientists that support research into psi, including for example Noble prize winning physicist Brian Josephson. The claim that all psi research is pseudoscience is simply unfounded and usually comes from pathological skeptics from disciplines that are not members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organisation in the world. Parapsychology on the other hand is fully recognised by the AAAS, which demonstrates it is not in fact a pseudoscience. - Solar 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience and is basically a dead field, I mean only one person has ever been given a PhD in the subject. It is very telling that the the most important member of this "institute" lost his job from a real university.
However, this discussion is about the institute. What sources do you have that prove notablity? Arbusto 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your POV about parapsychology, I have already mentioned that the field is affiliated with the AAAS, which proves it is not a pseudoscience. I would like to see proof to back up your 'opinion'. We all know that the word 'pseudoscience' is used by pathological skeptics, but this does not make it a fact. Most scientists with an interest in psi gain their PhD's in the wider field of psychology, which can include parapsychology. Ad hominem arguments like mentioning Dean Radin lost his job demeans this whole debate. I think I have already shown enough to demonstrate the article is notable, I will now leave it for others to decide. - Solar 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't the venue to debate what is and isn't pseudoscience. Maybe this debate should be moved to the article's talk page. — ripley\talk 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that will be my final comment, thanks - Solar 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please post academic/media sources that mention Institute of Noetic Sciences. Arbusto 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was solicited as proven here. Arbusto 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar did post a message letting folks at Wikiproject:Paranormal know this vote was occurring. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, however, and I might note that page you're citing is only a guideline, and the portions dealing with canvassing rather controversial. — ripley\talk 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware meatpuppets and sockpuppets are quite different to making other members aware of an article for deletion. If I have broken any policies it was unintentional. As far as I am aware a meatpuppet is a user account created by a member of the public (a non-user) for the purposes of voting, informing other users the article is up for deletion is not meatpuppetry. As far as links, I do not feel I need to spend any more time on this debate as it is clear from the 26 or so wikilinks to the page and the connection to Dean Radin that the article fulfils inclusion standards. As user ripley mentioned pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion, so your initial reasons for nominating it are in fact dubious. I will not be commenting further as I have other areas to deal with, and I am confident that whatever other users decide will be the right decision. - Solar 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply makes little sense as I quoted the policy, and provided a link on your talk.[184] Also see Wikipedia: discussion for what a meat puppet is.
Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. Arbusto 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what a meatpuppet is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote.". The policy goes on: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." [185]Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - Solar 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting people to post is votestacking and unacceptable. See among other relevant policies WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have viewed the page you refer to and it seems to me the policy stats 'mass' talk messages are unacceptable, I can't see how two users could be seen as 'mass' posting. I feel that I have clearly shown that I acted in good faith and within Wikipedia policy as quoted above. I also stated above that "If I have broken any policies it was unintentional". - Solar 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize it was unintentional (and yes, only two might not constitute a SPAM problem, but there is still a more fundamental votestacking problem involved). This is more of a "please don't do it again" situation than anything else. JoshuaZ 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I guess I should add my vote was very much not solicited. I'd heard about these people on a religious movement page[186] years ago and on occasion I check the articles for deletion.--T. Anthony 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to just keep as they get a fair amount at Google Scholar too. (Again I think they are kooky, but sufficiently notable kooky)--T. Anthony 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, 692 incomeing links to noetic.org[190] and 64 to shiftinaction.com [191] thier other domain. 750 incomeing links... take it for what it's worth. I think that shows the website isn't just some fly-by-night. ---J.S (t|c) 07:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A raw deal? He wasn't blocked; he was told not to do it again:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.[192]

Arbusto 19:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think posting a message on the project page is "attracting users with known views and bias." There are a wide variety of opinions represented at the project page - some are inclusionists, some are deletionists, some believe in paranormal phenomena, some are skeptics, etc. But, whatever, I'm not going to make an issue out of this... Zagalejo 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two people notified were both people who had previously contributed to the article and the article fell into the scope of the one project notified. I can't see how that qualifies as meatpuppetry. I think solar was acting in good faith. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo and J.S, thank you for your support on this matter. The reality is that my three posts do not constitute a violation of policy as shown in the section I quoted. "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." I think Arbusto is a bit confused over the definition of meatpuppetry, as J.S points out, posting on a project page and on two user pages does not qualify as meatpuppetry. Wikipedia policy also points out that light use of cross-posting is part of common practice, for example there is a debate on whether to delete Pathological skepticism presently taking place and I happened to notice that a user from that debate posted a notice on Project Rational Skepticism [193], without incident. I also note that the two users trying to make it seem that I have somehow broken policy are in fact often in email correspondence and have a POV interest in the outcome of this debate, so are far from neutral in the matter. This kind of behaviour towards someone acting perfectly normally within Wikipedia standards seems to me to be little more than a transparent attempt to invalidate the opinions of others in favour of an anti-parapsychology stance. This kind of behaviour undermines the NPOV policy and the fairness and fundamental principles of Wikipedia. - Solar 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing issue is controversial and you'll get different opinions about whether it's "votestacking" or "informing." The key in all cases, though, is whether or not the canvassing has become a campaign so wide-reaching that it's skewed a vote against what the average Wikipedian would believe, in other words, has become disruptive. Which this clearly has not. — ripley\talk 12:50, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkley High School[edit]

The article doesn't say why this school is notable, and there is very little information about it. jd || talk || 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the Carnegie Hall invitation, so I changed my stance to Neutral (I could have changed to keep, but I'm reluctant to accept that singing in Carnegie would grant notability to the entire high school rather than to (and solely to) the respective choir).--Húsönd 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: No wonder I didn't notice, Carnegie info added afterwards. Good work anyway.--Húsönd 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to delete, Carnegie grants notability to choir, not school.--Húsönd 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep The carnegie element is some assertion of notability with some merit if barely. JoshuaZ 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak Delete Many schools get similar opportunities. JoshuaZ 21:53, 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. Punkmorten 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Porter[edit]

non notable Nick Catalano contrib talk 21:13, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay potatoes[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC by a longshot. Daniel Olsen 21:15, 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 delete. Disregarded from socks --Ezeu 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyTestBook[edit]

WP:CORP OscarTheCat3 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this article is nothing more than an advertisement for a website service. I orignially requested speedy delete when the page was listed at Online Practice Tests. Please see article talk page and article history for records of the debate between myself and the page author. OscarTheCat3 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OscarTheCat3, you asked me to change the name. And that's what I did. I also explained why I wrote this article. This article is not any different from other Math web sites i.e. Math_Is_Fun listed in similar catrgories. Spnashville 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caesura, Can you please see if the updates meet your expectations? Spnashville12:14, 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel BT[edit]

Dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary (where it doesn't really belong either, but that's their problem). WP:NEO violation; I can't find any evidence that the term is used anywhere outside of the few Australian forums mentioned in the article. Aaron 21:42, 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 no consenus. --Ezeu 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ingram[edit]

Artciel does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and the subsequent deletion review.
The main sources for this article is does even qualify as a straight news story, as the news broadcast primarily involves the subject using the news media to help his own situation Bwithh 03:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In journalism, News Directors and Editors choose what goes on, not the subjects. --Marriedtofilm 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I emphasized in the my first comments on this, news outlets have very different criteria for content inclusion than encyclopedias. My second point is that this kind of public appeal for help may be sensationalism acting in the cause of public service, but is not substantive journalism. Bwithh 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of news coverage of this subject being "not substantive journalism" is POV and you're entitled to it. --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news report database Bwithh 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see my comments above Bwithh 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments before I typed mine. In case you want to see my comments, I've now followed your lead by underlining the important bits. --JJay 01:41, 26 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 and move to Pseudoskepticism. —Mets501 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathological skepticism[edit]

Non-notable term; Google shows the phrase "pathological skepticism" practically unheard of outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy web sites. Almost all the references in the article point back to a single article written by a sociology professor in a self-published journal, and the few that don't simply show that somebody, somewhere, once used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in print somewhere way back when. Beyond the notablity problem, the article is overwhelmingly POV. This might deserve a line or two in Skepticism or Debunker, but that's about it. Aaron 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Jim Butler's analysis below: 18000 hits for Pseudoskeptism. Harald88 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pseudoskepticism is no more a critique of skepticism, than pseudoscience is a critique of science. Pseudoskepticism is a false skepticism, ie. it is not skepticism. --Iantresman 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Pseudoskepticism is a label invented by Truzzi to criticize certain skeptics. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the term is Truzzi's version of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is "pseudoscience" also No True Scotsman fallacy, and should be deleted? Obviously not. In my opinion, this whole discussion reeks of double standard. If it's bad for "believers" to mess with the Pseudoscience entry, then it's just as bad if "skeptics" try to censor the Pseudoskepticism entry. I don't believe for one second the listed reasons for deletion. If they were true, then where are all the calls for deletion of "pathological science" and "pseudoscience," on the grounds that these other terms are inherently POV, or are nothing but no-true-scotsman fallacy, or are nothing but smear tactics? Should we delete "Creationism" because the term is inherently POV? Of course not. In fact, NONE of these terms are inherently POV, fallicious, etc., and all are useful and in use. Be honest now, and admit the actual reasons why this term needs to be hidden: Truzzi created a powerful weapon now being used by creationists and other believers, and it can be weilded as an effective rhetorical ploy to make the skeptic side of any debate look bad. This must be stopped!  :) Delete it from WP! (Yet the same issue is true of the words pseudoscience and pathological science. Perhaps a Creationist group should mount an attempt to delete the Pseudoscience entry. Get a big enough group working for months, and they can do it. Heh. They won't have to work very hard, since they can just copy all the "skeptic" arguments being used on this page!) --Wjbeaty 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the misunderstand also stems from (a) the misconception that non-NPOV is POV (b) That a POV requires an opposing POV to make an article NPOV. See WP:POV --Iantresman 12:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself to very much be a skeptic, and I defend the inclusion of this topic here. (I happen to be the ringmaster for the Skeptic Ring and the Anti-Quackery Ring, so I think I have a bit of understanding on the subject.) It is a real concept used in the real world, and therefore Wikipedia should cover it. I really doubt that many skeptics are totally free from occasionally giving way to pseudoskeptic tendencies. Who doesn't get a kick out of an occasional ad hominem attack on true believing idiots? (How was that for an example?....;-) Why do we love Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" program? Because we find it perfectly appropriate, in the name of humor, to make fun of our antagonists. Skepticism and pseudoskepticism abide side-by-side in many of us, and it is only our higher self that intellectually recognizes and attempts to suppress the tendency to sink to the same level as many of our antagonists, especially when involved in serious discussions (which Penn and Teller don't pretend to be doing, although they still are spot on much of the time). The same principle is involved in racism: much as we'd like to think we are totally free of racist tendencies, we actually often harbor them in one way or another. This is human nature. I still support a strong keep, but only after renaming to the much more common expression "pseudoskepticism." -- Fyslee 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GabrielF/911TMCruft notes: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." --Iantresman 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look through the citations, you'll find that all the Truzzi references come from his paper "On Pseudo-Skepticism", of which the 12 references [3]-[14] all details Truzzi's "Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism" by noting the context. These references could be replaced with a single general reference to the paper, but we'd loose the context. Of the remaining 8 citations, Truzzi is referenced twice, not bad since he probably contributed more to the subject than anyone else. --Iantresman 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles about pseudoskepticism appear to be attributable to Truzzi. If you can find others who wrote about pseudoskepticism, please include material you consider relevant, or list the source so others can assess it. --Iantresman 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, as I said, perhaps the granularity of this article is unsupported by the narrow context in which the term is applied, and the narrow body of work in which it is described.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This logic sounds a little like "heads I win, tales you lose". WP has articles on other memes originated primarily by one person (e.g., selfish gene). Truzzi's ideas aren't nearly as famous as Dawkins', but they have been picked up by others, and Truzzi himself was notable by WP standards. I agree with Iantresman's point below re WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (WP not paper, OK to represent even tiny minority views adequately in articles about them). -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truzzi was Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University with a good track record of books,[208] and articles,[209]. He also help found the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and became editor of its journal, The Zetetic (later to become The Skeptical Inquirer). I think it is fair to say that Truzzi is not unfamiliar with the subject, and the article information attributed to Truzzi is verifiable. Again, if you have other sources you feel are relevant, please include them. --Iantresman 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying Truzzi is not noteworthy, nor am I implying that he was not an expert on the subject. I'm implying that since he seems to either be the only expert on it, or at best one of a tiny few using the definition he codified, perhaps it is not as notable as you assert it is, and certainly not notable enough to carry an article by itself I am not against its mention in Wikipedia, it's covering one man's theories in this much detail that I'm opposed to.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept appears to have been around a long time before Truzzi. I do no dispute that Truzzi may have been the only person to write on the subject seriously. That there are articles mentioning the subject,[210] and thousands of Google hits,[211], I think makes it worthwhile. Wikipedia is packed with articles I personally consider non-notable; but I recognise that they be be notable to others, and they do me no harm. I am reminded that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper."WP:NPOV#Undue_weight --Iantresman 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dematt raises a good philosophical point. The phenomenon described by Truzzi exists in the same way that "pseudoscience" does: a pattern that the speaker wishes to highlight by critically differentiating it from another pattern (with which another speaker has perhaps erroneously identified it). There are cases in which some people may not believe that such differentiation is meaningful or important (e.g., nontheists who don't care about identifying various heresies). Still, if the meme is significant enough, I think WP should cover it. -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google results show great notability and common use of "pseudoskepticism"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy keep, nomination withdrawn. GRBerry 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rhodes[edit]

He might be the CEO of a fortune 500 company, but as an individuial he is not noteworthy enough to warrant his own page on Wikipedia Piuro 21:59, 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 -- csd g-11 (blatent advertising). Nuked Black Hole Gaming too. Once that article was mentioned, the advertising intent became obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawning[edit]

This page is extremely POV, and seems to be more of a marketting technique than any sort of article. If not delete, at least clean up.Rayonne 23:46, 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. This was a copy of quantapus which was deleted five times by different admins in the last few days. -- RHaworth 09:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe lagoon[edit]

This page is actually about the quantapus, which is apparently a creature. Google returns exactly 0 pages for quantapus, leading me to believe this is a hoax. Natalie 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been put under the heading horseshoe lagoon because that is where the quantapus lives.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take me for a walk[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I personally believe it is also under CSDA7 by "An article about a...band...that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:39, 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 deleted. From deletion log: "13:13, 23 October 2006 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) deleted "Carowhina" (attack page)." -- saberwyn 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carowhina[edit]

No encyclopedic value, non-notable, purely incendiary DukeEGR93 00:23, 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 keep. --Ezeu 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Molech in Popular Culture[edit]

This is a perfect example of an indiscriminate list of information, so it violates WP:NOT. Also, the guidelines in WP:AVTRIV recommend incorporating relevant trivia into the article rather than making a list. This article is kind of like throwing an old, broken refrigerator into your backyard because you don't want to pay to have it hauled off.Mr Spunky Toffee 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote something you wrote on Talk:Moloch: "Gero, your add was ok, for that section but the section itself is worthless. It should go. What possible reason can exist for that virtually useless collection of information?" --Blue Tie 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Mr Spunky Toffee 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but my views that it is useless information may not be shared by everyone. I find it especially bad in the article, but perhaps not so bad in a separate article by itself. I do not want to deny others an opportunity to add to the knowledge base, but I also do not want to adulterate the article by keeping it there. Does that make sense? (But yeah, I think some of this is really crufty and I accept your criticisms). --Blue Tie 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed to keep. It seems there actually is some precedent for these types of articles. There are other articles nearly identical to this one that seem to serve a purpose, but I wouldn't rule out a future AfD. AuburnPilotTalk 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that it is easy to control in the main article. --Blue Tie 01:37, 30 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford L. Gottesman[edit]

Subject is not notable. Claims to notability include that he is a local businessman, on a federal board, and father of George Bush's personal aide. Not really encyclopedic. Grouse 00:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On her userpage, User:Reinyday indicates that the surname Gottesman (for which she created an article) is important to her, along with a number of other specific genealogical topics. I would submit that what is notable for Reinyday in this regard is different from the rest of Wikipedia. Grouse 06:40, 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.
More