< October 29	October 31 >

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

The result was closed as a duplicate debate; other debate was no consensus. --ais523 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Autonomous work group[edit]

Is there some reason to believe this term is specific, and not just a phrase? Mike 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is relatively new, maybe we should give it a time. Assuming good faith, the editors have put some headers for possible improvements. Imoeng 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD was not listed, and its title doesn't correspond to the article. There was an AfD running at the same time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous work group that closed as no consensus. Therefore I'm closing this page; feel free to use the ((AfD in 3 steps)) process to renominate it if you still think it ought to be deleted. --ais523 09:40, 15 November 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 Keep and Move to Obsessive love. GringoInChile 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive Love[edit]

Delete due to it's lack of references (just two books) and no internet reference and it's wrongly capatilaztion "Obsessive Love" It also offers fairly limited information UnDeRsCoRe 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obsessive love is a well-known but rare psychiatric condition, usually in conjunction with delusional jealousy. Move to Obsessive love, though. --Steve 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - just plain stupid. --Mikey Mousey 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) User indef blocked for sockpuppetry/trolling/vandalism. Cowman109^Talk 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steve. Also, move to Obsessive love.--andrewI20^Talk 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can be improved. References are included, I cannot see why it should be deleted. Obviously the title should be changed. Imoeng 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are references, article is on a notable subject, title can be changed- all deletion justifications have been countered and addressed. Ratherhaveaheart 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs more references and some cleanup but, above all, it is a rather important medical conditon. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steve, and find some more references. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment- I agree now that it should be kept (just moved) and also does need a small clean up and possibly a little more (hopefully ones that can be accessed through internet) references. UnDeRsCoRe 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have moved it to Obsessive love --Steve 23:30, 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. Proto::type 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of songs (second nomination)[edit]

Note: This article has had a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.

• Strong Keep - This article is very useful, and there should be no reason for it's deletion - ZEROpumpkins 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh... Just read my replies to everyone else saying "It's useful!" -Amarkov ^babble 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This is the best article on Wikipedia and I use it constantly to find music. This is exactly the type of content Wikipedia was made for, and it's content that cannot be found anywhere else.

Is there a rule that someone with this argument must appear in every AfD for a list? It doesn't matter if it can be found elsewhere, nor does it matter if you think it's the best. And you're going to have to support your assertion that it's what Wikipedia was made for. Lists two levels removed from actual content seems to me a perfect example of what Wikipedia is NOT for. What's next, List of meta-lists? -Amarkov ^babble 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists.....4.18GB 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Im with 4.18 on this. THe lists keep n growing! Chris Kreider 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - but first, make sure a category corresponds to each heading and make sure each article in this list has the appropriate category tag. That's the only way to keep a list like this maintainable. The list of articles in a category auto-maintain themselves. =Axlq 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (edit conflict) categorize this self-referential and no added value list.-- danntm ^T _C 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and put into category space as above.Jcam 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its very listcrufty. The only list of lists we need id List of Lists. Tarret 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost a joke. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move into category space Z388 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to category space? Maybe it should be a sub-category of Category:Categories of lists? -Amarkov ^babble 03:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he means assure that any list here is in Category:Lists of songs.--T. Anthony 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That makes sense, although "move" is an odd wording. -Amarkov ^babble 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, listcruft. EVula 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is the greatest article ever. Listcruft is fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweifel (talk • contribs)

  Keep - useful. --Mikey Mousey 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) User indef blocked as blatant sockpuppet/troll/vandal (all of the three work, really). Cowman109^Talk 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - listcruft. it it did exist, it'd be suited better it there was a category called Category: Lists about songs. or something to that affect. --andrewI20^Talk 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but "categorify" per Z388 and T. Anthony. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I performed this categorization; there were about 24 articles that were not in the cat (some others were in a subcat of the cat). --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or move to "Lists of Listcruft" Elomis 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination Imoeng 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep per previous AfD. Why is this even relisted?  Grue  15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the neverending war to eliminate all non-exhaustive lists at Wikipedia. (Exhaustive lists being like List of Canadian provinces and territories by population) It's not likely they'll ever succeed at eliminating non-exhaustive lists, but it's important for some to try. Still I'm not certain this particular one is useful so I'm not voting at present.--T. Anthony 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a category, no reason to duplicate it as a list. shotwell 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this should be categories. Thanks to Dhartung for doing the categorization grunt work.--Isotope23 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmanageable and unwieldy. Most of the lists themselves are unnecessary (for example, List of songs by XXX - I'd go to XXX and expect the songs to be listed in the article.) Agreed with all those who said that non-exhaustive lists should be eliminated, but this is a good place to start. Emeraude 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hi they are called categories. Recury 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but only if every single one gets categorized. --Lyght 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Explain what's the difference between this and the list of mathematics lists, which is not only acceptable but is actually a featured list. I say keep it. 129.98.212.58 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplicate of a category listing. feydey 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if its good enough for a category, its good enough for a list. Frankly "ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists" sounds like "This is gonna get renominated time and time and time again until we finally get shot of the thing, regardless of the result of however many nominations it takes" Jcuk 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far more useful as category than list. Jay32183 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categories are the way. utcursch | talk 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lists never redundant with categories. AndyJones 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: where else would you list those lists? A category couldn't replace it (would alphabetize them on "L" as in "List". Strange AfD. -- User:Docu
  • You can change the sort keys and sort them however you like. If you wanted to alphabetize "List of lists of songs" under "songs" you would put [[Category:Music-related lists|Songs]].Recury 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far more complicated than keeping this list. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lists of television series episodes hasn't had any problem maintaining a category. Jay32183 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See also my comment one line above. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is what categories are for. In fact, this is what Category:Lists of songs is for. GRBerry 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's useful. It's much easier to read than a category page. It makes Wikipedia easier to navigate and thus easier to use. If I have understood this project's objectives correctly, the aim of the Wikipedia project is to gather information that can be found elsewhere, but make it harder to use. Therefore this excellent article should be deleted. --Multivitamin 22:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Multivitamin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.-Amarkov ^babble 23:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 08:24, 5 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 speedy delete per CSD A7 and CSD A3. --Coredesat 07:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatkid Dodgeball[edit]

Non-notable local band, does not meet WP:BIO; article makes no claim of notability. Dsreyn 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly add a line in National Dodgeball League (if it existed) --Steve 03:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Leoniceno 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another non-notable band. Elomis 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Possible CSD A1 and A7. Imoeng 11:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, not only is it non-notable, it qualifies for "empty". DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 21:27, 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. Dakota 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Call Me Mr.Chet[edit]

A film created by some high school students for a competition. Fails WP:RS, among other things, and is suspected WP:VANITY. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN highschool film. Resolute 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN, Vanity, zero googles. --Steve 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable film. EVula 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously non-notable. Also no reference whatsoever. Imoeng 11:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable student film. JIP | Talk 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't have an IMDb entry. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither does Succubus. On the other hand, Succubus was released on DVD and can be bought in Helsinki and Turku. It has also had reviews in a couple of Finnish magazines. This film, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be known to anyone not involved in its production. Just to remind you that IMDB isn't be the be-all and end-all of film notability. JIP | Talk 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school, interesting that this case applies literally. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this isn't notable. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:17, 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 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etch (Debian)[edit]

Article about the upcoming release of the Debian Linux distribution. While Debian is a very important distro in the Linux world, an individual release isn't really encyclopedia-worthy - see the deletion discussion on the article about the Dapper Drake release of Ubuntu. Any worthwhile information should be merged into the main Debian article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Merge and Redirect to Debian. I'm weak on this because while I think having the information is ok, it's also iffy in that it'll be obsolete soon enough. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if only for consistency, as the prior releases are already mentioned as bulleted names and dates in Debian without their own articles. Add new features/functionality back into Debian. --Steve 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Steve's comment. EVula 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh, delete I can't see this as a very good redirect, and the article's purpose falls a bit to close to non-encyclopedic/trivial crystal ball content. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think there is or will be enough Etch-specific information to make this article worthwhile. —midg3t 05:30, 5 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. Dakota 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you afraid of the dark?: the next generation[edit]

This show appears to be a hoax, much like the author's other page being considered for deletion, Creep tonite.
slippered sleep 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax. Are You Afraid of the Dark? did exist [1], but no sources confirm the existence of this "next generation" one.--Húsönd 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if it's not a hoax, there are no sources outside of a youtube video commercial and a few webpages. JChap2007 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JChap2007, unverifiable. FreplySpang 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Teenagers posting in forums aren't sources. Fan-1967 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block the user already. Danny Lilithborne 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other comments. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 03:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoax. EVula 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Husond and JChap2007. Imoeng 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other comments. Tazz765 19:13, 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 delete. Dakota 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment spam number mystery[edit]

Importance not demonstrated. Some phenomenon that has to do with blogs, so what? Also bordering on original research. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources for this. JChap2007 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just an observation from a couple of blogs at present, perhaps create as a full article when the "mystery" is solved. --Steve 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not very encyclopedic. Fails WP:NOR. Imoeng 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, non-notable spam phenomenon. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is about postings on blogs. Sources are blogs. The whole article is about blogs. Delete. SupaStarGirl 20:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article just describes a non-notable spam phenomenon. Isn't that crazy! feydey 21:28, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden handcuffs[edit]

Assisting in Afd for user User:4.234.165.179; no vote. Henrik Ebeltoft 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a relatively commonly used device, designed to keep highly valued executives with a company. Although the article does not currently have sources, these should be very easy to find. JChap2007 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, a few minutes with Google found the following, from a trade journal, a newspaper article and a scholarly publication, respectively:

  [2]

  [3]

  [4]

  I'm sure a truly motivated editor could find more. JChap2007 02:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Google News Archive shows 1,870 hits for "golden handcuffs" so plenty of sources available in addition to those uncovered by JChap2007. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a valid business term, in a similar vein to a golden handshake --Steve 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a valid business term, particularly in Australia. Elomis 08:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering a number of sources available, the article can be improved. Imoeng 12:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A familiar term from investing and corporate management, and widely encountered in business reporting. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Web searches, searches of newspaper web sites and searches of online database generate thousands of hits. A frequently used term in business discussions. The entry could be much improved, but should not be deleted. Golden handcuffs are commonly used in situations where a company is likely to go through a major transformation (IPO, acquisition, restructuring, etc.) to make sure that key employees have an incentive to stay. Rentir 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure we could find thousands of sources, but so what? This is a dicdef pure and simple and belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles which are notable, yet in a sub-stub/dicdef state usually suffer from a lack of expansion because they are orphaned (as is this one). That doesn't mean we should delete them. A cleanup tag, some cats and a stub template or two can usually alert the right editors who have the ability to expand it. Look beyond the state of the article...vote by topic. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Common term. Article is beyond dictionary status. --Marriedtofilm 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Potential to expand beyond dicdef. Common use in media ("Ant and Dec signed a golden handcuff deal with ITV") and sport. Rockpocket 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a common business term, could use some work and expanding TheRanger 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a common business expression, and I have just made another link to it. Anthony Appleyard 17:03, 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 Keep. Maxberners 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frot[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Its a neologism, there are few if any reliable secondary sources using this term to describe this subject, most use of this term is in blogs or self published online editorials which reference to a website on which this term supposedly originated Onhm 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I suggest we move it, rather than merging or deletingOnhm 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Frottage. (sidenote: lol at the image) --- RockMFR 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also note the female counterpart Tribadism. Both articles seem to be of similar quality and content. If we're going to merge one, we should probably merge both. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tribadism seems to be notable, both as a sex position and historically, but tryin to figure out the difference between "frot" and "frottage" is making my brain hurt. There's also a surprising amount of anti-anal-sex POV propagandism in the 'frot' page that should go out if both pages are merged. --Charlene 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Men can do both frot and anal. Nevertheless the cultural importance of frot (as equivalent to tribadism) emerged as part of a polemic against anal sex. Especially in relationship to the threat of AIDS to gay men. This is simply a historical fact. Describing the polemic neutrally doesnt necessarily reflect the opinion of the Wikipedia article. --Haldrik 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Against deleteTerm is a neologism, but Wikipedia does not have a policy against neologism, just a bias, since most of them require original research to support. In this case, there are supportable references (even though few), and so being a new term is not a problem. Content is distinct from other articles, including frottage. As for the "POV propagandism", well the term is primarily about non-anal-sex, so what would anyone expect? Should we delete it because it is a type of sexuality we ourselves don't practice? That wouldn't seem right. Atom 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Frottage, (sidenote: also lol at the image) Elomis 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Agree with RockMFR and Elomis. Both the merge comment and the LOL (really, no offense). Imoeng 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a form of frottage, distinct from tribadism. And I don't see anyone nominating that for deletion. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Against merge - Frot refers to male-male genital-genital sex, frottage does not. The term frottage can't be used because it refers to MANY methods of sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, clothed or naked, genital or non-genital. Frottage doesn't connote male-male genital-genital sex. Only frot specifies it. Frot exactly parallels tribadism, which is female-female genital-genital sex, and to keep tribadism while deleting frot would be severe discrimination. Frot refers to an extremely notable, primordial method of sex (it even exists among bonobo), despite the fact that Greek/Latin and thus traditional English lacks a word for it. It is customary in Wikipedia to use whatever term is prevalent for a specific sex position, regardless of whether its origin is slang or the porn industry, because medical jargon is often useless for describing specific positions. In this case, frot is the prevailing term. Genital sex doesn't automatically require penetration, and to imply that frot isn't real genital-genital sex because real sex must include penetration is a male heterosexual bias, and discrimination against other forms of genital sex, including tribadism. --Haldrik 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I dont think people are questioning the act, nor denying the convenience of it mirroring tribadism. The deletion revolves around whether the term is notable, not the act. No one is arguing whether their should be an article about men rubbing penises, people are arguing whether their should be one called Frot. - UnlimitedAccess 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no problem with the term "frot". It's the term that is used, and it has multiple sources. --Haldrik 05:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haldrik's got a point. ♠PMC♠ 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment firstly what you described with the naming conventions isnt the case, compare with Oral sex, I'm sure "blow job" is a lot more common in the vernacular but thats not what we title that article, we use the technical term, also sexual intercourse is not listed at "fuck", masturbation is not listed at "jacking off".

But just to humor this train of thought lets look at what its called in pornography, go check out http://www.cocktocockstories.com, only one instance that I could see of it being called frot, apparently as a present tense verb form of frottage, everywhere else its just called "frottage" (kind of analagous to how straight people call penile-vaginal sex "intercourse") in fact "frot" isn't even in the warning list of things the site contains explicit images of. Go look at "My Waking Dream" (its under construction right now but here's an internet archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050204072328/www.keepstill.com/wakingdream/main.html?v=20040822) there's a section for "Dick2Dick" but nothing whatsoever for "frot". I'm pretty sure these sites weren't created with a heterosexual male bias.

Furthermore "frot" (http://www.salon.com/people/col/cintra/1999/05/19/povparty/print.html , http://www.upsideclown.com/2002_09_02.shtml ) and "frotting" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Frotting) can apparently be used as synonyms for frottage, including heterosexual frottage. Onhm 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Onhm makes a good point. Slang terms typically redirect to articles with technical titles. It also seems like the inventor of the term is the main contributor to the article, which might be somewhat inappropriate.Jermor 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frot cant be merged with frottage because then Tribadism would have to be merged too. --Haldrik 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No one has to do anything. People are arguing 'Frot' isn't a notable term, whereas people here accept Tribadism is. Haldrik, I suggest you should argue why an article called 'Frot' should exist rather than argue that for political correctness we need an article analogous to tribadism. - UnlimitedAccess 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ATTENTION: Onhm is trying to delete the Frot article for petty personal reasons. Onhm/128.192.81.XX has been trying to blank and vandalize this article for months. Frot is an important article. I ask you all to not indulge Onhm's attempt to harm Wikipedia. Vote KEEP --Haldrik 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Haldrik. It seems the technical title would be "male-male genital-genital sex", which is too long and which itself seems would be neologism anyway since it seems the cited sources that refer to male-male genital-genital sex use the term "frot". If "frot" were merged to "male-male genital-genital sex", wouldn't tribadism also have to be merged to "female-female genital-genital sex" too? --Yarel 09:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL Should the technical title be "Dick2Dick"? The serious sources use "frot". --Yarel 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no serious sources, there's just that ridiculous website and porn, actually I would say porn is a good deal more serious because it actually caters to peoples desires without all that silly preaching, mentioning the source of this neologism would be one thing, but naming the article based on their term is blatant POV, if "Male-male genital-genital sex" is too long why not just call it "penis-to-penis sex" or "penis-penis sex" (which is already what its been called for some time now on the informal redirect found on Frot and Frottage), thats essentially what the pornographic sites call it except we would be using penis instead of "dick" or "cock". --Onhm 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS if you're concerned about the charges of vandalism just go and look on the pages history and talk pages, Haldrik considers anything that doesn't reflect his own POV "vandalism" --Onhm 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, Onhm childishly - but systematically - vandalizes any criticism of anal sex, whatsoever. Even historical discussions about the risks of anal sex with regard to AIDS. In fact, the only reason Onhm tries to vandalize the Frot article now, is because the word "frot" was coined to specify male-male genital-genital sex as a notable way for the gay community to have an alternative to avoid the health risks of anal sex. There is nothing wrong with defending the legitimacy of anal sex. But, it is vandalism to delete notable points of view that critique anal sex. Onhm likes anal sex and is just being childish. --Haldrik 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to call the technical title, "penis-to-penis sex", because it is a neologism that Onhm just invented now! "Frot" is ONLY technical term that SPECIFIES male-male genital-genital sex. --Haldrik 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI didn't mean it as a "term" I ment it as a description, some wikipedia articles use descriptions of things, rather than names of things as titles, but if thats a problem we could always merge to frottage, which is what its usually called anyway. Frot is not a technical term, its a neologism used pretty much exlusively by a highly POV webiste and people making reference to that website, the technical term is frottage, even gay porn sites one of which speicalizes in penis to penis sex call it frottage, theres not a more specific technical term, it doesn't exist, and its not prejeduced or discriminatory to refuse to pretend otherwise.
• quote: "childishly - but systematically - vandalizes any criticism of anal sex, whatsoever."

go over to the anal sex article and see if I've made ANY recent edits to it AT ALL, go over to the frot articles history or talk pages, I didn't touch the "Advantages of Frot" section until a third party said it was POV, even then I kept the safer sex comparisons to anal and oral sex

• quote: "But, it is vandalism to delete notable points of view that critique anal sex."

that just happened to be in the WRONG ARTICLE and totally given undue weight (we're talking multiple paragraphs with paragraph long quotes) I could care less if you wrote about that sort of thing in the anal sex article, it would at least be on topic there

• quote:"Onhm likes anal sex"

No as a matter of fact I don't, and I don't think anal sex is perfectly safe or natural or any of that, not that its any of your goddamn business.

Onhm 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Onhm 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Atom and others. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The point is, quite simply, that "frot" is not the term in general use for this type of sexual activity. It's a valid article, because the practice certainly exists, but "frot" is not the correct title for it, because nobody calls it that except for one agenda-driven website. Wikipedia does not exist to promote new terms that people would like to apply to their favourite things; it exists to document the terms that are in general use. This term has no actual currency in normal discussions of sexuality; the article needs to be titled with a term that people actually use. Move to any appropriate alternate title. Bearcat 01:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Haldrik. Opposed to merge with frottage, the term is too broad. 142.163.78.108 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Frottage isn't the technical term. Frottage is an archaic term which has an entirely different meaning. It would be like merging the entry for "sexual intercourse" into one marked "plow", since fuck is the old english word for plow. Similarly, frottage is about rubbing strangers on trains, but frot is personal and purposeful. It would be a mistake to merge or delete this entry.Xsaithx 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)xsaithx[reply]

"Frot" isn't the technical term, either. The term "frot" does not exist outside of the "g0y" website's readership. You cannot enforce your own invented words onto Wikipedia just because you dislike the terms that actually exist. Bearcat 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frot and g0y have two completely seperate communities. Although similar, the people who coined the term "frot" are in no way involved with the people who came up with "g0y". 142.163.78.108 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's still a specific community's own term for something that simply isn't referred to with this name by anybody outside of that community. Bearcat 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in any event "frot" is not a word that is used outside this narrow little community, its not some widely recognized real-life term used by all men who like frottage (which is not an archaic term, I just showed everyone an online porn site that still calls it frottage not "frot") NPOV is about more than opinions, group-specific language is just as much a part of someones POV as their values, if most conventionally reliable sources as well as pornography call men rubbing their penises together "frottage" then thats what wikipedia should call it. Docking, mutual masturbation and intercrural intercourse can involve penis to penis contact as well (the penile bulb or "root" goes back between a the legs along the perineum) so the whole deal with keeping it to preserve "equal time" for different types of genital-genital sex shouldn't be an issue because frottage isn't the only sexual act that may or may not involve genito-genital contact depending on the sex and position of the participantsOnhm 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So by your logic we should delete the word klingon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon, because no one uses the word outside of a narrow little community. Maybe you're taking yourself too seriously here. Your proof that frot should be deleted is a porn site, while there is more than one community action group that is serious about promoting it (and not exploiting it for money) that uses the term "frot". Maybe we should change all words in wikipedia that don't meet the criteria of some pornographic website's lexicon? You complain about group-specific language and then discredit your argument by basing it on the group-specific language of the porn industry. Meanwhile you're ignoring the reality that outside of wikipedia, even if you succeed in your petty little quest to destroy this entry, the term "frot" will still be used as separate and distinct from the term "frottage." The end result of a merge for this term won't be increased accuracy of wikipedia, it will be the increased marginalization of wikipedia as innaccurate, out of date, and ultimately unreliable. Isn't increased reliability of wikipedia something that the community here should be fighting for ABOVE AND BEYOND any other personal problems with a group?Xsaithx 01:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)xsaithx[reply]

The reliability of Wikipedia is not increased by calling articles with titles that don't exist in the real world. And, for the record, "Klingon" is not a word whose use is restricted to a narrow little community; awareness of the term and what it denotes transcends the community it derives from. Millions of people who have no connection to Star Trek fandom know what a "Klingon" is, and there isn't any other word for it. "Frot", on the other hand, is a word that nobody outside of a couple of websites has ever even heard, denoting something which already has other names in actual use. Bearcat 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FFS, this is ricockulous. The term originated before g0ys.org and man2manalliance.org and ALL those ricockulous little sites created by otherwise grown men who are afraid that every gay man who engages in anal sex exists for the sole purpose of taking their masculinity away. What's even more ricockulous is that this whole thing went this far. It's moments like this that make me think being a "normal" het is just so much easier. RJ 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Atom. Let's move on. --66.32.90.7 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since "Keep" and "Merge" both count as "Keep" in an AfD, I'd have to say this looks like a perfect example of WP:SNOW. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to suggest creating two seperate articles, one for the frot / g0y / anti-anal groups and one for the physical act of rubbing genitals. Duncan282 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - frot is the physical act, I think g0y is the anti-anal "group", and that article has been deleted. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this article combines the physical act, which has existed for thouusand of years, with the group, which has only recently formed. Upon thinking it over, I have decided that these two topics are probably better suited together. Duncan282 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Despite the fact that frot has always existed, English didnt have a word for it. Now "frot" is the word that has come to be used for it, and its etymology is notable. Similarly, the Tribadism article talks about the etymology of term "tribadism". Originally, the Greek word had nothing to do with female-female genital-genital sex, but came to mean this only in relatively recent times. Originally the Greek word referred to a woman who used a dildo, which is irrelevant to its meaning today. The etymology of "tribadism" is notable, and must be described. There is a paragraph or so explaining (quite well) the origin and evolution of the term. It is the same with the Frot article. The etymology is notable. The term didnt emerge in the context of Greek women who wanted to sexually penetrate others, but in the context of American gay men who wanted to avoid anal sex. It's just a description of the origin and evolution of the term. Today, the term "frot" simply means male-male genital-genital sex. --Haldrik 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Frot" is a neologism coined by a specific group; it is not the word in general use for this type of sexual activity. Wikipedia does not exist to document every new word that people invent for things that already have other names in general use. Our role on Wikipedia is to document the actual terms in actual general use. Bearcat 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmmm, now why does it seem as if there're certain people here who have issues with gay terms? people coin words everyday and we have new words entering the dictionary everyday. wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and frot is used generally, although maybe not too generally for homophobes.

There's nothing homophobic about it; I'm an openly gay man and have never encountered the word "frot" in my life until this Wikipedia article showed up. I have encountered the act, but the word "frot" is not what the participants called it. The word is not used generally. Bearcat 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment quote: "So by your logic we should delete the word klingon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon, because no one uses the word outside of a narrow little community. Maybe you're taking yourself too seriously here. Your proof that frot should be deleted is a porn site, while there is more than one community action group that is serious about promoting it (and not exploiting it for money) that uses the term "frot""

Neither of which actually exists in any offline capacity or has any real world accomplishments or actual membership or anything of that sort, not that it would matter their "selflessness" would be no excuse to adopt their language over actual English terms. The technical English (borrowed from French) term for rubbing bodies together is frottage (even amoung gay men in gay contexts) [[5]], regarless of the fact that for some of us its also genito-genital sex. "Frot" is an neologism specific to a pair of websites (which is also used elsewhere as a direct synonym for frottage as I have already shown), we should not be listing certain types of sex at website specific neologisms when all other forms of sex have the dignity of being listed at their proper names. The difference between "frot" and "Klingon" is that entries like "Klingon" have no pretense of applying to the real world. If you're so concerned with how "noteworthy" these websites are then go then make articles for them instead of translating wikipedia into their cutesy little neologisms. Onhm 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, frot is a notable safer sex act. Nomination clearly lacks WP:POINT. - GilliamJF 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Which gay men have been calling frottage for years and still call frottage, not "frot" that word only exists in a very specific little online contextOnhm 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a notable safer sex act, certainly. "Frot", however, is not its generally-accepted and generally-used name. Bearcat 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frot is the only term for male-male genital-genital sex. It has multiple sources. Besides people DO use the term frot. People I know use it. The term frot is not a problem. --Yarel 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you kindly show some of those sources? Because I can't find a single example on Google of the word existing in general use; the only people using it out there on the web are those with a vested interest in promoting the term. Anyway, just on the off chance that my lack of experience with the term was somehow not representative of actual usage, I asked five different friends today what they would call this act. Every single one of them came up with "frottage". I then asked if they would ever abbreviate that to "frot", and every one of them looked at me like I was speaking Klingon. So is frot the term in general use? Is it the only term for this particular sexual act? Clearly not, on either count. Bearcat 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not independent reliable sources, in all the few cases I've seen of anyone writing the word "frot" anywhere outside that website they are either self consciously adopting the terminology of that webstie because they are commenting on it, or using it as a slang shortening of frottage like in those examples ealier where straight people were saying they liked to frot; when people talk about frottage in the same sort of contexts where people would say sexual intercourse rather than fucking. oral sex rather than blow job, and masturbation rather than jerking off, they call it "frottage", even on the other end of the spectrum in gay porn its called frottage (I think I've already cited both of these). Just like mutual masturbation is still mutual masturbation when the men's penises are touching, intercurural intercourse is still intercrural intercourse when the genitals are touching, just like heterosexual frottage is still frottage when the penis and clitoris are touching. Yes they are all genito-genital sex, thats wonderful, but the term doesn't change. If it had some prior (verifiable) existence as a regional slang term than it might still be notable only as a slang term (like fuck), not the proper place to list information on the sex act. Even things like rimming and tit-jobs are listed at anal-oral contact and mammary intercourse respectively, not the slang term and certainly not at internet neologisms.Onhm 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not part of the so-called "frot" group. I and the people I know use the word "frot". I sometimes hear the expression, "Frot is hot!" And even "frotilicious". It is a word. "Frot" is the only word to specify male-male genital-genital sex. --Yarel 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. Does Wikipedia become richer with such grotesque words? Disgusting! --AVM 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. It contains articles on subjects such as racial slurs, controversial political and religious groups and movements, and sexual acts.

StuThomas 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be deleted

Nobody's suggesting that it be deleted; the issue is around moving it to another title. Bearcat 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination by Onhm/128.192.81.XX to delete the Frot article has failed. As this is NOT the place to discuss merging articles, and as most users reject the deletion, I propose we close this discussion now and archive it. --Yarel 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing merges most certainly is permitted on AFD. Bearcat 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since "Keep and Merge" or "keep and redirect" are both "proper" closes to an AfD, the discussion is certainly appropriate. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Miller[edit]

There is no information about Drew Miller in the article other than that he was a pirate. The article mainly describes the Barbary Pirates, of which there is already a fairly decent and better article about. A search of Barbary Pirates named Drew Miller on different search engines returned no results of a Drew Miller who was a pirate other than a hockey player who played for the Portland Pirates of the AHL. Kraagenskul 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Barbary Pirates were Muslims from North Africa. I highly doubt one of them was named "Drew Miller." That, plus the article's lack of discussion of any of the exploits of Mr. Miller leads me to believe this is a hoax. JChap2007 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Apart from the first statement (which contains no claim to notability per se: what makes him notable compared to other pirates?), the article text does not concern the title person, and tackles a subject already dealt with in its own article. Nope. --Nehwyn 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pretty obvious WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources cited, nor are any found through Google. The article text is copied from the Barbary pirates article. -- Whpq 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons stated already. (But, for information, not all the Barbary Pirates were N. African Muslims. I heard a radio programme a while ago about an English sailor who was captured and enslaved by Barbary pirates, rose through the ranks and became one himself. Can't remember any more details unfortunately.) Emeraude 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One sentence is about Drew and the rest of the article is written in bad format about the Barbary Pirates. SupaStarGirl 20:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per every single comment above. Victoriagirl 03:58, 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 Speedy keep. Nandesuka 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Violence[edit]

This information is at best a subset of violence. Furthermore it is unsourced and extremely biased. At best, merge into violence if this "article" is worth anything at all.Hizzizzle 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep whatever the shortcomings of the article in its present state, the subject is clearly one that Wikipedia should be covering. However, the article is well sourced and basically in good shape and nominating it looks like an attempt to impose a very specific point of view on Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly a bad faith nomination, per this message that Hizzizzle left on my talk page. Gwernol 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I don't want to say "bad faith nomination", but it's looking that way. The article has an extensive references section and generally seems to be quite a healthy one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article as it is is indeed TERRIBLE, but the topic has PLENTY of information to merit its own entry. -Amarkov ^babble 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per above. Brimba 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per above. This article certainly needs work, but I wouldn't even consider it deletable. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:58, 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. Dakota 04:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of talk radio personalities[edit]

Delete -listcruft, already covered though various cats such as Category:American radio personalities Brimba 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need both lists and categories of something. -Amarkov ^babble 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories serve different purposes. A list can be annotated to allow for quick information on the names or it can be a source of expansion for the topic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for when they are appropriate.--T. Anthony 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listcruft. Elomis 08:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Listcruft", as a single word, is not an actual reason. There are lists in need of deleting, but just saying "listcruft" is about the same as just saying "I hate it." In fact it would probably be more honest if people would just say "I hate this stuff" than "listcruft."--T. Anthony 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is better dealt with as a category. --Nehwyn 10:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Nehwyn. Also the article would be very very long (remember, this is an international encyclopedia). Imoeng 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rather pointless list, because, at least from the UK section it is so arbitrary. There are very few local presenters; a large proportion of the others are much better known in other fields (Eamonn Holmes, for example, as a TV presenter and George Galloway as a Member of Parliament). Emeraude 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I hate this stuff. Listcruft. Recury 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- utterly unmaintainable. Haikupoet 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists are never redundant with categories. AndyJones 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The sheer size of the radio industry makes such a list pointless. A category is at least somewhat maintainable since the category process is largely automated, but lists have to be updated manually, and a list of talk radio personalities would be overwhelming in that regard. Even just national personalities or those limited to a major radio market would be rather long, never mind a comprehensive list. What I'm getting at is that such a list could never approach any reasonable standard of completion. Haikupoet 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists are a valid alternative to categories. -- User:Docu

They are a valid alternative, yes. Why does that justify duplicating categories in lists? If this list contained more information, you might be able to justify that, but it has NOTHING but names in it. -Amarkov ^babble 14:53, 1 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 Speedy delete a7 and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A league of their own (comic)[edit]

A possible hoax, maybe some kind of (self-)promotion for an inexistent comic book. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reasons this shouldn't be deleted:

1. This is not a hoax

2. This is not a zaku

--69.40.244.131 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. The subject fails to assert it's notability and thus fails WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, it fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lessee.... a comic book made up of copyrighted characters hijacked from everywhere from Star Trek to Duke Nukem? That's going to stay on the market for about a nanosecond. 101 pages, huh? HTH do you do THAT? Tubezone 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Absolutely no reason for this rubbish to stay on Wikipedia. EVula 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Consider WP:SNOW). Written by "Turd Ferguson" (a joke name popularized by SNL). --Wafulz 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB Elomis 08:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. --Nehwyn 10:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• F***ing nuke this BS as fast as possible. -- Kicking222 12:27, 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. Dakota 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cow goes moo[edit]

Non-notable webcomic, likely fancruft. Article is in poor shape anyway, written in POV and doesn't fit Manual of Style. DoomsDay349 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, just rewrite it to fit manual of style. Jontce 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless shown significant by proper sources. Friday (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Storong Delete- Nonsense.--SUIT⁴² 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Nothing of importance about this article. The Moof Cow, Apple computer's unofficial mascot, is more important, and it doesn't have an article. --Walter Görlitz 03:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Clarus does have an article at dogcow. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See how important it is! My day is now complete. However the Cow goes moo still should be deleted. --Walter Görlitz 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedy I believe is not an option since the speedy has been contested) In any case, no indication that this has any sort of notability and most of the content is completely unverifiable. Note also that the current article is horrible beyond repair. "sadly an evil capitalist bastard company stole the domain when it expired a year later" I can't see Wikipedia keeping such junk. Pascal.Tesson 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't want to be associated with such vile fiends that reside on the wikipediainterscapehighway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marge4 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Well, we've got another disgruntled new user...they appear far to often. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'cow goes delete' Z388 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes hwatever jsut hurry up and fucking delete it oh mighty person who has the awesome powar of what and what not gets to live. white supremacy, clearly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marge4 (talk • contribs)

• Remember to remain civil.--SUIT^Halloween? 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NN --Steve 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly, delete. Cow Goes Moo is more than notable enough for an entry, but I see the points being made for deletion. --Onepointfivevolt 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. Elomis 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft, and non-notable. --SunStar Net 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, Speedy Delete. Fancruft, pure fancruft. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'd just like to chip in, i am not a fan of cow, it is utter shit. crufts is for dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marge4 (talk • contribs)

• Delete - not notable. Xdenizen 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly is not notable TheRanger 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is awful. --- RockMFR 05:47, 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 redirect. W.marsh 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkai no Kodoku[edit]

A non-notable song that appears in a japanese cartoon series is hardly deserving of its own individual article. Delete Timon 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Amarkov ^babble 03:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral can't comment on Japanese notability, but I removed the lyrics as a copyvio --Steve 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy Keep notable song ghit 24200.--Eye Podc 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I only got roughly 600 google hits.[6] EVula 05:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was probably searching in Japanese, which finds 22700 for me. In any case, counting google hits isn't research. —Cryptic 08:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are cheap. Note that there is no article on ja:. —Cryptic 08:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searching in Japanese, I get 24,500 estimated results, but only 720 unique results, which establishes (if nothing else) that Google results can be used to argue anything. Regardless, there is clearly not much to be said about this song in an encyclopedia. I see little point redirecting to the series, since the lack of results in English implies that it is not a likely search term, but if other editors think it worthwhile I would have no objection to a redirect outcome either. — Haeleth Talk 12:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You may have a misconception about how Google counts unique hits. It takes the first 1000 results, then calculates how many of those are "unique," so there can never be more than 1000 unique hits. See WP:GOOGLE#On_.22unique.22_results. --Groggy Dice 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny per Lilithborne (and others). Imoeng 12:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The content of this article (Shinkai no Kodoku) can easily be incorporated into Stellar Loussier, the article is referring to. Considering this, it is far more useful to redirect this into Stellar Loussier, incorporate the text where appropriate. Also, considering that the article has a name obviously from Japanese, I doubt if a significant amount of people will search using the term "Shinkai no Kodoku". --Blackhawk charlie2003 14:06, 4 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. Dakota 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olitext[edit]

Olitext article documents a single person's software project that was abandoned and is no longer available. In the absence of a user community having formed around the software (there is no evidence of this) it's dead software that noone will remember. It's not encylopedic. Delete Alan De Smet | Talk 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the subject fails WP:SOFTWARE. I'd even go so far as saying speedy delete if WP:CSD#A7 included software. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete small scale software project that went nowhere --Steve 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article tells us that the library was never completed, was never used, and is no longer available - it might as well have never existed, really. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An unfinished and apparently unused amateur software. This borders on speedy. --Nehwyn 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE per Brad. Imoeng 12:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an unfinished, abandoned software project that isn't even available any where. Completely non-notable. JIP | Talk 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all reasons already stated. If we all had Wikipedia articles for thing we started and didn't finish... Emeraude 18:02, 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnfinn Nesset[edit]

We can't have an article on every felon in the world, and this guy does not seem more notable than others. Contested speedy. Amarkov ^babble 04:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, I must have typed the name incorrectly first time or something. -Amarkov ^babble 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, not every felon in the world is a cruel serial killer. His case was big news in Scandinavia in the 70s. bbx 09:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given this web page, this web page, this BMJ article, and many others that come up on a 30 second Google search, this person has clearly been documented in multiple non-trivial published works and satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Rather that guessing whether someone "seems" notable, I strongly recommend to the nominator to do the research before nominating, and check whether the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 12:00, 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. Dakota 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktus[edit]

Per WP:HOAX, patent nonsense, no references, no ghits exc WP mirrors, anon author, besides everyone knows maple syrup comes from giant ferns..Tubezone 04:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete nonsense --Steve 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G1 Patent nonsense. EVula 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speed Delete. Nothing but nonsense - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maple syrup is made from a "vicious liquid"?? No wonder pancakes are so scary. This is nonsense.OfficeGirl 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even funny. Emeraude 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. After seeing the AfD debate about ferns and vicious liquids I was prepared for a BJOADN, but it's just not that funny.--Isotope23 19:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maple syrup comes from maple trees. Delete. SupaStarGirl 21:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akido baracudda[edit]

Non-notable or non-existant martial art, possible hoax —Asatruer— 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Absolutely zero (and I mean zip, zero, nada, not even WP) ghits, no references, junk. Tubezone 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per above.--SUIT^Halloween? 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EVula 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mildly amusing joke. Danny Lilithborne 07:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Elomis 08:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not even getting any ghits for the correctly spelled "Aikido barracuda" OfficeGirl 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomPeter Rehse 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax, not formatted, etc. No notability at all. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 08:59, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music venues in Christchurch, New Zealand[edit]

WP:NOT a directory/resource for conducting business. — ERcheck (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or move to Wikitravel --Steve 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Elomis 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The author may of course recreate it on Wikitravel. --Nehwyn 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- outside the scope of Wikipedia. Haikupoet 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom- it's a directory, not even a list. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 09:33, 4 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesmond Dene, California[edit]

Delete: Notability not asserted Anlace 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of why this neighborhood is notable. TJ Spyke 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess. TJ Spyke 07:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an unincorporated town rather than a neighborhood. I added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems fine. Punkmorten 11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks real. --Marriedtofilm 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it should at least be improved to meet the quality of Susan Moore, Alabama OfficeGirl 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donka[edit]

This article is likely to be a hoax. If it is not, it is likely about an unnotable invention. The article is poorly cited and appears to violate WP:OR and WP:V.

• Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only references are in bottom fishing and bream, both added by the same indefinitely blocked editor who created donka and who had a history of disruption. --Steve 05:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Probably a copyvio: the article appears to have mostly translated directly from the Russian web page used as a reference. Of course, THAT could be a hoax, too. Tubezone 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's a hoax - neutral, leaning towards delete if shown to be otherwise. FWIW, there was a fairly popular single by The Headless Chickens by this title which might just be big enough for an article at this name should this be deleted. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per above. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is original research and more over it looks to be a hoax, was unable to find anything to support TheRanger 01:16, 1 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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Acolyte (Producer)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, linkless, purely promotional. - crz crztalk 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be a vanity article. Most sources are blogs. --Ineffable3000 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G11 Blatant advertising. Ridiculous. EVula 05:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I take back my previous statment about deletion. The Acolyte is a significant figure within a subculture, although not wellknown like all producers and DJ's. --Notmyhandle 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add some info for the debate - The Acolyte's works have only recently begun to appear in more known areas (DDR), the lack of songs goes against him, but the fact they exist there and are noted (I forgot to add the reference for DDR Universe, where one of his songs will be featured: http://www.hurricanejapan.com/home.asp Hurricane Japan works with companies like Konami to find individual artists and then submit their work, thats how he's gotten into other DDR games). What really is the problem, advertising? The fact that references are made to the artists own website? If removed and sufficiently replaced would anyone have a problem? --Notmyhandle 23:49, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Expansion v/s Macro expansion in Business[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Author has written an Original Research, personal opinion essay, and thinks this is the place to post it. I disagree. Fan-1967 05:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (but gently) as original research. Interesting theory. If it can be rewritten with proper citations and moved to a more plausible title, it might be a keeper. - Lucky 6.9 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but re-name) not so much original research - more like stating the obvious in a very clumsy way— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.106.130 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. However, if it is rewritten, it should stay. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a personal essay, not an article. Have you tried contacting a magazine? JIP | Talk 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an aessay and original research. Nothing salvageable. -- Whpq 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An essay as has been said, and admittedly and unashamedly personal point of view. Not recoverable, but the author could possibly start again and present the details in an encyclopaedic form. Emeraude 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear violation of WP:NOR --Steve 23:53, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen Enigma[edit]

As Moogy so eloquently put it, "random fangirl garbage". This is a story that is in the process of being written by an amateur. --Random fangirl 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep my heart & soul were put in2 this article..................................... 70.36.88.64 06:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, violates WP:V as there is no evidence that this even exists, and even if it did, it probably would not meet WP:FICTION. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and WP:NOT. Infobox says Studio-Yet to be chosen Network-Yet to be shown Original run-not for – a while. Unpublished so fails notability, WP isn't supposed to be used to create notability. No ghits exc WP mirrors. I would suggest author copy the article onto a personal web page before it gets zapped, there's plenty of places to do that and other appropriate methods to promote creative projects. So don't give up, just don't put it here....Tubezone 06:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Put your heart and soul into something else. Danny Lilithborne 07:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete "to blow away shoju cliches" kinda points out the fancruftiness. Elomis 08:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Why do people create these articles? - jlao ⁰⁴ 12:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Er, I'm not sure what's up with the nominating account; it looks like a sockpuppet to me. Nevertheless, the article is about a work in development with no coverage from independent external sources. It's essentially using Wikipedia to advertise, in violation of What Wikipedia is not. Only internal links were added by scripts or anons. Definitely delete. --Slowking Man 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not released, no sources, no studio, no evidence of real existence. -- Whpq 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and get a website --Steve 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable Fangirl cruftslut 02:00, 1 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit neighborhood gangs[edit]

Delete due, primarily, to WP:RS. Because of the unsourced nature of this article, it is prone to vanity (!) edits, addition of non-notable gangs, and so forth. Essentially, it is an orphaned article, and is listcruft. Any sourced content can at worst be categorized under Category:Detroit gangs (which is in itself the only content categorized at Category:Gangs by location. This running list is, however, unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Khoikhoi 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think it's prone to vanity, because boyz from da hood have other things to do than adding themselves to Wiki. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would think that is the case, but I point you to Neighborhoods and projects in Detroit, Michigan where anons (and a few registered users) have a tendency to come and add variations of "it's the most dangerous neighborhood in Detroit" to article subsections, presumably for the neighborhoods they grew up in. See also Glock 3. There are plenty of people apparently willing to beef up their street cred on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - currently it's unsourced, and street gangs by their very nature are a difficult subject to source. As it stands, it's a magnet for anyone to declare that they're part of a "gang", as could well already be the case in this list and as has previously been the case with gangs claiming to exist in other places. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 12:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redlink farm, and most of these would be A7'ed even if articles were created. "Red Rag Milatary", for example, gets no Google hits (and neither does "Red Rag Military") Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Viscious Circle, one user is now creating stubs for each Detroit gang, they are being deleted (so links stay red), and now the article itself is beeing deleted because of red links. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, maybe it's just me, but that might signal a general lack of notability/verifiability for 95% of the contents of this list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does every gang in Detroit deserve article in Wiki? No it doesn't. But "Gangs in Detroit" I think deserve separate article. User that currently works (in vain) on gangs of Detroit should expand current article, instead of creating stub for each gang. As to verifiability - 50-70% of what he writes can be verified, he knows what his writing about. He simply does it the wrong way, and sadly Wiki community does not want to help him at all. Sure "Delete it all", that's the easiest solution. Why should we get bothered. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the point. How can we verify that any given gang on this list is in fact (A) a gang and (B) a notable gang which is worthy of inclusion here? Except in the most exceptional of circumstances, I doubt we can. By their very nature, gangs only really get mentions when their members are arrested. What we have in this list is a bunch of names which people call themselves when they hang out with their friends and (probably) commit petty crimes. Writing an article on any of those gangs currently redlinked doesn't mean that they suddenly become more than your run-of-the-mill petty hoodlums. If the articles which are being created are being deleted, it probably says more about the lack of sourcing than anyone else's commitment to the project. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user currently writing about gangs has problems with sourcing, but the sources are there. For example recently speedy deleted article on Dexter Linwood Area could have been sourced [7]. I agree that DLA maybe does not deserve article of its own, but it was worth putting into main Detroit gangs article. If hostilities between gangs drag on for more than 25 years, there is more to it, than just quarrel between bunch of hoodlum kids. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true enough, and it may well make the particular gangs in question notable. What it doesn't, though, is warrant the existence of this very large and open-to-abuse list. I'm not saying that there aren't notable gangs in Detroit or anywhere else, just that having a list where every single self-described gang can list itself is a recipe for disaster. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wiki is about. Its concept (that anyone can write anything) is a recipe for disaster, and the only articles not open-to-abuse are ones that are currently blocked for editing (due to previuos abuse). But yet Wiki manages not to turn into complete chaos. Article about gangs is also managable - quick google check can separate sourced and notable gangs from bunch of kids from the hood. But who gets bothered with fact checking and finding sources these days, then there is such a quick and easy solution as AfD, or Del per nom. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not better policy to create a series of well-sourced articles on Detroit (or anywhere else) gangs first and list them later, rather than doing it the other way around? If the sources are out there and added, the articles won't get deleted in the first place. Typecasting me as a deletionist is hardly a useful thing to do either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not typecasting YOU as a deletionist, I'm just saying that most of people (not all), that are complaining that "this or that" is unsourced or unverified, didn't try to find sources or verify facts for themselves. Further more I have noticed, then the article is dealing with certain subcultures, standarts become very high. When a bunch of white boys are singing in Catholic church choir we don't need much sources for that, but then a bunch of not so white boys engage in social activities rarely admired by general public, in that case the need for sources suddenly arises. But even if sources are provided, that does not always help, for example DLA article was tagged for speedy deletion, I've put hangon tag, provided source in the talk page, never the less, the article was speedy deleted. Another example then provided sources seem not to help can be found here [8]. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standards are (in my experience) roughly the same across the board. Have a look at the number of AfDs on college acapella groups - the overwhelming majority of which at least verifiably exist but aren't notable. These gangs are largely the same case - verifiable existence (at best, something which doesn't necessarily apply to every single one) but lacking in notability. In terms of sources themselves, all these examples prove is that it's about the strength of what's provided. In the case of the DLA, you've said earlier on that perhaps they don't deserve an article, and that view was supported by the deletion of the article. Adding a hangon tag doesn't magically make the article immune from deletion, it warns the admin who sees it that there's perhaps more to the story - perhaps not enough more to make it keepable, but more nonetheless. In the case of the Order of the Left Hand Path, I'll post my comments at that AfD to spare everyone here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BigHaz, Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverified, unencyclopedia-worthy even if verified. —Angr 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and for the most part unverifiable. -- Whpq 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no predjudice against later recreation of an actual encyclopedia article on Detroit's gangland history. Right now this is mostly redlinks, and the few bluelinks there are are either misdirection to existing articles with the same name, gangs that started outside Detroit (Latin Counts & Latin Kings), or extremely poorly sourced articles that themselves should be reviewed, like Black Mafia Family (who's activities are so diffuse that they can't really even be considered a Detroit gang at this point) & Cash Flow Posse. Someone could write a good article on Detroit Gangs that included the history of gangs in Detroit from the time of The Purple Gang up through and including Young Boys Inc. and Cash Flow Posse. This however is not it and it is not even a good start in that direction.--Isotope23 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, unverifiable and most of the existing links are to unrelated articles, eg. vandals --Steve 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I really like the idea of a gang called the Woodrow Wilson boyz. (And I did attempt to verify that one myself; unfortunately, Google hasn't heard of them.) Incidentally, I had to restore the AfD notice on the article; according to the history, I'm not the first person who has had to do this. ergot 01:49, 1 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. Sufficient evidence has been provided that these films do not meet notability guidelines, and arguments for inclusion have not provided sufficient sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votergate[edit]

Delete as a non-notable, advertisment collection of films. Tbeatty 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominiator--Tbeatty 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Article now has (slightly) more content, with more coming. There are now no links to sales sites, and the videos have ALWAYS been available for free. I STRONGLY object to any articles concerning voting rights, voting fraud, voting suppression, etc, being deleted before the elections of Nov 7, 2006. Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any political platform. If you wish to advertise to voters in one country's elections, you must do it elsewhere. Uncle G 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as an attack page, itself. Still not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who is supposedly attacked? If there was no basis for speedy delete as an attack in the AfD for "Clinton Chronicles" then that argument fails here too, and it should turn on notability. I do not see in the article sales figures, or figures for number of downloads or number of DVDs in circulation, or mainstream mention as was used as arguments to keep the aforementioned film of the other political flavor recently. Is this related in some way to the HBO film to be shown Nov 2? If there is "more content coming" after 2 years, then bring it on. Edison 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable films, not an advertisement (judging by the current article revision), clearly not an attack page. A politically-motivated nomination for deletion would be a clear violation of Wikipedia spirit and policy. Auto movil 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not speedy though. I don't think this meets the speedy requirement of an attack page. It is however a film with no external sourcing to demonstrate any sort of notability. The only thing I can find is that it apparently screened at the 2004 Hampton International Film Festival. To me that isn't sufficient to prove this film is notable. Considering the lack of any external sourcing demonstrating notability and the fact that the only real reason being advanced to keep runs counter to WP:NOT a soapbox, I think this is a clear case for deletion.--Isotope23 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable. One screening [9], no awards, being distributed by the makers (see distributors), no wide release, no theatre release at all actually. The page is also highly unsourced and unverified, so per WP:V as well. --NuclearZer0 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 55,000 Google hits ought to furnish notability in the absence of any approved guidelines governing films. I don't have a dog in this race, but I think we all know what the notability guidelines were set up to achieve: Filtering out trivial stuff like YouTube segments and student films, while preventing deletions of films that have some meaure of past or current relevance. Additionally, when liberals or conservatives attempt to delete articles they don't agree with, the community suffers. Auto movil 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That same community suffers when liberals and conservatives attempt to keep non notable articles to push a POV. 55,000 articles does not reflect the movie does it? considering many of those do not even mention the movie. Also its 575 unique items and many of those simply refer to the controversy the movie was named after, not vice versa. --NuclearZer0 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to POV with you. You guys have an edit history, and if you want to gather to vote for deletion on an article that's counter to your political opinions, it's your responsibility to make neutral decisions. Auto movil 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure how you POV with someone, or who "you guys are". I also see your only arguement for notability is google hits, I countered that, feel free to debate me on the merits of my arguement. --NuclearZer0 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • To rephrase from somewhat idiomatic English: I'm not interested in pursuing a discussion on POV, however it is the case that several voters here have similar -- and indeed overlapping -- edit histories, in which politics opposed to those of the film seem to play a substantial part. My Google search, perhaps using different terms, turns up what appears to be over 55,000 hits for the film. Auto movil 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 535 unique hits, mainly blogs and adverts it seems. Further as Morton points out below, it fails Notability (films). I am not interested in discussing POV either, you seem to be the only one bringing it up repeatedly however. --NuclearZer0 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and doesn't meet any of the notability requirements listed in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Morton devonshire 02:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NuclearZero GabrielF 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Auto movil. Plenty of ghits for "votergate movie". Seems about as strong a case as my recent (successful) keep vote to keep the Clinton Chronicles. Note that the Wikipedia:Notability (films) is only a proposal, which means it does not have consensus. Clinton Chronicles didn't meet it either. Derex 07:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So you feel many google hits is enough for a movie to warrant an article on Wikipedia? Would think include many youtube videos? --NuclearZer0 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ignoring Zer0 per my policy.[10] Derex 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope that closing admin takes that under advisement, this user only has "google hits" as a determination of ntoability. We all know the youtube flood gate that would open. --NuclearZer0 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That's not the case. 1) The film was shown at at least one major festival, and is commercially available. 2) Your Google search seems to produce rather different results from other Google searches, and a link would be appreciated. 3) The 'YouTube floodgate' implies that professionally-made, budgeted independent films with a festival presence are indistinguishable from videos that kids make at home with camcorders. I believe there's a clear and obvious distinction which need not be explained. Auto movil 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Conclude your search then cycle through the number of pages until there are no more, tell me how many are listed at the top entries C - X of Y. That X is the total of unique hits, meaning if one page mentions it 8000 times, then you will get 8000, however 1 entry. Hits and unique hits are different. This also counts for pages on a domain, so if we use livejournal as an example, it will consolidate all of the livejournal hits into 1 entry, that is a unique hit. Hopefully that helps you understand how google works a little better and why the google test is not used. --NuclearZer0 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment on Google Methodology' - I believe I understand the way Google works. Please see here for Wikipedia's 'Google Test' page, which explans why such techniques are not recommended. Auto movil 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Its good we were able to come to an agreement that Ghits are not valid in determining notability, as the article itself constantly points out. --NuclearZer0 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be good in that case to strike your argument about '575 unique Google hits,' which is based on methodology specifically warned against by the Google Test article. In comparison, the figure of 55,000 ghits represents an uncontroversial and indeed near-universal observation in regard to VfDs. I don't believe you're claiming that ghits are inadmissible on principle. Because if so, that's quite a long and involved argument with far-reaching consequences, VfD-wise. Auto movil 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I am, the article you linked on the google test explains repeatedly that its not a fair assessment of notability. Please read it more carefully. Thank you. Also considering you never actually debated my points in relation to release, money earned or anything else in notability (films) I will take this back and forth as over, and quite pointless as it seems your own proof google test says its not all too reliable either. --NuclearZer0 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (many colon marks) I believe my argument is that in addition to 55,000 ghits, the film was shown at at least one major festival, was budgeted and professionally made, and as such is not equivalent to a YouTube video. You seem to want to 'win' this discussion, and I am perfectly willing to let you do so. However, it would be good if you could state your argument for deletion once and plainly, rather than using 'delete' as a constant around which different and contradictory arguments may orbit. Auto movil 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you are talking about, you actually replied to my arguement. I will lay it out again if its not clear: Non notable. One screening [1], no awards, being distributed by the makers (see distributors), no wide release, no theatre release at all actually. The page is also highly unsourced and unverified, so per WP:V as well Hope that helps, it is listed above. As for winning, AfD is for discussion on the topic, this isnt a vote, so debating your point, ghits being a useful guage of notability is perfectly valid, however if you do not want to defend that point I understand and will not reply to you anymore. --NuclearZer0 12:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a succinct summary. Thank you. My disagreement comprises three points: 1) Participation in a major film festival is notable, and is not fairly described as 'one screening,' which implies that the film was only screened once, somewhere. In fact, there seem to be multiple screenings. 2) Ghits are generally considered a quick-and-dirty test of notability, despite claims made in this discussion that they carry no weight at all. This is an uncontroversial statement that would ordinarily be regarded as a priori true. My position is that it is inconsistent to create an estimate of 575+/- unique hits (from a total of 55,000) as an argument toward deletion, and then to disallow ghits entirely when such methodology is shown to be faulty. 3) Re: distribution, theatre release, etc., yes, you may have a point. Auto movil 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps those film festivals are not widely recognized that the IMDB page does not often recognize them, some seem to be specifically guaged at that genre of work, meaning its not a industry film festival. If it was Cannes, I would think there would be a sense of notability, at least if it won an award. However appearing in festivals that are crafted for tis type of film is not the same as industry festivals like Cannes. The basic idea is notability, appearing at non-notable places does not increase that. As for the ghits arguement, sorry if you misunderstood me. I do not believe in the google test and attempted to argue on your basis before just dropping the bomb that the article itself says its not reliable. It was an attempt to reacha middleground, perhaps us stating its something to attribute but not establish, like a piece of the puzzle. However that went south. --NuclearZer0 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google hits are essentially meaningless when it comes to determinations of notability. There is a reason why the Google test has never become an accepted guideline; because it is an inconsistant measure of notability. Quality of the sources is much more important than quantity. If you were to Google me, I get many, many more ghits than this movie; that still doesn't mean there needs to be an article about me.--Isotope23 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable spamvertisement, virtually unsourced. Disclosure I found this AfD from a link on User talk:BenBurch posted by User:Fairness And Accuracy For All - Crockspot 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). Jinxmchue 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a PROPOSED guideline, not yet approved or enacted, and I contend that any 'votes' using this as the only rationale must be thrown out. Fairness And Accuracy For All 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As opposed to the "I heard of that" rule, or the google test? Why should this article stay if the movie was never released in theatres, had one showing at a smaller of the many film festivals, never won an award, was self distributed etc. Because you heard of it? That doesnt really satisfy a reason to have an encyclopedia article. --NuclearZer0 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The only votes that get "thrown out" are those that are done by obvious sock accounts.--MONGO 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely not notable.--MONGO 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't appear to be notable, and the title is misleading - I assumed this was referring to an election scandal. The title should be Votergate (film) but the author didn't move it to such a title. SunStar Net 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In-person showings aren't the only test for notability. This film is being distributed primarily online, rather than in brick-and-mortar theaters. If someone creates an article about a serious documentary, I see no reason why we can't keep the article. A move to Votergate (film) would be called for only if we had another article at Votergate, but I could see moving it now on the theory that we might well have a more general article in the future. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with the comments of JamesMLane above and would add the following. First, an observation: it is clear from the comments here that there is by no means any consensus about the deletion of this entry and that therefore it should be retained as is. Second, with regard to the handful of comments above alleging that this film is non-notable and/or political, I strongly disagree. Such comments run counter to the facts and the evidence is readily available on line and in the pages of the thousands -- that's right THOUSANDS -- of mainstream and alternative media articles, both in print and online, on the subject of electronic voting. The Votergate film series was the first to identify the security defects in touchscreen voting systems. These are systems that 80% of Americans will vote on this November. Votergate catalogued the 3 ways that the machines may be hacked: (1) physical; (2) smartcard; (3) central tabulation. These revelations provided the basis for numerous investigations and governmental reports, including the Carter-Baker Commission (a bi-partisan Commission). The aftershocks of this film are still being felt, and the issues raised by the film have been taken up by grassroots organizations (both partisan, non-partisan, and bi-partisan) across the country. It has been a rallying cry for election protection in this country. This film played an essential part in the fight for honest elections across the United States. (And, in light of the comments here I must again reiterate that honest elections implies an expressly non-political point of view.) The goal of this film is to have every American's vote count as cast. And, that is something that everyone who values knowledge, truth and the right to be heard -- whether American or not -- should support. In the final analysis, this film series deserves recognition and retention as an entry both for its prescience on the issue of voting systems and because it has served a purpose only the rarest of films achieve: it moved hundreds of thousands of people to action.Heat Miser 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)— Heat miser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment You make the claim that this movie started the entire movement to take a look into voting machines, I have never heard of it spoken as such, nor heard of the movie prior to reading this article. What I ask of you is a WP:RS and WP:V source stating that this movie started this movement, if you can produce some, enough to show its the general belief of media outlets, then I will surely chagne my vote. If you cannot, then that will speak for itself. --NuclearZer0 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please re-read my post. I have not made "the claim that this movie started the entire movement to take a look into voting machines." Rather, I made the claim that this film publicized the movement and moved hundreds of thousands of people to action after these issues were disclosed. So, first, I would agree with Auto movil below as to the fact that Bev Harris was one of the first ones to start this movement. I am not aware of her "Black Box Voting" films. (Bev does however make several strong appearances in the Votergate films, and these films are historical records of her work.) Nonetheless, if there are such films, I would submit that they also would be entitled to a separate entry, since this is the singlemost important issue facing our democracy. If people's votes are not counted honestly, then we do not have a democracy. Second, I note your certain contributions to wiki so let us look at your entry for Timbaland. You must feel that Timbaland is notable and worthy of an entry here on wiki, or else you would not have wasted your time. Surely we can agree that Votergate had at least as much impact on American society in the last 2 years as Timbaland and Dr. Noyd? Third, in response to your comment to Auto movil above, Votergate is clearly not just a "YouTube" video (although the director/producers seem to now be savvy to using YouTube as an avenue for advertising). It is in the IMDB database. If there is time for me to find additional sources before this comment period closes, I will do so, but a simple Google search will turn up a plethora of reviews, entries and media about the films, including the IMDB entry. Finally, I am of course interested in continuing this dialogue with you, but I must note again that at this point there is clearly no consensus here on deletion, which is the standard set by wiki for removal.Heat Miser;15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentOk so the new claim is "and moved hundreds of thousands of people to action after these issues were disclosed", do you haev a source for this that satisfys WP:RS and WP:V? else this is all just your personal opinion on the movies and not really anything that cna be added to the article to allow it to meet requirements. Also since you do not know, IMDB is now editable by readers. Further I am not sure what you see as no concensus, so far the only arguement made is lots of ghits and claims that it motivated hundreds of thousands, which I would like to see a source for, and your bickering at my edit history, which i remind you, discuss the content, not the editor. --NuclearZer0 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This is not MY "new" claim. This is the claim I made in my original statement, that you deliberately misinterpreted in an attempt to make my case more difficult to prove. Similarly, the standard you have set here also overreaches. As shown by Derex above with regard to the Clinton Chronicles, the standard for notability you have set is not the standard for material here. You have moved from one argument to the other in an attempt to provide a basis for deletion. Why are you doing this? I don't know. I do know that your entry on Timbaland suffers from the same defects you are trumpeting here. And, no, I did not give the example of Timbaland to get into your edit history. Only you seem to be concerned about that. Rather, I sought to use your entry on Timbaland in order to communicate with you by using an example you were familiar with. I did so in the interest of moving this discussion forward. I ask you, if you feel Timbaland is worthy of entry here, why not Votergate? This brings up another point. Timbaland is ancient history. The Votergate films are a continuing series of films about a seminal issue of importance to the maintenance of real democracy in the world's only superpower. They are continuing to be produced as we speak. They will continue to have impact. They are therefore not "history" but reality. They deserve inclusion for this reason as well. Heat Miser 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you havea source? this is a simple question, you may grand statements at the impact this video had, can you please post sources supporting this and stop attempting to harp on my edit history, its a sad attempt. This article lacks something showing notability, if you have these sources add them, else you are wasting everyones time by posting such long diatribes. --NuclearZer0 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment With regard to your request for sources, please see my post below. To summarize, if you go to Google News, and search "votergate" you will see that a number of stories pop up, some as recently as this past week. The articles reference VoterGate films and indicate that one of the main touchscreen voting manufacturers, Diebold, is still feeling its impact. Here is a link, and an excerpt is quoted below: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iu1kJn0r6mbsE3T+LOOImOQ%3D%3DHeat Miser 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That souce doe snot say hundreds of thousands were motivated to do anything based on this movie, please provide an accurate source, I ask you to review them first as it may seem like attempts to misguide people. --NuclearZer0 21:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentI think Bev Harris's Black Box Voting films are the foundational ones, although I'm not totally up on the topic. There might be a move or a merge possible here. Auto movil 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and what not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Wow reading this thread is education....talk about political agendas. Is this what wiki is about? Seems to me we are supposed to be the world's online encylopedia. It is obvious from ghits and google that thousands of people have seen this film. In 2004, this was the first film to actually use cameras to videotape vote counting and tabulation in the United States. Now people are videotaping those procedures across the U.S. That's sounds pretty notable to me. If someone can expand the entry and revise it further, this is exactly the kind of information that belongs here. User:Martin Mulll 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.20.135 (talk) [reply]

• Fake signatures are not helpful. [11] GRBerry 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no independent reliable sources used to support any claim to notability. There is no compelling reason to believe any of the claims. In fact, there are no independent sources used at all. A google serach for Votergate but excluding Wikipedia turns up a broken link in the top 10 results, strong evidence that nobody we can use as a reliable source has noticed this. GRBerry 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Your statement is demonstrably false. I have just conducted a Google search for the term "votergate" and found an entry for the Votergate films at the industry-recognized IMDb. I invite everyone here to visit IMDb and read their database inclusion criteria. There can be little doubt that IMDb meets the definitinon of an independent source. So, with regard to your first statement: there IS in fact at least one independent source on the very first Google search page. With regard to the broken link, I don't understand your argument. Are you seriously suggesting that a broken link in a Google search result be used as "strong evidence" for something? Heat Miser 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  IMDB is edited partially by registered accounts now, further an IMDB entry doesnt mean notability, unless you are stating we should also act as an IMDB mirror. --NuclearZer0 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentYou mean like Wikipedia? IMDb has clear database inclusion criteria. It clearly qualifies as an independent source. I invite everyone here to review those criteria. Simply because it is "edited partially by registered accounts" does not in any way reflect on its prominent position in the industry as a respected and authoritative source. I in fact submit that IMDb is run by people far more expert than those here on the subject of whether or not a film is notable or has an impact, and they take that responsibility very seriously. Finally, are you suggesting that wikipedia, because it is editable by the people, is somehow not authoritative or independent? Your comments would destroy the entire notion of an independent, worldwide online encyclopedia compiled by a Peircean-like community. Heat Miser 13:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You are still skipping the question, do you have a source for your claims above, that the movie motivated hundreds of thousands to pay attention to the topic. I see you can post long long paragraphs, but can you answer this question? --NuclearZer0 21:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source by our standards WP:RS because anyone can edit it and there is no fact checking process prior . IMDb is not a reliable source for the same reason, if I understand IMDb properly. GRBerry 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, just to be clear, according to your link, this is a wiki guideline, although there is a box on the link that claims it is the subject of dispute. Nonetheless, I just reviewed it, and I can tell you unequivocally that I believe in sourcing and verification. You sound like you agree with the guideline and believe in this too. I will therefore attempt to provide you with some reliable sourcing regarding IMDb's authoritative status in the industry, and also regarding how IMDb operates (you have assumed it operates in the same manner, but in fact it operates differently than wiki, and the differences are critical to this discussion). First, I must reiterate that IMDb is an authoritative source and well-accepted in the motion picture industry. Here is an independent, reliable source for that proposition: http://www.laweekly.com/general/deadline-hollywood/do-you-imdb/9084/. A simple Google of IMDb will turn up numerous similar articles about IMDb's history, bios of its founder, and details about its operations. I invite you to educate yourself about this reputable, established, authoritative, reliable source before you comment further so we can have a meaningful discussion. In a nutshell, IMDb is similar to wikipedia in that it will allow members to submit material, but it is not identical. There are significant differences, and these differences relate specifically to how editing is executed. Unlike wiki, at IMDb, new material and revisions are submitted to a board of editors who are primarily based in Seattle. The LA Weekly article discusses this as well: http://www.laweekly.com/general/deadline-hollywood/do-you-imdb/9084/. Thus, as you can read in the article, no revisions are carried out by the community without prior review, fact-checking, and judgment FOR NOTABILITY, ACCURACY and other criteria by VERY savvy industry professionals. There can be little doubt that if a motion picture is listed at IMDb, especially one that is 2 years old, it has been vetted, the information is accurate AND it has been found to be notable.Heat miser 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Just wanted to add that if you go to Google News, you will see that a number of stories on VoterGate pop up, some as recently as this past week. The articles reference VoterGate films and indicate that one of the main touchscreen voting manufacturers, Diebold, is still feeling its impact. These are clearly independent sources that attest to the fact that the primary film in this series is still having a strong and clearly notable impact over 2 years after its release. For example, one article in the Hollywood Reporter is entitled: "HBO vetoes Diebold's docu request" By Brooks Boliek Nov 1, 2006 and here are the relevant passages:

• "Diebold also writes that the film is "directed by the

  directors of 'VoterGate' and contains much of the same

  material. 'VoterGate' was produced with special thanks

  to Susan Sarandon and the Streisand Foundation."

• The official "VoterGate" site lists Jeremy Manning and

  Stanley Weithorn as that film's executive producers.

  The Internet Movie Database listed Ole Schell as its

  director. IMDb also lists "VoterGate" as "Hacking

  Democracy's" working title in the U.K.

• HBO contends that Diebold has confused the two films.

• "It appears the film Diebold is responding to is not

  the film HBO is airing," Cusson said.

• Find this article at:

  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iu1kJn0r6mbsE3T+LOOImOQ%3D%3D"

• I note that articles from the UK and Forbes, among others, may also be found by searching the term "votergate" at GoogleNews. Heat Miser 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please answer the question, you make claims like hundreds of thousands were motivated, yet you didnt provide a source, I am still waiting on one please. Also the fact that IMDB is wrong, is a good reason why its also not reliable. Thank you for proving that point. Also please note votergate was a term for the situation before the movie came out. --NuclearZer0 21:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Friend you have now mischaracterized at least two of my posts. Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are deliberately misstating my written words in an attempt to railroad this community into deleting this entry. Why? If you actually read my post above, or the article itself, you will find that it DOES NOT say that IMDb was wrong, rather, it said that the company, Diebold, was wrong and HBO/IMDb were correct. I stand by the fact that IMDb is an independent reliable source of experts on film. The folks there, of course, watched the film prior to ruling on its inclusion. Have you even watched the Votergate film? By your own admission you have not. And yet you would delete an entry here about it. Again, I must ask why? Is it hurting you to have this entry? What is your deal? You still have not responded at all to my Timbaland example. Are you interested in reaching a consensus here on what to do? Why does Timbaland deserve an entry and Votergate does not? Finally, as to your last point, whether or not Votergate was around as a term prior to the creation of the film has no bearing on the notability of the film or this entry. Was "Godfather" in use as a term prior to the release of "The Godfather?" Maybe that entry should be expunged as well? Heat Miser 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I didnt say you said IMDB was wrong, reading comprehension indeed. I am stating IMDB was wrong, Votergate and Hacking Democracy are two different movies, Diebold mistook one for the other, the movie the article is about, is Hacking Democracy, not Votergate. Also IMDB is not a independant reliable source ran by film experts, I am not sure what gave you taht idea, can you name these experts on film you believe run IMDB? I am sure you cannot. Since you cannot grasp this concept I will reiterate it one more time for you, The movie is not notable for anything, there is nothing that makes it stand out, its has not broken any records, screened anywhere important, been released in theatres (which still wouldnt be enough), its not notable, the more you go on about it leading hundreds of thousands to be inspired to the topic and refuse to give a source stating it, instead go on a tangent about something new and my edit history instead of providing such a source which you have been asked for now 3-4 times, the worse it makes your point look, which is that its notable cause it inspired people, something you have yet to prove, prove it already instead of writing paragraph long diatribes. Also I ask you not make foolish comparisons between Godfather the movie and the term Godfather, since if you bothered to read what I wrote, I was stating the phenomenon came before the movie, hence the google hits, its not a rationalization for deletion, its a rationalization for the high google count, which itself does not signify notabilit,y per its own article google test. Now before you write another diatribe and again attempt to harp on my edit history, how about you provide that source. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  First, with regard to IMDb: IMDb is a reliable source by any definition, for reasons I stated in my response to GRBerry above. To summarize, IMDb is not a user-edited site. It is run by VERY savvy industry professionals and any new or revised material is FIRST submitted to those professionals BEFORE it is posted. The professionals who run IMDb can be readily identified and sourced by running a search for "IMDb" on Google. They are "players" and their large editorial staff is well-financed by their corporate parent, Amazon. The article I cited for GRBerry is one of many that comes up in the search results. IMDb is therefore reliable and it is both relevant and probative of Votergate's notability that it is listed there. Second, with regard to the Hollywood Reporter source, I respond to your comments here in my post on Smeelgova's thread below and I would ask that we continue dialogue on this source there. To summarize, the fact that Diebold thought that a new Votergate was coming out, and that they acted with strong-arm tactics to stop it shows the great extent of Votergate's impact and how notable Diebold believes it to be. Finally, to reinforce the fact that it is not just Diebold who believes Votergate was notable and worthwhile, and also to put to rest this "notability" debate, I include this link to Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=votergate.tv If you examine the 3 year time frame, easily accessed by clicking the "3yr" tab, you will see that over 60 million -- that's right -- 60 MILLION people accessed the website showing portions of the Votergate film in the days leading up to and following the November 2004 election. I hope we can agree that Alexa.com is a reliable source, and that this readily demonstrates the notability and incredible significance of this film. You are correct that I originally said "hundreds of thousands." But it was actually over 60 MILLION people. Even I did know it was that high. I hope you will agree that this reliable Alexa.com source, plus the previously-mentioned 55,000 ghits sourcing mentioned by Auto movil and Derex above, puts the notability issue vis-a-vis Votergate to rest. Since Votergate is clearly notable, and furthermore, people are working to fill out the entry to bring it up to wiki standards, I would ask you to revise your "delete" opinion and change it to a "strong keep." Heat miser 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to ignore you now, you still have not provided that source and wrote another massive diatribe which is kind of annoying, please read google test for more information on why its not a reliable sign of notability. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Also you must be new to certain internet phrases, but hits do not equal people. A hit is registered when a page is reached, so if the site has 50 pages and 5 people visit and hit all 50 pages then they generated 1250 hits. If one of those people come back and review all 50 pages again, you are not at 1500 hits, get it? Hits do not symbolize individual people, nor do they even symbolize 1 person per visit. So 1 person can check out the site everyday for a week generating millions of hits on their own. --NuclearZer0 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From the producer... Hello Wiki!! I am a producer of Votergate, the film in question. Permit me to thank all of your for your passionate arguments on both sides of this debate. Everyone involved in our documentary film believe in what you are doing as active members, and we use wikipedia regularly, even if we do so on a drive-by basis and (like me) are not "members" or regular contributors. So, thank you for your efforts to make this the best online encyclopedia. We truly believe it is a privilege to be included on your site at the moment. For several reasons, I would like to make the following contributions to this discussion and I hope this will bring about a positive discussion. Thank you for your consideration.

  A. As I documentary producer, I must do extensive research on my issues of interest, and this often includes documentary film history. I have used wikipedia over the years for film and cinema research on a variety of topics, and I plan to continue doing so. As a general matter, one of the most difficult topics to find information about is documentary. I have often been hard-pressed to find important information on obscure documentary topics that are nonetheless important to me as a film researcher, and as a film historian. Wikipedia has already made unbelievably important contributions in this area.

  B. I believe the category of documentary film is special. Often, documentary is shot on extremely low budgets, and distribution is extremely difficult. "Getting the word out" is also not easy. On the flip side, documentarians have produced some significant material about the human experience. Now, I'm sure by now some of you are singing "Cry Me A River", but my point is this: if Wikipedia is to be the world's encyclopedic resource, it seems that one of the best things it can do is retain significant information about a very underreported area of art with a high level of social importance.

  C. I don't believe that retaining information about documentary film, so long as it is accurate, will cost this site money or prestige. Far from it. As evidenced by a number of documentaries over the past few years, the category of documentary film is growing and I think wikipedia should be a resource for such films.

  D. I won't pretend to have an answer for how to distinguish a notable documentary from one of lesser quality. In these days of reality television and YouTube, such a distinction is likely to become more difficult, not less. In any event, I believe this to be a very important issue, and I pledge to stay involved with it.

  E. Turning to this debate specifically, I would make the following proposal and commitment to the Wikipedia community. (i) We would be wholly comfortable if the suggestion above to move our entry to Votergate (film) was approved. (ii) We would be willing to undertake the creation and buildout of an "Election Reform (films)" entry, where all the films on this subject, including ours, would be accurately described with the appropriate links. This would obviously be a longer term project and would include a great number of films over the last few decades.

  F. Finally, to clear up at least a few issues raised above. Votergate is entirely non-partisan. We premiered this film at the National Press Club in early October '04 and had both John McCain's campaign manager Trevor Potter from the Election Reform Institute, and folks from more left-of-center good government groups like Common Cause presenting at the same podium. We have footage from the event and the subsequent premieres that I would be happy to post at YouTube if you require sourcing. In addition, the film was accepted into and screend at both the Hamptons Film Festival and the Eureka Film Festival. It is certainly true that this is not on the level of "Sundance", but it is a well-established festival with significant respect in the industry. With regard to IMDb, we feel very lucky to be listed there. I can tell you with 100% certainty that IMDb is absolutely curated and it is difficult for indie documentaries to get on the site. We certainly felt that was an achievement.

  G. In conclusion, we feel documentaries of merit should be listed here at Wikipedia. I would suggest that acceptance in one or more film festivals, broadcast on television and budget size (ours was over $100K) could play a role in determining notability. In the end, it is my hope that Wikipedia will err on the side of being overly inclusive where documentary film is concerned, especially where issues of such importance are at stake. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to discussing this issue further with you all. Vgate Producer 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  a) Wikipedia is not a repository of produced films, its not IMDB. As an encyclopedia it would lose any respect if it just turned into a repository of stuff, people looking for a film to watch should not goto an encyclopedia, they should goto IMDB, Blockbuster etc.

  b} Wikipedia currently does "retain significant information about a very underreported area of art with a high level of social importance", it has an article on documentaries, your own documentary doesn't fit this bill as its too specific and not about an art, but just a specific topic. However further, its not wikipedia job to promote anything including areas of art with little attention.

  c} As pointed out in point A, which is something I particularly feared was being argued by the other user, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Its not here to promote or expose anything and its not here to be a respository of every film ever made nor book printed etc.

  d) We have guidelines and proposed ones, you can read that WP:Notability (films), things such as awards would help, screenings, records, etc. This film particularly doesn't meet any of that.

  e) If you would like to create an article on the phenomenon of voter films then feel free to do that, this article however is not about that and its deletion or non-deletion would not be based on its creation or lack there of. Further per WP:RS and WP:V you would need sources that meet those requirements to discuss those films and the points in the article you attempt to right, remember to follow WP:OR.

  f) IMDB entries can be added by the readers, its not 100% "curated", there are also thousands of festivals world wide, determining notability by appearing in the non-notable ones does not work, an appearance at Sundance or Cannes would have went further, an award at one of them even further. However lacking even those leaves little left.

  g) Its already been established by the general concensus on Wikipedia that not all films deserve articles and surely not all documentaries of there being millions or varrying notability and quality. I keep hearing issues of importance, and that is a problem, as every documentary is created by someone thinking the issue is important, its very subjective, hence why criteria is based on notability, not subject.

  --NuclearZer0 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this definitely seems like a notable article that should be given time to be expanded upon. Smeelgova 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment the articles being added to the article to show notability all state that Diebold thought HBO was showing votergate, but they are showing hacking democracy, thats not a sign of notability. --NuclearZer0 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the commentary. I am not adding them to show notability. I am adding them because they are relevant articles to Votergate. Smeelgova 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The topic of the articles are Hacking Democracy, to say they are relevant simply because they are mentioned, even though they arent the topic is not really of quality for External links. EL's are suppose to have information about the subject that the article does not, in this case that is not what is taking place. --NuclearZer0 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, I hope we can agree that Hollywood Reporter is a reliable, independent source. (If we cannot so agree, there are several other sources including Forbes Magazine that reported this story.) Second, if you read this article, you will see that Diebold, a multinational, extremely powerful, well-established, public company with billions of dollars (US) in revenue, actually was so affected by the material contained in Votergate, that it took it upon itself to invest significant resources in attempting to shut down a film that it THOUGHT was descendent from Votergate. In other words, Diebold believed, albeit mistakenly, that the HBO film WAS a new/revised Votergate. Diebold felt that they had to shut it down because it was so powerful and damaging to them, and they attempted to do so. If this is not an example of notability, I don't know what is. This particular source article relates directly to Diebold's corporate "state of mind" when they sent the cease and desist letter to HBO, and effectively demonstrates how powerful Votergate continues to be since its release 2 years ago. The Votergate revelations spoke truth-to-power and caused questioning of Diebold's shoddy and insecure system design by activists, legislators and election officials around the country, which in turn resulted in millions of dollars in lost Diebold contracts. Diebold could not afford another Votergate. Diebold could not let another Votergate see the light of day, and, believing that another Votergate was coming out, Diebold attempted to squash it with its full corporate armamentarium. You demand evidence of notability? This article has it in spades. Heat miser 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for you to disagree with, we have policies and guidelines, read WP:EL. Thank you. All your insinuation on what Diebold thought is really out of place here. Please read WP:OR --NuclearZer0 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOTFILM, etc. Eluchil404 12:33, 7 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 speedy keep. This is articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Jlao04 (talk · contribs) merged content with this edit. Please perform mergers properly, following the procedure as it is laid out, in order to comply with the GFDL. Please only come to AFD when deletion is what is required. If you retain content, by merging it into another article, then clearly you do not wish it to be deleted. Uncle G 12:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Co-Educational College Alumni Choir[edit]

The page has already been merged into the school's main article jlao ⁰⁴ 06:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. - jlao ⁰⁴ 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as appropriately merged already -- Samir धर्म 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarize yourself with how article merger works, and the GFDL requirements that underpin it. Uncle G 12:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Thompson (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article has a complicated history. It was proposed for deletion previously but during the AfD was deleted as a copyvio. It has now been recreated. A deleted edit summary indicates the author emailed Wikipedia (not the right permissions address, but a mailing list) indicating the article is not a copyvio. It's pretty clear that the author == the subject == the web site owner. There are manifest issues of notability, vanity, and WP:AUTO. Nevertheless, I think the article should get a discussion on its merits, so I removed the A7 speedy tag and have listed it here, with no recommendation. MCB 07:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please let me know if there are any reasons this article is not acceptable...Seems fine to me...DBT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbtjazz (talk • contribs) ., (author/subject of article)
  • The biggest problem is that it is completely unverified. The article needs to cite reliable sources and meet WP:LIVING policy.--Isotope23 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that the biggest problem is that there's no evidence of notability, which is the single most important criterion for inclusion of any article, especially biogs (and, I irrationally sometimes feel, superduper especially for autobiogs). --Dweller 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seem to be no problems. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for now. The subject may qualify under WP:MUSIC but the article does not clearly indicate how. If he does, the supporters of this article should revise it to explain specifically how he qualifies. --Metropolitan90 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of evidence that he meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Metropolitan90 15:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - no evidence given of subject passing the usual db-bio guidelines for musicians and the present tense for currently "recording" material, rather than having released would indicate this is currently speediable. --Dweller 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Google is at best unlightening (his name is quite common, even with the middle initial), but appears to be no reviews, recordings, or other supporting material. Strong flavor of conflict of interest. Robertissimo 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per ^^. Also, I don't think a biographical article's subject should serve as the primary editor. -bobby 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability, probable vanity. A7-able but I think the nominator was right to bring it here. AndyJones 17:51, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cullybackey High School[edit]

School with no assertion of notability. In fact, the article's original author claimed the opposite: "It doesn't have any famous pupils that i know of." Noe notable, not encyclopedic, lacking sources. If this were a company, it would have been speedied long ago. Prod contested on the grounds that it's a school, which is rather silly, but here we are. Shimeru 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per Shimeru - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, secondary schools are usually kept on Wikipedia. I see no reason why we shouldn't keep this one aswell. It is notable too the local community. bbx 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes it notable? Can you include that in the article and cite an appropriate source? Shimeru 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you done any research yourself, to check that the WP:SCHOOL criteria are not satisfied? Lacking assertions of notability is only a deletion criterion for certain specific classes of articles, which does not include schools. I suggest that you expend the effort to do the research. Look to see whether multiple non-trivial published works on this school exists. If your research turns them up, you can help to improve the article in collaboration with your fellow editors by citing them in the article as references or further reading. If your research does not turn any up, then you should think about coming to AFD. A valid deletion rationale that something isn't notable points to what notability criteria are being employed, and how you have determined that the subject fails those criteria. "The article didn't tell me" is only satisfactory for speedy deletions of people, groups, companies, and web content. It is not satisfactory for any other classes of articles. For other classes of articles it is incumbent upon you to do the research. Uncle G 12:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please bear in mind that WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal at this point. JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a false idea to bear in mind. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wrong. Notability is only a speedy deletion criteria for those classes of articles. That doesn't mean that it doesn't apply whatsoever to schools. I see no reason to hold schools to a lower standard than companies or individual people. If a school is historically important or otherwise noteworthy, of course include it. If it's been the subject of published studies, sure. If it's had famous alumni... eh, that's kind of borderline, but I'd let it pass. But an article that says nothing more than that it exists? "It's real" is not accepted as an argument for keeping any other class of article, and if that's all it takes to pass WP:SCHOOLS, then WP:SCHOOLS is flawed. Furthermore, burden of proof is on those making the claims of notability; however, I did perform some research before tagging it, and I find your assumption that I did not bordering on a personal attack. If you have nothing to say in support of the article, I'll thank you not to speculate on my presumed methods. Shimeru 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • False. The speedy deletion criterion is, as clearly stated (I did link directly to the criterion for you to read it.), lack of an assertion of notability. That is what your nomination rationale is. Your rationale is not that the school is non-notable. It is, to quote words 3 to 6 of your rationale, that the article contains "no assertion of notability". Once again: That is not a deletion criterion for any but certain, specific, classes of article, which do not include schools.

          I did perform some research before tagging it — You make no mention of this in your rationale. All that your rationale tells us is that you don't like the article, you tried to have it deleted twice, and when those attempts failed you tried a third time. Indeed, you have still not told us what research you did, even though you claim to have actually done as I suggested.

          I find your assumption that I did not bordering on a personal attack. — The assumption is derived from what you wrote. The fault is your own; you cannot pass it to others, under the pretense that a suggestion that you do the research is some kind of personal attack (which it clearly isn't) or otherwise. If you don't like people inferring from what you wrote that you did no research, then write down what research you did. It is noticable that you still haven't told us what research you did, even though you vehemently assert that you did some. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • That is not what my nomination rationale is. Read my entire nomination rather than just the first sentence. It's the first two words of the third sentence: "Not notable." (Ignoring the typo I made earlier, at least.) As to your other points, you should assume that I have done research, rather than that I haven't -- part of assuming good faith, is it not? Since you'd like to know, I performed a variety of searches of both web space and news/article archives (not limited to, but including, Google) and turned up nothing significant. And you are still saying nothing about the article and much about what you assume I have or have not done. This is ad hominem argument. Kindly desist. Shimeru 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to both above re WP:SCHOOLS - can we pick one or the other; does this article pass WP:SCHOOLS (read it first before deciding) or is WP:SCHOOLS irrelevant (in which case why mention it). Even if WP:SCHOOLS was torpedoed by the same folks who bring us these AfDs and vote to delete, it is by far the most meaningful option we have. Are either of you offering a standard by which to evaluate these articles as an alternative to WP:SCHOOLS? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would say not. It does not meet criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 7, as it stands. There is a suggestion that it meets 5 ("Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff."), but no evidence that the award is in fact significant -- and even if it is, it is an award, not awards as the criteria suggests, so it doesn't meet 5 in my mind either way. Nevertheless, supporters of WP:SCHOOLS seem to believe that it does meet those criteria (and did before the award was added), though again, no evidence has been offered. I don't think this is the right place to propose a standard, but I would certainly offer that schools should be judged by criteria similar to those of other articles -- companies, individuals, government entities. Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are. WP:SCHOOL was derived from WP:CORP. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, but it is way broader (easier achievable), and that's probably one reason why it hasn't reached consensus. I personally dislike the 50 year criterium (most schools in Belgium and probably throughout Europe would qualify by this standard), the notability by association (which I dislike in many occasions: if some band barely passes WP:MUSIC, then automatically all other bands where one of the memebrs participated in becomes notable, and all the schools of all the members of the band as well, even if there is no relation at all between the school and the minor success of the band. I think the sport criterium is too broad as well, but that one can be tweaked, and has at least (in contrast to the notable alumni one) a direct connection to the importance of the school (certainly with team sports). Alansohn, you asked for the alternatives for WP:SCHOOL here as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville High School), let's not have that discussion on every school AfD again please. There are enough policies applicable by which we can judge if a school is verifiably notable beyond the trivial directory level, and many schools are not. Fram 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its pure existence makes it notable. I believe that almost all schools are notable and should be included on Wikipedia. If you want to know why, look at Silensor's school page that I agree with 100%. bbx 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the notability of schools in the six counties of Northern Ireland is a little different than elsewhere, inasmuch as education at primary and secondary level in NI has historically been provided on a sectarian basis. That being so, I would welcome articles on all schools in NI, with the proviso that such articles should aim to include approximate breakdowns of religious background on a percentage basis among pupils, teaching staff, support staff and and catchment area. With that in mind, keep. BTLizard 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable, as per endless previous arguments. -- Necrothesp 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you focussed upon sources for the subject at hand, as WP:SCHOOL encourages one to do, rather than repeating "stuck record" arguments that don't even mention the subject at hand, this discussion would be more productive. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, the "stuck record" is the tedious continuation of nominations for deletion of secondary school articles which are almost certainly going to be kept, thus wasting all our time. I'm sure I don't have to repeat that WP:SCHOOL is not a policy. -- Necrothesp 11:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the "endless previous arguments" have not established that all secondary schools are notable, they have shown that there is currently absolutely no consensus to either keep or delete them, and that most closing admins prefer to look at the raw numbers and not at the policy arguments used (and I know that WP:SCHOOL is not policy and will probably in its current form never be a guideline either). The AfD's are not wasting our time, they are a continuing effort to reach a consensus, and highlight the problems many users have with many or even most current school articles: they lack all noteworthy content, and often are uncapable of adding such since no verifiable noteworthy content beyond the directory level is available. This is a serious problem which gets largely ignored by all those wanting to keep all school articles, as exemplified by your and most other "keep" suggestions. Fram 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In actual fact, many AfDs are closed as no consensus tending to keep and are therefore kept. The fact that the deletionists cannot accept that is the problem. I frankly find it fascinating (and very telling) that they seem to think that, despite obviously being in a minority, their opinions count for more than those of us who want to keep the articles (i.e. they are somehow "obviously right" and we are "obviously wrong"). The argument that I and many other "keep" voters put forward is that secondary schools are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, ergo they are notable. This doesn't need to be repeated every time, since it holds for every secondary school. Neither does it mean that we should keep articles on every house, fire station, telephone box, etc (as some have helpfully suggested we "must" mean), since although people may be intimately acquainted with these things, they are not individually central to the lives of hundreds of people every year. Your argument that many schools "often are uncapable of adding such since no verifiable noteworthy content beyond the directory level is available" is, to be honest, a little ridiculous. How many schools have absolutely nothing written about them? Verifiable information does not have to be provided via Google (as so many seem to believe - it really is a lame argument that lack of Google hits = no notability, yet still it's endlessly trotted out) or even via the internet. Verifiable information can come from any published source. The fact that some of these school articles do not include such references at the moment does not mean that they cannot or that someone will not add them in the future; this is an illogical argument. If the school exists then it is entitled to an article and being a stub has never been a criterion for deletion. The fact that many of us believe that secondary schools are notable because they are secondary schools and that we have said why numerous times is why I am getting rather tired of continually repeating the same arguments. Because let's face it, the deletionists are repeating the same arguments (not notable, not verifiable), with which we have already said we disagree. The fact we are not likely to reach consensus because of this fundamental disagreement is why I feel it becomes a waste of time to propose these articles for deletion. -- Necrothesp 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Despite obviously being in a minority"? Let's see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitstone school: 14 keeps, 17 deletes, no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niles McKinley High School: 16 keeps, 11 deletes, no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral middle school: 14 deletes, 1 keep, deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturgis Charter Public School: 15 keeps, 7 deletes, kept... The problem to me seems to be that many people don't argue about a specific article, but "vote" according to their fixed positions on any school debate. But even so, it is clear that even for secondary schools, there is no clear majority and minority in recent debates. And again, it is up to those wanting to keep an article to provide sources: only the opinion that there must be sources is not enough (and they have to be non-trivial, otherwise you can keep all companies by the same standard, as every local company gets an article in the local newspaper once in a while). Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion, but I have that strawman from keepers quite a few times (yes, it's not only the deleters than can get repetitive, you know). Being an article about a subject for which there is no verifiable info beyond the trivial, the directory level is a perfect reason for deletion, and it is up to those wanting to keep it to provide sources to the contrary. Rememeber, there is nothing prohibiting a recreation of an article once such info appears. But to keep articles solely on the unsupported opinion that such info must exist is not a valid argument. Fram 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A couple of secondary school articles appear on AfD every day. The vast majority are kept. That suggests you're in a minority to me. But the simple fact is that we're not going to agree and no amount of accusing the other side of producing strawmen and trotting out different interpretations of the same policy is going to change that. Hence the pointlessness of debating secondary school articles. I am by no means an inclusionist. There is much rubbish here that needs deleting. But in the case of secondary schools I can see a clear case for keeping all of them (and as far as I'm concerned, if the existence of a school is verifiable, which it almost always is, then a stub saying that it exists is perfectly acceptable) and I'm afraid you will not change my mind by endlessly producing the same arguments, any more than I'm sure I will change yours. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Many of these articles have a majority of individuals favoring deletion. Keep in mind that deletion does not occur when one has 1 over a majority but generally a consensus (hence there being closed as "no consensus"). Also, as I have pointed out before when one looks at users who rarely comment on school articles they are more likely to argue for deletion than keeping. JoshuaZ 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And more do not. I'm aware of the rules for deletion. Your last point, even if true, is frankly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The argument that I and many other "keep" voters put forward is that secondary schools are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, ergo they are notable. Why? Companies and organizations are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet (all but the unemployed), yet we do not automatically keep them. Religion is a major factor in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, yet we do not keep every church, mosque, synagogue, or shrine. Nearly every person in the developed world is born in a hospital, yet we do not have articles on all hospitals. Most people can drive, yet not every DMV office (or its equivalent) warrants an article. What is it that should exclude schools from the guidelines that we apply to these other categories of articles? Shimeru 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hundreds of people attend almost every secondary school for a large part of the day, five days a week. Most schools have many thousands of former pupils who spent an equal amount of time there. There is no comparison with individual places of worship, hospitals, or DMV (or its equiovalent) offices, and I don't see how you could possibly claim there is without tongue firmly in cheek. As for companies, companies that employ the number of people that attend or have attended the average school are likely to have an article anyway. -- Necrothesp 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Attendance is not sufficient. Many restaurants may serve thousands of people every day -- and those people, at least, are not compelled by law to patronize those restaurants. If the best that can be said of a school is "X people spend time there," that school is neither noteworthy nor encyclopedic, as it is not in any way distinguishable from the school in the next district whose primary defining feature is that X people attend. A school, like a person or company or website, should be exceptional in order to warrant its own article. Shimeru 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh come on, how many restaurants serve thousands of people every day and how many people spend seven hours a day in a single restaurant for five days a week, 40 weeks a year, for five to seven years? How many restaurants are the centres of their patrons' lives? How many restaurants influence their patrons for the rest of their lives? Stop clutching at straws. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • More restaurants than you think, I'd wager. For that matter, more schools than you think serve fewer than "thousands," including this one, which claims 500 pupils. Shimeru 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is hardly "clutching at straws" if you prefer we could replace "school" with "hospital" and certainly there are companies that are of the same size (and thus have people there 8 hours a day) with many employees which fail WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Don't mix quantity with importance please. It is not because we have to spend many hours at school that we consider it the "centre of our life". And anyway, school as an institution is very important, but individual schools are not, as the difference between them is minimal and most schools have no distinguishing, remarkable, noteworthy elements, which would make them worthy of an article. Having an article about most schools adds nothing to our knowledge of the world, and it doesn't even add something to our knowledge of some particular town beyond the fact that such school exists, which couldn't be said in one line in the article about the town. If all that can be said about such important, life-defining places is (as in most school articles) the name of the current principal, the location, the number of pupils, the number of years, the colours of the uniform, the motto, and the nickname of the sports team, then no one is any the wiser as to how and why lives are defined there. If an article can not explain why it is so important to so many people (in a WP:V way), and if an article likewise cannot make clear why a particular institution is remarkable amongst the whole class of them, then your general principles about schools are very nice but are of null value for the acceptance of any particular school article. Fram 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Indeed. Claims that schools are notable based on the amount of time people spend there and how significant that is alleged to be in their lives are grossly overstated. Sure, it would be ludicrous to remove an actual school, but this is a discussion for removal of an encyclopedia article about a school. A defense of the significance of the school itself here is irrelevant. Look at the featured article on the main page -- that is what a notable school looks like: over a century old, with an unusual and exceptional history of academic excellence, which served as a logistics base during the aftermath of the WTC attacks. It may not seem fair or right, but some schools are simply more notable than others, and the vast majority fall into a class which are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable. It does not diminish the significance of the school itself if we don't have an encyclopedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it borders on irrational to say that the article under examination here is anything more than a mere directory entry. —ptk✰fgs 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No company that had the same number of current employees and former employees as the average school has current and former pupils is likely to be unworthy of an article. And in any case, employers do not shape their employees' future lives in the way that schools do. Few people even remain working for the same company these days for as long as they remain at the same school. -- Necrothesp 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep You write it, they read it! --Mike 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not an argument. JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not asserted. No verifiable sources. AKAF 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as can be seen in many (high) school AfD's, there is no consensus that secondary schools are autmatically notable, even though some of those who want to lep them all like to say so. This article clearly demonstrates why a school does not autoamtically qualify, since it has no sources that pass WP:V, has no claims to notability (except for just existing, which is quite weak), has a meager 95 distinct Google hits, of which this one seems to come closest to establishing notability[12]. The school is apparently 38 years old[13]. Google news gives no results at all[14]. This school is utterly unremarkable, like most schools are. Fram 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Above and beyond the inherent claims of notability that all schools have, and the near-complete consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable, this article (as revised based on some of the research done by User:Fram) makes specific and explicit claims of notability and should be retained. The article has verifiable sources, as requested, and the article can only benefit from further expansion. Alansohn 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BT is a corporation interested in maintaining good public relations. So they "recognize" lots of local schools for doing mundane things that local schools do. You can see that about 150 schools were "recognized" in 2005-2006 alone! This is no indication of notability of any of these schools. Significant recognition of the school (or of BT's award) by independent media--not by corporations--is what is needed to show notability of the school (or of BT's award). (In fact, unless there is independent media coverage of the award, it could be argued that mentioning it in a Wikipedia article is spam for BT.) Pan Dan 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "BT is a corporation interested in maintaining good public relations". Any company that was doing this exercise would have no difficulty in awarding some recognition to every single school in their service area. BT doesn't and has not. Despite the 150 schools recognized in 2005-06 alone, there were thousands upon thousands of schools that were not, and will never be. A simple read of WP:RS will demonstrate that your spam claim for this award is entirely false. You can attempt to feebly undermine the claim of notability, but the fact that there is a claim of notability that id fully supported by a verifiable source is undeniable. Alansohn 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were 750 schools competing, and about one in four won...[15] Not very distinguishing, but this is the kind of thing were personal opinion comes into play (in deciding if this is significant enough as coverage and award). Seeing that the award has received apparently very little to no coverage, it can be argued that it is not very important and does not make this school or any of the many other winners any more notable. Fram 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As with all awards, there is a huge amount of self-selection. It certainly makes the school more notable than non-winners. Even if 25% of nominated schools win the award, how is that materially less notable than an Academy Award, in which 20% of nominees receive awards. Can you provide a Wikipedia source for your "not very important" standard, or is this just your own original research? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • With no significant independent media coverage, the award is not notable, hence this school's receiving the award is not notable, hence this school's receiving the award in no way justifies a Wikipedia article about the school. Pan Dan 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take another look at WP:SCHOOLS if you think there is any consensus on notability of schools. Glendoremus 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all my compliments on proposing Merge', rather than the destructive choice of Delete. Take a look at WP:SCHOOLS; it was an excellent attempt at reaching consensus, that was blown out of the water by so many of the same people who try -- unsuccessfully -- to delete high school articles. Take a look at the overwhelming, near-complete majority of attempts to delete high schools via AfD that fail, evidence of a consenus for retention. What standard do you suggest be applied? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Which is it? Are there "so many ... people [who attempt] to delete high schools via AfD," or is there a clear "consensus for retention"? I'd say if there are that many AfDs, unsuccessful or not, that indicates there is no consensus. Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "lack of consenus" is not the same as "consensus for retention". WP:SCHOOL is both a good way to reach consensus and a good way to focus the discussion on the finding, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources. Note that several people here have discussed sources, rather than repeating "stuck record" arguments and parroting dogma. That is a significant improvement over the prior situation. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This school does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial works which would indicate notability. BT's recognition of the school does not show notability unless this recognition was covered by independent media. The inspection report does not show notability, as the reason for its publication has to do with the accountability of schools but nothing to do with anybody taking note (so to speak) of this school. Pan Dan 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments of Fram and Pan Dan (ooh, that's fun to say "Fram and Pan Dan") JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Appropriate reference to a school, and a llink to the school's website, can always be put in an article on the town or district. Edison 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of any sort of notability- there is no identity that makes any subject automatically notable; it is context and noteworthiness that imbues notability. This school does not appear to have a claim to either of those two. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep school is notable. see about award. Audiobooks 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No evidence award is itself significant. No outside coverage of award (ie. news media or other reliable secondary sources). Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets all content policies. I would suggest a merge, but with the rejection of WP:SCHOOL it may be that such merges are unpopular. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of parts in WP:SCHOOL merging was one of the less controversial aspects. JoshuaZ 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SCHOOL has not been rejected, and in fact is now regularly employed in school AFD discussions by various editors. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not a a sign that it has been accepted. Furthermore, the tag was put on and simply reverted. This doesn't alter the basic fact that there is no consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Jcuk 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that there were delete opinions above and one keep read simply as "You write it, they read it!" it might help if you explained in more detail which keeps above you were keeping per. JoshuaZ 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:LOCAL into the slightly more notable village of Cullybackey. Glendoremus 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on grounds of previous precedent. Admittedly, a lot of people are not particularly in favor of keeping high schools on principle, but it's been an established precedent for well over a year now, if not longer. Haikupoet 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of those highschool discussions ended as no consensus and there have even been a few deletions. There is not any strong precedent. JoshuaZ 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this non-notable school even fails the failed WP:SCHOOL test. Carlossuarez46 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It meets my personal criteria for High School notability. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which would be...? Shimeru 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It seems to me there's been a few times in Wikipedia history where precedent has overridden policy, and not only is this one of them, it's probably one of the most significant. And that was before an extensive discussion on the subject, which IIRC largely came out to the current status quo. The nomination was at best naive in the first place, and might be WP:POINT, depending on the nominator's history on AfD. Haikupoet 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: the consensus you hint at being that there is no consensus? Why was this nomination naive and/or a case of WP:POINT? Isn't it then equally or even more a case of WP:POINT when people create stubby articles about utterly unremarkable schools, when they could add their oneliners perfectly to articles about the community or the school district? (Oh, and when has precedent overridden policy on AfD's?) Seeing that there are quite a few people agreeing with the nominator, I don't think it is a fair tactic to attack the nomination instead of trying to defend the article, perhaps (just a policy suggestion) by looking for some actual WP:V sources for it, which is something most "keep"ers are suspiciously unwilling or unable to do... Fram 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what is clear is that a) most such nominations end in a no consensus, and b) there's a significant enough number of people who believe that secondary schools are inherently notable that there really isn't any point in nominating them to begin with. I do agree that they're schoolcruft, but that's arguing against a well-established precedent. At this point, all that can be said is that the arguments against have been gone over and largely rejected -- there's no point in bringing it up again. (That's why I say the nominator is likely naive -- the discussion was long enough ago (a year or so, IIRC) that we could have quite experienced editors who weren't around for it.) So basically what I'm arguing is that, agree or disagree, high schools do seem to meet the minimum threshhold of notability as defined by the community. It is still a contentious issue, clearly, but arguing strictly from a "common law" standpoint it's a waste of time even nominating a high school. Incidentally, another case of precedent overriding policy is in radio station articles -- despite written criteria to the contrary, it is pretty much consensus at this point that any duly licensed radio station is inherently notable. Haikupoet 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete schoolcruft. Next we'll be having articles on individual coloring books. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per KC...although, they did have an Internet Awareness Evening &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable school cruft. —ptk✰fgs 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my belief that all secondary level educational institutions and above are notable. The British Telecommunications awards are icing on the cake. Yamaguchi先生 06:08, 1 November 2006
• Delete NN. Arbusto 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ordinary high school, not terribly notable. --Brianyoumans 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a good article!!! Audiobooks 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment being a "good" article is not a reason to keep and adding exlamation points doesn't make it any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changed your "keep" to a "comment," since you'd already registered a keep above. Please don't register multiple keeps or deletes on an AfD. Shimeru 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination for deletion is built upon falsehoods. For reasons why this should be retained, see User:Silensor/Schools (see also User:JoshuaZ/Schools if you are so inclined). Comparing this to coloring books is, well, laughable. Silensor 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since you're calling me a liar, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain why. Shimeru 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me second Shimeru here. Calling a nomination "built upon falsehoods" without any explanation is not very civil, and needs either a good explanation or a retraction. And do you have anything in particular to say about the discussion of this specific article, instead of general sweeping essays? Fram 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He brought it on himself with his antagonistic behaviour towards those who voted keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been uncivil to no one. If you consider presenting an argument antagonistic, I am frankly speechless. Shimeru 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I didnt really care one way or the other until I saw how Shimeru was responding towards those who voted keep... but now this is a definate keep if for no other reason than to teach people to stop being WP:DICKs.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplySo you think it is a good idea to reply incivility (if there was any) with incivility, and you think even better to make a WP:POINT vote instead of a contribution to the AfD discussion which discusses the merits and faults of the article and the potential for the subject to have an article complying with policies? And this coming from an administrator? Oh boy... Fram 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Fram slightly here. Even if Shimeru had been uncivil (which I don't see above, merely forceful arguing) keeping to teach someone a lesson is awful logic. JoshuaZ 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per several of the fine points made above. --Myles Long 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the content of the article. If the statement of being formed in the 'nineteenth century' is verified then you can change my vote to 'Speedy Keep'. Vegaswikian 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on article content alone, go duke this out at WP:SCHOOLS and stop clogging up AFD, please. RFerreira 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs better sources, but I'm sure they will develop over time. Otherwise, like all schools, should be kept. --JJay 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was unable to find any other significant sources from googling, so your faith in their extsence is misplaced. If they don't show up, why should the article be kept? JoshuaZ 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Articles need more than one day to develop. They need months or years. The existing reference proves the school's existence, hence this deletion nomination is largely misplaced. Deletion should be the last resort when verifiability can not be established. The ideal should be to build a comprehesive source that provides total coverage of all subjects. As the article expands, additional references will be added. That is my way of viewing things. --JJay 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So existence is all that's required to keep anything? Good, I'll go make some stubs about random people who we have 1 setence mentions in the marriage section of the local newspaper. How would that be any different for schools? Existence is not sufficient. JoshuaZ 03:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you get done making the stubs, please add your entire previous comment to our Straw man article. It could use some more examples. --JJay 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you explain how it is a straw man please? If you prefer I can use the almost identical one of having obituaries in the local paper which even has some degree of idependence to it. Please explain how this is different. Simply calling it a Straw man doesn't make it one. JoshuaZ 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the Straw man article. And please stop with these endless sterile comments. You started by making an apparently sincere question and I responded, sincerely. You then hit me with a bunch of strawmen and some nonsense about equating marriage notices with schools. That ended our discussion. You have your point of view (which is fine by me) and I have mine. Learn to live with that. --JJay 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No compelling evidence that there is any to be found. If someone finds it later, they can create a new article using the independent reliable sources. (Oh, yeah, and WP:SCHOOLS is not a helpful draft of a proposal on this subject, and should be marked as rejected. If it wasn't rejected, it would matter when people mention it.) GRBerry 03:17, 4 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 - can't sum it better than the nominator. Yomangani^talk 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of online DVD rental companies[edit]

Wikipedia does not "attempt to provide a comprehensive listing" of businesses, and the usual inclusion criterion for such lists - including only those companies notable enough to have a stand-alone article - won't work here, as there are only a handful of online dvd rental companies that will meet WP:CORP. The article as it stands is a repository for advertising, including such gems as Bushido DVD (AfD discussion), DVD World (AfD discussion), RussArt.com (AfD discussion), and TigerCinema (AfD discussion). Fully half of the remaining non-redlinks in this list are a7 candidates, though I'm not going to speedy them myself so as not to prejudice this discussion. The ideal solution for those companies that have a proper article is incorporation into the prose of the parent article, Online DVD rental, where, in fact, they already are. While I sympathize with editors of Online DVD rental who wanted to cut down on rampant redlinks, external links, and outright advertising [16], the proper solution to spam is to remove it, not spin it off into a subarticle. —Cryptic 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listcruft. Elomis 08:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. - jlao ⁰⁴ 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree wholeheartedly with nominator's reasoning. This is just a redlink farm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All or none! To be persistent, Cryptic, - I would delete even entries for ALL corporations (Netflix,Microsoft, etc...), since they also can be considered as advirtizing. The size should not matter.--Bakhteiarov 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not "all or none". Wikipedia has no policy on keeping similar articles, while it does have a policy on verifiability. Microsoft and Netflix have multiple third-party verification. ColourBurst 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not "all or none". I see here a conflict of Wikipedia policies however. Having said this, - it should be a certain priority assigned (some metrics) to polices in order to solve conflicts like this one. Obviously allowing big companies like Netflix to stay creates a competitive advantage for them, which is not an Wikipedia intention.--Bakhteiarov 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia prevents advertising in the sense that it will not allow material with a biased point of view. I don't see much of a conflict here. (There's the argument that articles with third-party neutral sources get more coverage on WP, but that has to do with the third-parties themselves, not WP.) This certainly doesn't mean that everything should have an article regardless of notability or verifiability. ColourBurst 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Verifiability, - one can easily verify the existence of say, RussArt.com just ordereing DVDs online and get them in the mailbox. Notability, - creating policy like this, Wikipedia builds a huge "barrier of entry" increasing chances for startups to be not notable even further. An encyclopidia, by definition, is supposed to reflect the reality and not restrict it creating its own one. If an entity exists, - it is supposed to be noted and catalogolized. --Bakhteiarov 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Verifiability isn't just about verifying the existence of something - even though in this case "ordering a DVD from the store" would be considered original research - it's to verify everything that's written about it. If a third-party source hasn't written anything about it, the only things that can be verified are directory-entry style information, and Wikipedia is not a directory of anything. Frankly, barrier to entry problems are not really a concern of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. We have things like yellowiki to take care of business directory entries. ColourBurst 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I note that the Technical Video Rental article was recently deleted. I looked at comparable firm GameZnFlix and note that TVR (now SmartFlix) has the same revenue, a similar employee count, higher customer count, and has had press mention from Make magazine, Home Shop Machinist magazine, etc. I think that perhaps the TVR / SmartFlix article should be reconstituted, with this information. I note that according to WP:CORP, such an article would be justified under justification #1 there...but instead of just blindly reconstituting the article, I wanted to run it past some folks who seem to be active editors in the area. So: thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't really the place to discuss this matter, but the standard for companies is given in WP:CORP. If you believe that TVR satisfies WP:CORP, and have sources to prove it, then create the article, be sure to cite reliable sources (hint: TVR's website doesn't count), and be prepared for ruthless editing. But basically, if Technical Video Rental was truly notable, then you wouldn't have to create the article; others (who don't work for the company in question) would do it for you. Cheers, Vectro 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, though it's a little unclear whether the list is maintainable. Haikupoet 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bakhteiarov (talk · contribs) is not complaining about deletion of this article, but rather of articles that it (formerly) linked to. Vectro 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mangojuice^talk 13:05, 5 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa Tradition[edit]

The NKT article may violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, who is extremely critical of the subject. The piece also seems lacking in coherence and may present Kay's opinion as fact. Amerique ^dialectics 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First To be critical does not mean that the information are wrong. He is the only person who studied the 'NKT in great extend. Second, I counted the footnotes about the sources:
  • Kay Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation: 25
  • Official NKT sources: Full moon Magazines, Advertisement, NKT Websites, Centers , Interviews with NKT etc.:22
  • Magazines and Newspapers (Guardian, Mirror, Washington Times, Tricycle usw etc.):7
  • Daniel Cozort The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World :6
  • Waterhouse: 4
  • Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development.:2
  • von Brück, Michael (1999). Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus:1
  • Other sources: 6
• --BoboLuna 09:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For an article with as many sources as New Kadampa Tradition#References, neutrality is a matter of cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. The venue to address neutrality and cleanup is the article's talk page. Keep. Uncle G 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BoboLuna and Uncle G. Ratherhaveaheart 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs cleaning up, not deleting. There are a lot of references to verifiable, credible sources. Kay may dominate, but he's the only one who has written extensively on the NKT. Magic Pickle 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No case whatsoever for deletion and never should have been listed.. Take the issues to the talk page. Many editors have strived to keep NPOV on this controversial topic. Keeping POV in quotations and citing sources is a good way forward, and to keep talking on the Talk pages. I wonder if Amerique thought it might just get deleted while no-one was looking! Billlion 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Having a repairable POV is no basis for deletion. In fact, it is specifically listed as being a counter-criteria. – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems that most of the editors agree that the NPOV is violated in the current article on the NKT. I assume that’s why editors write things like “neutrality is a matter of cleanup”, “the article needs cleaning up”, and “having a repairable POV”. One editor also describes the article as “very hard to read”. So we all agree that the article can not remain as it is. I understand and agree that this is not a valid reason for deleting the article. At least as long as NPOV can be achieved. The reason for deletion is that NPOV cannot be achieved. I think there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the current editors of the article are biased in the way that they have a rather negative view of the NKT. This is particularly obvious in the case of the user kt66 who is very open about his attitude towards and emotional involvement in the NKT on his user page, on his home page, on various internet forums, and in interviews. Even if I assume good faith I firmly believe that it is impossible for these editors not to introduce their biased opinions into the article. I can’t even blame them for it. Let’s take a drastic example. If you ask a group of Jews and a group of Nazis to each write an article about Adolf Hitler you would get two very very different articles even if they used the same sources. It is absolutely impossible to avoid that. None of the two articles would qualify for NPOV. Solution? Let them write the article together. Over the past 16 months various pro-NKT editors tried to improve the NPOV by working together with the anti-NKT editors. Together they have produced about 800 different versions of the article and about 200 A4/letter pages of discussion. And? Here we are, 16 months later. No NPOV yet. The pro-NKT editors came and they left. Only the anti-NKT editors are still hanging in and are in control of the article, frantically trying to improve it. Even if pro-NKT editors started working on the article again, NPOV could not be achieved. The last discussions about the NKT article on the German WP lead to an edit war in which user Kt66 was also involved. The article got blocked from editing. After it was unblocked again Kt66 immediately changed the article around the way he wanted it to be. He even changed things back everyone previously agreed on. All this of course without having discussed his changes on the talk page beforehand. On one hand he invites people to contribute on the other hand he rejects all information coming from the NKT editors as wrong, distorted, decieving, and so forth. At one point the German administrator Peter Jacobi sought advice from Jimmy Wales.

Peter Jacobi wrote: > There are even topics so obscure (New Kadampa Tradition comes > to my mind), that only vocal opponents and vocal proponents > contribute. Should they already be considered "interested > parties"? Shall we hope, that they will battle it out so that the > result is NPOV?

Jimmy Wales wrote: “The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work.

I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me.

What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.”

Unfortunately, there are only opponents and proponents of the NKT who contribute to this article. I think the administrators would be wise to follow Jimmy Wales wisdom and experience and delete this article.

Secondly, it’s impossible to achieve NPOV because there are not sufficient sources available and the few sources that are available are rather negative about the NKT and full of opinions and mistakes. I guess it’s just more fun and a bad habit to look at the faults and not at the good qualities. It also sells better. Many of the sources are quite out of date and hence cannot provide an up do date picture of the NKT. The work of Kay is full of opinions presented as facts. He presents opinions of individuals which are not necessarily the opinion of the majority of NKT members or the NKT itself. The Full Moon Journal was discontinued about 10 years ago, is out of print and circulation. Many of the views expressed in it are not considered official NKT views which was probably the reason why it was discontinued. Some of the British news paper articles were completely over the top. I’ve heard that one of the newspapers later apologized for that. Also user KT66 started producing his own secondary sources by giving interviews and supplying other authors with material (see reference 76). Maybe the NKT should get some of their students to write a thesis about the NKT which can then be used as a veryfiable reputable source on WP. :-) Unfortunately, that wouldn’t help the NPOV either. I think even some completely neutral editors would find it difficult if not impossible to write a neutral article on the NKT using the sources which are available today. The article also contains wrong information and is very difficult to read. These kind of articles are already destroying the reputation of WP. Last month Larry Sanger, also founder of WP, launched an altenative projekt, the Citizendium Project, with the aim to avoid these kind of problems we experience in this article. I wouldn’t expect to find such an article in a “proper” encyclopedia. So, in conclusion I firmly believe that it is impossible to achieve a NPOV. Any adminstrator who wants to keep this article has to prove me wrong by spending the rest of his live working on this article turning around every single sentence, phrase and word. :-) I will check the article again in about 10 years time. :-) For these reason the article should be deleted. Thank you. Marpa 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to add some thoughts which will hopefully make my points clearer. I would love to contribute to this article (which I haven't done yet) but there is a lack of secondary sources that describe the views and opinions of the NKT on many of the subjects mentioned in the article. I can only say "This statement is wrong. It should be like this or that." or "This is not the view of Geshe Kelsang or the NKT. His view is ..." but I only have primary sources for this because secondary sources have not been published yet. The available secondary sources are mainly critical. Some of these sources were a direct response to the demonstrations the NKT followers performed in 1998. I understand that some people were upset by this. I think the reason why all of the pro-NKT editors stopped editing is that they could not support their contributions with secondary sources. What is left is a group of anti-NKT editors who are focussing mainly on one critical thesis and the negative information that was published after the demonstrations. They are searching all the sources for information which they can use to criticise the NKT, which means that even the so called "official NKT sources" (the Full Moon Magazine and many interviews with individuals are not official NKT sources) are not used to balance the article but rather to increase its negative bias. This article is far away from NPOV and more importantly, NPOV cannot be achieved due to the bias of the editors and the lack of secondary sources. Please delete. Marpa 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Marpa - pro NKT have lots of secondary sources - the published works of the NKT themselves! Look at the quote from GKG about respecting others and concentrating on the good qualities - that's in the article currently and reflects very well on NKT and GKG. The fact that most secondary sources are hostile is unfortunate (why is that anyway?) but shouldn't be a bar on using them. 'The New Believers ' is one source which tries hard to be fair to NRMs like the NKT, can we not use more of sources like this?. In my opinion the article is certainly not overly POV ridden, not enough to warrant deletion. Jimmy Wales may not want a battleground of interested parties, but the open nature of WP allows this, until he decides to change it - that's the way it is.

How about this - what if we put a restriction on the size of the article, so that it is not overly full of complicated criticisms or theology? Put it this way, even if this article is deleted, what's to stop me or anyone else starting another? Should we also have no Scientology article? No SGI article? No Roman Catholic article? Surely we know the answer to that. I also would add that the criticism that the article's 'consuming time and energy' is not any sort of argument - editors can choose to contribute or not as the case may be. Magic Pickle 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is consuming the time and energy of many Wikipedia editors and administrator. Since the article has been nominated for deletion it has undergone another (undiscussed) dozens of changes from the main editor. It does not make sense to work for an agreement in the discussion section, knowing that some editors will change the article anyway according to their views when guest editors left the article. Why are there still so many changes each week? Why is the main editor changing his own statements so many times? Because the article is of good quality? Surely not! The fact that there are many sources for this article does not prove that the article is fair and unbiased. If you have a particular presupposition it's not that difficult to find supporting sources: take a look at Talk:Evolution for an excellent example. --Real Friends 13:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I feel that there is a clear conflict of interest here which underpins the NPOV problem - this is easy to establish from a mere cursory reading of kt66's user page (the main editor of this article) in which he sets out quite clearly his agenda and close emotional and personal involvement with the subject matter. I regard the editorial input from kt66 as propaganda and a clear infringement of the What Wikipedia is not guidelines. Many editors have given up on this article in the face of the incessant barrage of negativity focussed on it by kt66 - perhaps blighted by its poisonous effects. What I consider the undue weight given to the views of David Kay, which is part of what I would argue constitutes a breach of NPOV, is I feel evidence of the partisan approach taken by the main editor of this article. I don't think there is any hope of achieving NPOV if a month of waiting produces no constructive discussion regarding the problems on the talk page and kt66 adds more and more, taking the article further and further away from neutral point of view. This article is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia as it is clearly being used as a soapbox for the main editors views, and the sources used are outdated and obscure. I would also stress the fact that this article has been a battleground for far too long, taking up the valuable time of editors that could (in my humble opinion) be far better spent. Last resort it maybe - necessary I believe it is. Excellentone 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes you or other NKT editors free of "a clear conflict of interest here which underpins the NPOV problem"? Nobody knows who you are, maybe you are James Belither...How can I recognize that you not "set out quite clearly your agenda and close emotional and personal involvement with the subject matter"? User:Billion recognized a constructive environment at the talk page and encouraged us to go on with discussion, but no NKT editor used that or picked up his or my suggestions how to go on. I agreed to a mediation although I have no conflict with you whereas you rejected mediation without even to try at the talk page to find a solution. All my trials to invite you to contribute you didn't pick up at all. So what can be done if you block? I can only interprete your way of solution as that you feel hopeless, but this is no reason for deletion - maybe it shows an emotional involvement? - I am half joking. I do not agree to your and user:Marpa's constant trials to assume I would have an emotional involvement, rather I would say I have some knowledge and this can be used. Although I have a clear opinion on the subject matter, I feel able to balance it and I feel able to look from different angles on the subject matter. If I fail in this you are most welcome to correct me. Maybe we start fair communication? Many Regards --Kt66 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a layperson, I must say this article is extremely difficult to understand. The text seems to assume significant prior understanding of Buddhism, and the distinctions this article makes between various customs and practices within this tradition vs. others are beyond my understanding to call. While deletion may be an extreme approach to take regarding the NPOV concerns, a sort of "nuclear option," I feel at least the substance of this article may benefit from being broken up into more coherently organized mini-articles, as opposed to one article that tries to address a plethora of interesting particular items that however, to me, don't add up to a clear picture of what NKT is. As far as the POV concern goes, I feel that Marpa and others have presented a compelling case, but the structure of Wikipedia is organized as to favor constant revision through constant discussion, and POV issues within referenced material are normally countered by providing context through other referenced material. David Kay may be biased, but I think the article has begun to do an adequate job of isolating "his comments" as "his comments," as opposed to a presenting him as a non-partisan source. Deletion would give editors the opportunity to begin this article again, but I don't see how you could keep Kay out as a reference or prevent editors with attitudes hostile to NKT from editing any associated articles. There are avowed white supremacists and religious fundamentalists as well as cynics of all sorts with self-identifying userboxes editing articles on WP, NPOV is something we can strive for but obviously not something that can be easily achieved.

That being said, why not try the nuclear option as an experiment to see how this article reconstructs itself? Perhaps deleting contentious articles every now and then instead of keeping the same old ones would freshen things up. There certainly are a lot as deserving of the treatment.--Amerique ^dialectics 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! per BoboLuna, Uncle G, Ratherhaveaheart, Magic Pickle, ClockworkSoul and Billlion. If the problem is a possibly undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, it can be balanced. As said above Kay is the only one who did extended research on NKT, so he can not be neglected either. Until now nobody picked up the suggestion to use Bluck as a source to balance it or suggested any other source. It seems to me NKT members just prefer to have no article at all and are blocking a solution, but this is no reason to delete it. If you look at the talk page less efforts from the article critics were made to suggest or pick up a constructive solution to improve the article, but this is also no reason to delete it. The suggestions of user:Excellentone, user:Billion at the talk page were put into practice by myself, so nobody can say I blocked the development of the article but can ask oneself why he/she has not contributed. However I prefer a solution by mediation to go on in improving the article instead of deleting it. Maybe we can win Amerique for this enterprise? --Kt66 08:14, 4 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 speedy delete. Kusma (討論) 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stingraids[edit]

Nonsense/Attack OverlordQ 08:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 09:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above, if there isn't anything faster. Pegs the bullocks meter, and not even funny. Tubezone 09:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete tagged page. This is an attack page QuiteUnusual 09:30, 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. Dakota 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalDreamDoor[edit]

A music website. This has been tagged for speedy for twenty hours without any administrator willing to delete it or untag it, so I'm bringing it here for resolution. Neutral. —Cryptic 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria. --Nehwyn 09:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Nehwyn. - jlao ⁰⁴ 12:07, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Jeeva[edit]

An author. This has been on CAT:CSD for twenty-two hours without any administrator willing to delete it or untag it, so I'm bringing it here for resolution. Neutral. —Cryptic 09:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Dominic Jeeva although from an obscure and small island nation of Sri Lanka was a prominent literary figure amongst its minority Sri Lankan Tamil people. A google search under his name yields more than 50 links see here that is not only his notability but he is also a reference point for many younger generation of writersRaveenS 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on this here RaveenS 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - For the reasons RaveenS gave above. I don't know why he was speedied (too lazy to check) but the references establish notability and the article (although only a stub and in need of copy editing) does not come across as vain or conflicted. I'd even suggest speedy keeping this one if it weren't CSD. -bobby 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable among TAmils.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of source material is cited and notability is established. Seraphimblade 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable among Srilankan Tamils  Doctor Bruno  15:28, 1 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 Speedy delete a7, no colorable assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Kirkbright[edit]

notability not established, contested prod QuiteUnusual 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, only 4 google hits

• Delete: The only claim, being the "lead saxophonist" to notability is unsourced. This looks like a vanity page. --Nehwyn 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - csd a7. So tagged. MER-C 11:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. - jlao ⁰⁴ 12:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per MER-C. BTLizard 13:28, 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 Merge to Fanon (fiction) Yomangani^talk 15:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanwank[edit]

This article contains: a dictdef whose primary source of attestation is Urban Dictionary, a mass of original research, and no examples because there are no credible sources for such. The article is, in short, fanwankery. Guy 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable neologism, possibly hoax. --Dweller 10:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) After reconsideration, neutral between delete and merge instead after considering the new information. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. Shame, it has a nice ring to it. ;) Rockpocket 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Google test gets 20,000 hits so maybe it's not quite as nonexistent as it looks, although this may be taken with a grain of salt as "fanwank"+"craig hinton" results in only Wikipedia knock-offs. Axem Titanium 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; that's incorrect. A Google search turned up at least two (apparently) independent sources of information- one dating back to 2000, so it certainly can't be from Wikipedia. I've added these references, and will add more. (Note: This is the first time I've seen this article; I'm not a contributor). Fourohfour 11:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer; this comment is mine. Please be aware of this and take possible (unintended) rallying into account if that occurs. Fourohfour 12:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible into Fanon (fiction), noting where claimed terms or usage are questionable (or discarding if there's no reliable source for that fact). Although the article smacks of original research in parts, it seems to be describing a real and recognised phenomena (though- as with many articles- it needs references). Fourohfour 11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Enough examples are present (Marvel Comics, Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who), and I think having 20 000 Google hits proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the concept is known by more than a small group of people and not original to the article. Sources have also been added since the nomination. Fanwanks definitely need to be discussed if Wikipedia is to thoroughly describe the phenomenon of fanfic. The current article isn't perfect, but a wiki article doesn't have to be perfect right away. There's definitely good solid material there, and it would be a shameful waste to throw it all away. NeonMerlin 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Asssuming that, as stated above, it's a real term, which it appears to be. Article has had a couple of references added. Is it original research, or is a distillation of existing knowledge? I'm not sure, but any article that explains the term "continuity porn" is A-OK in my book. Herostratus 05:41, 9 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.