< April 10 April 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill knott (poet)[edit]

Notability concerns. No external links or references. Poorly written, and seems to be advertising a website. Retiono Virginian 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Thomas[edit]

Heidi Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Little assertion of notability, no references or external links. Retiono Virginian 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Joseph Harrington[edit]

Matthew Joseph Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author: sole output appears to be two short stories in the shared-universe anthology Man-Kzin Wars XI Tearlach 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user is the article creator as well as the subject of the article. MSJapan 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user is the original vandal of this article. Matthew Joseph Harrington 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the records, there were no vandalistic edits. All edits were good faith, and as far as I can tell, were made to make the article more encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: agreed. This presumably refers to the removal of a section of aphorisms from the stories [1] that would be unusual to include even with a major author. Tearlach 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The addition of false information and perversion of phrasing to destroy meaning may be through mere ignorance or incompetent writing skills, but that does not make the term Good Faith applicable. Of course, if someone who does such things actually can write clearly enough to be able to judge professional-grade work, the only possible motive is malice.Matthew Joseph Harrington 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What false information? The COI tag? It is obvious you have a COI here. The removal of the quotes? that is not the addition of false information, that is removal of unencylopedic content. Nothing wrong with that? What false information was added, please, back up these assertions, otherwise it is just blowing smoke. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously: The term Naval Base was replaced by Naval Air Station, a term not yet in use in 1960, which is when I was born at the US Naval Base in Yokosuka. It is a falsehood, of precisely the same character as referring to a WWII Army Air Corps veteran as belonging to the US Air Force-- which did not then exist. This kind of disregard for accuracy is surely not appropriate for anything calling itself an encyclopedia. Matthew Joseph Harrington 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so provide reliable published sources about what it was called then, and we'll include them Tearlach 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stalking me. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking. Whatever it was called at the time, it was still linked to the correct article, it was still located in the same place, and it was still a Navy base. It's not like I changed it to read "Ft. Bragg, North Carolina Army base"; I simply used the title I was familiar with, and as a note, it's not called the Naval Air Station anymore, either, but I don't see a complaint from the author about that, probably because that factual change doesn't affect him somehow. In any case, it's not grounds for vandalism claims (all he had to do was change that one item and explain it, rather than reverting on the grounds of "vandalism" and "factual inaccuracy", and then accusing WP of total inaccuracy based on the one item), it's not grounds for closing the AfD (which is the author's intent with this protracted argument ("I'm right, so you need to keep my article")), and it's not an excuse for this argument at all. What it is is an excuse for the author of this article to not admit COI and NN by spinning the blame off onto others. Frankly, this doesn't even merit the response I gave it, and I'm not going to comment further. With a 15-2 (maybe) vote in favor of deletion, where he was born isn't going to matter. MSJapan 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you were the one who decided to pick a fight over your mistakes being corrected, it's ever so big of you to stop keeping the wounds open. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not notability I don't know what that guy on but he crazy this is a very notable Man-Kzin Wars. There no way that this should be deleted the person who request deletion must have some sort of grudge against the creator and should not be taken seriously.(AG)(Anothergirl The Original And Best 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))(note: first edit from newly-created account Tearlach 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Tubalcain. Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who you? Matthew Joseph Harrington 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and Redirect to Fiction Factory. EliminatorJR Talk 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chic Medley[edit]

Chic Medley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

played guitar in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdown[edit]

Ifdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Linux command. Wikipedia is not the Linux Documentation Project. greenrd 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reason:

Ifup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding the second article, I don't know how to properly link to it, other than by pasting the URL, because the article title begins with a slash - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//etc/network/interfaces - If anyone can get this to work properly, please be bold and fix this paragraph for me.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Fiction Factory. EliminatorJR Talk 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham McGregor[edit]

Graham McGregor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

played bass in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Pilgrim[edit]

David Pilgrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

youth players not yet notable Matthew_hk tc 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated

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

The result was Redirect to Fiction Factory as per Chic Medley. EliminatorJR Talk 11:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Jordan (Artist)[edit]

Eddie Jordan (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

played keyboards in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Hampshire (Area 1)[edit]

List of schools in Hampshire (Area 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is NOT a directory. Nothing but lists of HUNDREDS of Yellow Pages style entries with telephone numbers and external links. I am also listing the following phonebook articles for the same reason: List of schools in Hampshire (Area 2), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 3), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 4), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 5), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 6), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 7), List of schools in Hampshire, List of independent schools in Hampshire, List of schools in Hampshire (Southampton area). Saikokira 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The List of schools in the South East of England is an even more useless list as it's only partial as it admits itself. A complete list of schools would leave a page of a completely unmanageable size. Surely this is what categories are for? We already have "Schools in county" categories set up.EliminatorJR Talk 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of schools in the South East of England is one of a number of other similar lists. English schools are currently only categorised by county rather than by LEA. I suppose they could also by categorised by LEA too but the school lists have been existence for some time now and it would be quite a job removing them all and adding the appropriate LEA category to every single school. Is this something that can be done automatically by a bot? The list of schools in the South East of England might only be partial but it is constantly being updated so it is feasible that it will be completed. Dahliarose 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the majority of cases , the LEA (more precisely LA these days) is congruent with the county anyway (e.g. all state schools in Northamptonshire come under Northamptonshire LA). However, independent schools throw a spanner into that particular works, so it may be better to categorise by county anyway. EliminatorJR Talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berkshire schools are split into three different education authorities: West Berkshire, Wokingham and Windsor. As you say, independent schools are a law unto themselves and it is more logical to categorise them by county. Dahliarose 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrcx[edit]

Pyrcx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged as speedy spam. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article was created by the programmer himself. Other than the fact that Pyrcx is already mentioned in IRCX, I cannot find any independent sources that can establish the software's notability, other than download locations for the client. JRHorse 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the website for discussing pyrcx's development is located at www.pyrcx.com, chrisjw/cyborg is the original programmer for the software

just because you havent heard of pyrcx doesnt mean it doesnt exist, and it isnt just a simple spam for an irc server. on top of that, pyrcx is more than just another ircx server

the way the admin are around here im surprised anything with a link ever gets posted [xsu|c|desn0wmanx - former pyrcx developer] The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.35.14 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White guilt[edit]

White guilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely lacks sources; seems to be entirely OR. Op-ed piece. Fails WP:ATT. Jtrainor 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bands named after gruesome events[edit]

Bands named after gruesome events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV needed to decide what is "gruesome" enough to be included. Indiscriminate (Jonbenét Ramsey and the bubonic plague?!). And just plain silly. Saikokira 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and burn, and possibly salt to keep any of this crap from popping up again? 164.116.253.7 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant View Junior High School[edit]

Pleasant View Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school; "Pleasant View" Junior High School "north york" gives 10k ghits, many of which are about people who went there. Veinor (talk to me) 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Chairboy. MER-C 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz songs[edit]

List of jazz songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Potentially never-ending list which could run into several thousand titles, and impossible to maintain. Jazz songs by performer, listed alphabetically; it's already up to hundreds of entries but still only on the letter "A" (the creator appears to have given up, which is understandable).

List was previously deleted in 2005 for the same reasons. The list may have been different then, but any list with this title is going to have the same problems. Saikokira 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't tell if it's a repost of the same material deleted 2 years ago, or just a different article with the same name, otherwise I would have nominated it for speedy myself. Saikokira 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, fails the WP:NN test. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle club[edit]

Chuckle club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comedy club. Possibly spamvertisement. Prod tag removed by creator. Delete DMG413 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My arguement for worthiness hinges on these points: 1. Many of the big names in British Comedy started out doing this night. Would you argue the venue or night where major music band played when they first started or club where a major sports persons started should be deleted. 2. The night has already got recongition for a non-minor event. It has several thousand hits in Google. It is very different for an organisation with a specific name to get several thousand hits in Google than a random expression as "sticking pencil up my bum." Also, it got an anniversary article in the Metro, a very widely read paper in London. It is not easy to get an article in the Metro. 3. Chuckle Club is 21 years old. This is not a proof of worth by itself but it does give an indication that it may have some significance if could continue for so long.

Also to set the record straight; I'm not connected to the night in anyway (expect for attending it a few times) and the article was not an advertisement. Pete bot 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not the comedy equivalent of "the venue or night where major music band played when they first started or club where a major sports persons started". This is a club night at a venue, not the place itself. Since we don't have a separate entry even for Manumission, the biggest (appr 10000 per night) club night in the world which has notable acts on every night, that kind of WP:WAX argument doesn't apply here. This article may be appropriate for a section in an article on the venue, but only if the venue itself can be shown N for other reasons; as it stands, it would be the equivalent of an article on the school team David Beckham played for before he joined Man U. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment I accept what the above comment is saying but Chuckle Club is separate to an individual venue. It has always been located in the west end of London but the venue has changed over time. So Chuckle Club is a seperate entity from the venue (this case the Tuns). Pete bot 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Agree it definitely needs a cleanup. I feel there should have been some discussion before an AfD tag was placed on it.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kath and Kim. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kath And Kim U.S Version[edit]

Kath And Kim U.S Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page created un-necessarily with information already provided on the Kath & Kim page. Page should not be created until the show has unique information and the series is about to commence in the US. Lakeyboy 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete- clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. Wikipedia is not censored. However, none of the keep opinions have addressed the lack of reliable sources to confirm notability. WjBscribe 17:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Lin[edit]

Evelyn Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pornographic actress. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO standards. No awards, no unique trends or contributions to pornography, no suitable mainstream media exposure. —Ocatecir Talk 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First, that can't possibly be true, there are plenty of chinese porn stars. Second, no source exists to back that statement up. —Ocatecir Talk 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic and cartoon characters by age[edit]

List of comic and cartoon characters by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Impossible to maintain accurately since so few cartoon characters actually specify their age, a problem which the list clearly demonstrates; only 4 out of the 70-odd characters here actually have their age listed. The rest of them just have vague descriptions such as "Children" or "Elderly". Saikokira 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Notability criteria established both in article and in discussion; the two cleanup templates should remain until stylistic issues are resolved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loring d. dewey[edit]

Loring d. dewey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-encyclopedic essay; Delete --Mhking 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to merge it into MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic totalitarianism[edit]

Islamic totalitarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is one of those unfortunate articles which are doomed to have the dread POV tag at the top of the article forever. In addition, there is barely any content here. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I see no justification for this POV article. Instead, the material about the term and the manifesto can be merged into Islamism (might not be appropriate there either, I'm not sure) or Salman Rushdie (who apparently coined the term) if deemed significant, as the material here pertains to that political ideology, rather than Islam in specific. Also the article on MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism already exists, which is basically a copy of this article about the very same issue. Khorshid 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a sock of Patchouli (talk · contribs). The Behnam 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacAmp[edit]

MacAmp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article claims that MacAmp preceded Winamp. The article states: The MacAmp player was first released on April 13, 1997 by Dmitry Boldyrev. The problem is, Winamp premiered in 1996 so unless Mr. Boldyrev has a time machine, that surely isn't the case. By the way, the article is authored by Dmitry Boldyrev as is his vanity article Dmitry Boldyrev, both of which have been repeatedly deleted and recreated. Only Dmitry himself and his websites corroborate any of these articles. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that MacAmp preceeded WinAmp, but also WinAmp was a result of port of MacAmp to Windows under Dmitry Boldyrev's initiation. Please consider a research first before challanging authenticity. For quick verification, please go to PlayMedia Systems' website www.playmediasystems.com, the owner of AMP trademark and check for yourself. If you'd like me to provide lawsuite paperwork which resulted from Justin Frankel's attempt to cover up the story I can surely do so. Dmitry Boldyrev is currently licensing GUI and logo to AOL, Nullsoft and Justin Frankel.

Dmitry Boldyrev, inventor of WinAmp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewse (talk • contribs)

What the playmediasystems.com site says is that you licensed AMP in 1997...after Winamp had been released. IrishGuy talk 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm voting delete for this per WP:ATT --Haemo 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the MacAmp may have some degree of notability, this article is nonsense. Nothing independent of Dmitry Boldyrev confirms any of it. Boldyrev is attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history. IrishGuy talk 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was put in February of this year. It just appeared without sources and there was no mention in any previous incarnation of the article. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I was under the impression it was there longer. --Bongwarrior 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to this discussion: Quoting PlayMedia Systems Website:

"1997.02.01: Dmitry Boldyrev, co-creator of WinAMP, becomes the first licensee of the AMP® 0.7-series MP3 decoder for his "MacAMP" MP3 player for the Macintosh® operating platform. MacAMP™ was the first Application to use AMP®.

Note: It was Boldyrev who introduced MP3 technology and the AMP® decoder itself to fellow University of Utah student Justin Frankel. Boldyrev and Frankel subsequently formed Nullsoft (now a unit of AOL). In mid-1997, the Boldyrev/Frankel partnership released WinAMP to the general public using a GUI bitmap design by Boldyrev."

I should have the rights to state what is true, or is this not allowed anymore? In addition to that, MacAmp is my product and who knows history better than I do, uh? What's the reason for me lying?heh


why you guys even thinking about deleting this? just ask the millions of macamp users what was first and still the best, they will all say MACAMP and those that botherd to read the about box will say "thank you Dmitry", now come on just cos you wernt aware of things doesn't make them not happen ;)

Just because you claim something (with no coroborating evidence at all) doesn't mean it happened. :) IrishGuy talk 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, no offense, but I've provided evidence for you. Why are you constantly ignoring the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewse (talk • contribs)

Because you haven't. You have not provided any verifiable independent sources to back up any of your claims. IrishGuy talk 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayMedia Systems is not a verifiable source? They own the AMP trademark. They *are* the WinAmp, MacAmp, and everything that has "AMP" in the word of it. Go on trademark search and lookup AMP trademark, verify this yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.173.100 (talk • contribs)

As I noted above, what the playmediasystems.com site says is that you licensed AMP in 1997...after Winamp had been released. Dmitry is trying to use Wikipedia to rewrite history and give himself credit for things that are not corroborated by anyone outside of himself. IrishGuy talk 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- To Iris guy you really need to do your research Dmitry released macamp way before winamp. Check your facts 1997.02.01: Dmitry Boldyrev, co-creator of WinAMP, becomes the first licensee of the AMP® 0.7-series MP3 decoder for his "MacAMP" MP3 player for the Macintosh® operating platform. MacAMP™ was the first Application to use AMP®.

Note: It was Boldyrev who introduced MP3 technology and the AMP® decoder itself to fellow University of Utah student Justin Frankel. Boldyrev and Frankel subsequently formed Nullsoft (now a unit of AOL). In mid-1997, the Boldyrev/Frankel partnership released WinAMP to the general public using a GUI bitmap design by Boldyrev. http://playmediasystems.com/index.php?cat=news&ID=2

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

The result was Boldly userfied since this is plainly a resume and an autobiography but we don't want to WP:BITE the fellow; if DGG wants to write a neutral article from independent sources then more power to him, but I expect we don't need to know about "awards and honors" like the American Psychiatric Association Certificate of Continuing Excellence. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Hooper[edit]

James F. Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Resume, autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Contested prod. MER-C 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Blame it on days of dealing with vanity prods. Orderinchaos 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Learning[edit]

Sylvan Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:CORP, notability not asserted (the Unabomber and Youtube references seem an excuse rather than a reason for having this article) Orderinchaos 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by RyanGerbil10. Reason given was "CSD A7". -- Selket Talk 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Admirals[edit]

Cork Admirals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (as in no evidence of third party sources) vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiya High School[edit]

Hibiya High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's just some random public school in Tokyo, pretty sure it's not notable. --awh (Talk) 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's at least 7 alumni with articles. I just added Susumu Tonegawa, who mentions it in his Nobel bio ([10]). Stammer 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous monsters[edit]

List of famous monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list, for example; Godzilla, Satan, Bigfoot, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Cookie Monster. Jack and the beanstalk, The X-Files, The Myth of Perseus, and Pokémon. This list proves the term "Monsters" is just too broad to try and list all of them together. Saikokira 04:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. First, this list appears not to have been included in the mass AfD in early 2007 as it was created after closure of that discussion. Second, the mass AfD was closed as a keep all, but should have been listed as closer to keep all — no consensus as there was substantial discussion both for and against retention. Finally, the primary arguments in the prior mass AfD that resonate for me are those around understanding the place of the airline in society, which is also a justification for inclusion of historical destinations for functioning airlines (dropouts are historical facts related to the evolving service of the airline and can have significant impact on locales). The status of the current list here is an artifact of the time of closure of the airline and should effectively be titled 'list of destinations at time of closure'. The arguments below and those put forth in the mass AfD combine to suggest that the fate of the present list should be merger into Aeroperú. However no source is provided for the information, which is a fatal flaw; as such the information is not verifiable. If a source is in fact available, I would encourage recovery of the article via WP:DRV (to recover the History), content merger to Aeroperú and conversion of the list to a redirect. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroperú destinations[edit]

Aeroperú destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable list of former destinations of defunct airline. dcandeto 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ecuatoriana de Aviación. WjBscribe 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuatoriana Destinations[edit]

Ecuatoriana Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable list of former destinations of defunct airline. dcandeto 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Friday Shield[edit]

The Good Friday Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This sporting event is not notable; a Google search turns up three hits, two of which are Wikipedia. Article was prodded, but creator removed tag. Might be speedy-able. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT! Tearlach 11:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man. Please stop stalking me. Matthew Joseph Harrington 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is much you can do. The first main requirement, WP:Verifiability, is possible: you'd need to find third-party published references up to the standard of WP:Reliable sources, like newspaper reports, that confirm *everything* said in the article. But the second one is notability: and as others have said, an alumni sports match just isn't going to cut it. Tearlach 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might substantiate, but the only way you're going get notability is if some factor turns up completely outside the parameters of "alumnni football match" - e.g. both teams wiped out in mid-game by a meteorite strike or the first outbreak of a worldwide bird flu pandemic. Tearlach 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. KFP (talk | contribs) 08:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ituriaga[edit]

Patrick Ituriaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, unverified, unsourced claims Empyrycal 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, renaming to GMT Watch per discussion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GMT Watch"[edit]

"GMT Watch" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't assert notability, doesn't cite any sources. Delete Empyrycal 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as per notability of the subject, which may not be asserted. A source should not be difficult to find. I also like Quux.'s idea of speedy redirect to 24 hour watch, of course, given that the creator of this article would not disagree that the GMT Watch is essentially a " 24 hour watch " . Jamesowen237 13:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as A7 by User:JzG. EliminatorJR Talk 10:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Maitland-Lewis[edit]

Ben Maitland-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was a speedy, editor contested, non notable fails WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC[12] Dakota 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Users are free to insert information from here into the article on the battle if they so desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wood (British army officer)[edit]

David A. Wood (British army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination for 203.10.224.58 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion yet. MER-C 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the above source said is that he died in combat. What was his importance? We have deleted articles on other service personnel with much more available info on the net then this guy. No where does it state that his actions led to the victory at Goose Green. No one is doubting the significance of Gooses Green, just the significance of this individual. Millions of people die in combat. They don't all deserve pages here.--Looper5920 11:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better category than the one you pointed out is Category:American Vietnam War killed in action. Carcharoth 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on this one. Having gone through the list...which I can see you failed to do. of the 86 names, 76 of them have recieved the Medal of Honor. Of the remaining 10...2 are there for there actions at My Lai, 1 recieved the Bronze Medal in boxing at the 1964 Olympics, 2 were awarded the Navy Cross, 1 was a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, 1 was a collegiate All-American for football, 1 was a professional football player, another has a shipped named after him (this one is questionable and could be redirected to the ship itself) and finally another is a recipient of the Air Force Cross and was the youngest pilot to shoot down a MIG in Vietnam. Of the 86 names only 2 are questionable and they are the last two mentioned and arguments could go either way for them. Please find a better list to use for comparison.--203.10.224.60 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still is Category:Killed in action - covers the whole world and all of history. In case anyone is interested, as of 11/04/2007, we have 1662 articles on people Killed in Action. It would be interesting to see how many of them are notable for anything other than their wartime deeds and medals? I would be interested in separating out the young soldiers who died and got medals, from those who were already famous, or would be famous later, or who were high-ranking officers and generals (or even Roman emperors in one subcategory). You might indeed be able to successfully invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (before anyone objects, I know what it means) - or at least show that this issue desrves a wider debate than an article-by-article approach. Carcharoth 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 5-minute scan through that section reveals (to begin with) around 20 articles on US personnel KIA in Iraq that don't appear to have any notability other than that. Now I don't see that as a problem, compared to the amount of popular-culture-cruft that we let slip through (again, hopefully other editors will see that isn't an argument purely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).EliminatorJR Talk 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However it could be argued that his was a defining moment in what was the defining battle of that particular war. EliminatorJR Talk 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - why is this even an issue? The article has been expanded and notability is not in dispute.139.48.81.98 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Falkowitz[edit]

Max Falkowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, no asseriton of notability, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza (Drinking Game)[edit]

Bonanza (Drinking Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded twice, and removed by author. WP:NFT - drinking game, unsourced. I'd recommend speedy, if someone could suggest a category. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi project[edit]

Malawi project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. KFP (talk | contribs) 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany stamm[edit]

Brittany stamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. All tags to this article have been removed without serious article improvement. Fails WP:N. Ronbo76 06:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christoff Johnson[edit]

Christoff Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like a non notable artist. Gets two google hits,and it doesn't look sourced Empyrycal 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Christoff's supposed label Sketch-case Records gets no Google hits at all. —Celithemis 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(NPOV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantra101 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-11T03:36:25

Comment The author of these two articles, Tantra101 (talk · contribs), has been engaging in very disruptive edits, including blanking this page and removing tags from the articles under discussion ... some admin needs to give them a time-out. --68.239.79.97 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitsumaru[edit]

Hitsumaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is nonsense. User keeps undoing deletion requests. Marcellinus 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BizAutomation CRM[edit]

BizAutomation CRM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No notability established. For a $2 million company it also seems unlikely that it can be established. S.K. 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lene Alexandra[edit]

Lene Alexandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable person, orphaned page, one contributor. -- vidarlo 08:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7 by RyanGerbil10. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanzo[edit]

Shanzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, probably fake martial art. Google gives 0 hits for "Shanzo" "martial art" Ashenai 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport[edit]

Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic listcruft; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. dcandeto 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wild foods[edit]

List of wild foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A frankly bizarre article. It consists of a curious hybrid of mainstream non-domesticated animals and non-cultivated plants, and "unexplored, here be dragons" stuff about the need to carefulyl identify before consumption. Here's an example: under fish, you have a number of freshwater fish, but many of these are either farmed or carefully managed game stocks. Game is also often not wild - for example, grouse are generally managed and shot on well-tended grouse moors, nothing wild about them. Ditto pheasant. Ar molluscs wild? Not round here. Oyster beds are also managed. Not farmed, but managed. And that's the fundamental problem with the list; it is founded on an original research definition of what constitues wild food, and the foods are then added by more original research. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nightclubs[edit]

List of nightclubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of nightclubs, most of which do not have articles and never should. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, not enough consensus to merge but that option can be discussed on the talk page. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birinci Lig 2005-06[edit]

Birinci Lig 2005-06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is about a very low level league (at level of Cyprus 3rd division) of a non-recognized country. I think if it is going to be in wikipedia, it is not important to have about every season of that weak league.

user:KRBN 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If most of the teams are deemed notable, then I think league results are ok. Perhaps try deleting the teams first? aLii 10:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a de facto national league. I can understand POV issues when referring to various TRNC articles, but this one appears fine to me. - fchd 11:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep de facto nation top league. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus differ from Sealand. Matthew_hk tc 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>User:KRBN 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:KRBN 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - all other national leagues have a seperate page for each season, with the final league table etc. This one, even though it is for a generally unrecognised state, should have as well. - fchd 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice someone has deleted this season's Birinci Lig...that was once here as well. Is there anyway to resurface it, so we can add it to this merge we plan to do? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestyle[edit]

Gamestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy but asserts notability, albeit weakly. Is this site the subject of multiple non-trivial external coverage? Guy (Help!) 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Krayze[edit]

2 Krayze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page of a person who does not meet biographical notability requirements. Nothing on his webpage shows anything but selfpromotion ( nice webpage in places though), no news articles or reliable source interest. Article has been speedied a number of times for different reasons Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropod[edit]

Anthropod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Why is this incredibly obscure set of alien races in some game here? These are non-noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merechriolus (talk • contribs) 2007/04/10 15:15:56

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

Fénian Druid[edit]

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 12:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fénian Druid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Slip an slide 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of war 2[edit]

Gears_of_war_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

It should not be deleted. This article is based on factual information which is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A9l8e7n (talk • contribs) 2007/04/10 22:56:40

- Can't get to discussion page; so I will say this here. Gears of War 2 should not be deleted because it has been said by the creators that the game was being made. Therefore this article is about a upcoming game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.9.116 (talk • contribs) and moved comment

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hewitt[edit]

Jeff_Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyright violation.--Isotope23 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeweed[edit]

Zeeweed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article reads like spam.--Alex 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Davidson[edit]

Hamish Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was apparently inserted by a paid PR firm (according to Private Eye 13 April 07 kaswa is Ka**** Sw****, an employee of V**** Communications [a PR firm] who has been "bigging up" their clients on WikiPedia NBeale 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This page serves no other purpose than being redunant to a category. Linking to a ridiculous amount of webpages advertising gay porn actors is not a good idea. Wikipedia is neither a link farm, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information (most of the performers listed on the page are not notable enough to have an article on themselves). As to the question of controversial classification, this page runs into the risk of violating WP:LIVING more often than not and is easily susceptible to libellous editing, which wouldn't be a problem with the more notable porn stars listed in a category, as much of the needed information would be available about the subjects on the internet. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars (second nomination)

There's so many problems with this article it's hard to know where to start. OK, deep breath:

Putting it in the less friendly way, I believe this is pure listcruft and recommend we delete it. --kingboyk 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keep, and I hope you're not accusing me of bias! I wasn't aware of the list other you mentioned; it's not as messy as this one but nonetheless it does seem to be redundant to a category so I've nominated that one too. --kingboyk 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflicted with the next post)[reply]
To clarify the two main points noted in the nom, a) The AKA info alone is extremely useful, as well as containing info on articles not yet written, so it's not redundant to a category. b) The external URLs are *REQUIRED* per BLP. They're called "References" - we do like to have those in an encyclopedia. c) The self referencing can probably be cut down, but that's no reason to delete. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not references, or at least certainly not formatted as such. --kingboyk 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name isn't redundant; gay porn films also have females in them at times. The list is of male performers. The article was renamed after a lengthy discussion regarding changing the article name from "List of gay porn stars". The former title resulted in frequent comments that the list was claiming that the men listed were gay (despite the explicit comment that the men listed "may or may not be gay" and a reference to Gay for pay. Another consideration was that names of men who were appearing only on websites (which can sometimes open and close in a matter of days) were being added; finding reliable sources for those names would have been a nightmare, so the list is limited to men performing in films.—Chidom talk  05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information
The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
Navigation
Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists....If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
Development
Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimised for readers and not editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.
CharlotteWebb, closer of the most recent Afd prior to this one:
"The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories."
Any bias here may not be with regard to sexual orientation, but perhaps the subject of pornography is bothersome? Otherwise, why not nominate every list on Wikipedia?
Why have List of American composers? Couldn't that be served by a category as well? The article actually references Category:American composers. The difference with the list is that it is annotated; that's not possible with the category.
Shouldn't the List of 00 ZIP codes (and related articles) be a category, as its purpose seems to be grouping towns by ZIP code? The answer is no, since not all the towns in a ZIP code group have articles yet.
I'm not trying to say that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions isn't applicable here. I just find it interesting that this is again a target for deletion when it's been demonstrated twice before to be a valid resource for Wikipedians and well within Wikipedia guidelines for lists, while other lists are never questioned.
The same issues keep arising with regard to the article. Here are the issues and responses:
Each name on the list wasn't individually sourced; only links to a few searchable websites were listed as being references for the entire list.
Individual sources are being provided.
The format of the references is an issue.
In-line links are an appropriate format for references.
The references link to commercial websites.
Anyone is welcome to find another easily-referenced and accessible reliable source for gay porn and change the links. Commercial websites offering porn films for sale in which the performer listed appears are unquestionably reliable.
The individual sources were being added as invisible comments; the links have to be available to everyone reading the article without editing the article.
The references were being added as invisible comments to avoid any question of motives in linking to commercial websites, that was ruled to be inadequate; the links are now visible.
The articles that need to be written aren't displayed as red links.
When they were wikilinked, articles created for non-porn performers with the same names were written and were linking back to the list. For that reason, there is an invisible comment to editors at the beginning of each section of the list to forego wikilinking the name until there is an article for the person as a porn performer.
The article contains self-references.
The remaining self-references have been marked as such with the ((selfref)) template. The Inclusion or removal section is not a self-reference; it has been specifically worded to avoid being just that. It is designed to explain how the list is compiled, not how to edit it. It is also designed to serve as notice to editors here as to the composition of the list to try and minimize inappropriate additions.
The list will be difficult to maintain.
All lists containing dynamic information are difficult to maintain; whatever solutions are found for other lists of this type can be applied here. At the moment, it's a non-issue. Remember, too, that it's not meant to be a list of every gay porn performer on the planet.
The list is a maintenance list and belongs in project or user space.
That is true for lists whose primary purpose is to list needed articles; that is not the case here. The primary purpose is to serve as an index/table of contents of articles cross-referenced to each performer's pseudonyms.
Brevity is not among my talents. I've made many of these arguments over and over in many different places, here they are again along with my responses to some newer objections.—Chidom talk  05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, think it could do with a cleanup. The introduction section, with the exception of the last sentence, should be deleted entirely. All the instructions, for example, should be invisible - this is an encyclopedia, not a DIY manual. Although Chidom says it has been carefully worded not to give that appearance, it seems obvious to me, as I'm sure it does to many people, that it has been written to fend off other Wikipedians, not to add to the article. A paragraph on criteria in the lead would suffice for readers - anything else can be moved to talk or deleted. Similarly, the self-ref links in the see also section should be removed under WP:SELF. I get why you probably added them, but I think writing a form message to people who attack the article would better than writing a below-par article. All the external links should be turned into references, and ideally the entire article should be in table format - Celithemis has a script which can autmatically convert lists into tables, should you wish to contact her. I really appreciate the work that has gone into this list, but it needs a little more polish. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a major rewrite of the opening portion of the article, largely in part to quiet the continuing dissatisfaction with what are perceived to be self-references. My attempt was to have only the link to the talk page and the links to the other Wikipedia articles be the remaining self-references on the page. There is a template ((selfref)) to be used on self-references that allows other users of this information to omit them from versions published elsewhere; it was employed on all of those. The guideline says they are to be avoided, not that they should never be used. There's nothing wrong with stating for the reader what was required in order for a name to be included on the list—and doing so in detail isn't the crime some apparently think it is.
Much of the introduction comes from my experience here with regard to editors who insist on reading this as a list of gay men even though the information that it's not has been at the top of the article since August 2005. That's the biggest reason the article was renamed. Another issue to arise recently has been the attempt to include performers who have never been in a porn film; only on websites or in magazines.
The rest of the verbiage was a direct result of the decison reached by consensus about sourcing names individually, a decision I still disagree with. Part of the reason for the expanding lead section was to inform those who had missed (or skipped) the long debate about the new requirements for adding a name to the list.
As for "fending off" other Wikipedians, I don't think you can possibly imagine the amount of vandalism done to this article (mostly by non-registered users, but requests to have it permanently semi-protected have been denied). On one particular day, there were 23 separate "attacks" that had to be reverted; it couldn't be done automatically as legitimate additions were mixed in with the vandalism. Since the addition/revision of the introduction to the article, there has been less vandalism. Every addition that isn't obvious vandalism still has to be checked, with or without a linked source (gee, some people add bogus links!). If the verification isn't done, an edit war may ensue with their addition/removal. Names of valid performers who don't merit articles are being retained in the list in invisible comments to document the validation. Hopefully one of the results of the new requirement for sourcing will be a permanent reduction in the amount of vandalism.
The article is being converted into a table behind the scenes. The links aren't in a list of references because that would result in a list of references literally thousands of lines long. The references would be too far removed from the performer's listing to be useful or relevant. The links will be in their own column headed "References" in the table version; that should make it more obvious what the links are for and have them remain useful. Thanks.—Chidom talk  06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes to better understand why this needs to be a list and not a category. They are not redundant; the information here cannot be displayed in a category—only existing articles can be categorized, and this list's secondary purpose is to provide a list of articles that need to be written, per Wikipedia:Lists.—Chidom talk  07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be moved to WikiProject space. Epbr123 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone is welcome to replace the links to the commercial sites with other reliable sources. The links were originally invisible comments to avoid any accusations of "link spam"; the consensus was that they needed to be visible. Reliable sources for this topic are difficult to come by, these were the most expedient and were never meant to be advertising, only links to information about a performer. If you follow the links, they are to videographies, not to individual products.—Chidom talk  07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No matter how you will twist the intent of the article - the fact will remain that it is effectively a giant advertising and link spam. Your admission of earlier invisibility of the links makes it even worse - hidden links are typical of link spam. As for the "videographies" - they all are lists of the products, and in many cases individual products can be bought with just one additional click. Futurix 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to know, why many of your links are for the affiliate 2301 in the TLA shop? Do you make any profit from that or would you like to pretend it was honest mistake? Futurix 08:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I was hiding the links to avoid cluttering up the page and my intent was to not have them be accessible by the vast majority of users. When they were invisible comments, in order for them to be of use they had to be copied and pasted in the user's browser; I argued against making them visible and live.
As for the affiliate numbers—it is an honest mistake, I do not have an affiliate account with tla. I'm sure the proliferation is because I use one of the existing links in the article to open the tla site in another window to search in. The urls that I find apparently have the number embedded in them. to access the site to search for videographies and the number is propagated in every link I copy thereafter. I was totally unaware that there were affiliate numbers embedded in the links; I will remove them all.—Chidom talk  21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether link is visible or hidden does not matter for the purposes of link spamming. Besides - hiding link spam from human readers is such a common thing at spam websites, that obviously it is very suspicious. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to see the discussion about this here.—Chidom talk  06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this, and I'm amazed at your continuous refusal to understand that tlavideo profiteers from your linking. And your allegations of homophobia are stupid. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm arbitrarily basing the inclusion of the performers on the size of their videographies, which isn't an accurate yardstick at all, but it's something. The guideline is that there is a "reasonable expectation" that there will be an article in the future. It is not unreasonable to expect that someone with a lengthy videography will meet notability requirements. There is an article on a performer here who was in exactly one film—his notability stems from the fact that he was well-known for having won a bodybuilding title beforehand. Once again an attempt is being made to apply a more stringent standard to a porn-related article than to those with less controversial subjects.—Chidom talk  21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a good yardstick for inclusion of pornstars on Wikipedia. Its called WP:PORNBIO. I don't think performers who don't meet that standard belong on the list. WjBscribe 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is it required that any name on any list be proven to meet notability standards before they're put on the list; the guideline for a list is that there is a reasonable expectation that they will qualify for an article. A robust videography is an indicator that there is a reasonable expectation that the person will qualify. WP:PORNBIO is applicable to articles, not to lists. If it turns out that an article meeting notability requirements can't be written about a performer on the list, they can be removed. The amount of research required to evaluate the performer with regard to WP:PORNBIO or other notability guidelines is not a requirement for them to be listed; if that were the case, there would never be any lists. When that much reasearch is done, a stub article can be written. (Very carefully, by the way—gay porn stubs are summarily deleted while still being actively edited just because the first thing on the page wasn't the information establishing their notability.) One point of having the list is so that the research and drafting of articles can be divided among many editors.—Chidom talk  05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on LinkSpam: Can anyone recommend a better WP:RS for providing a reference to the fact that a particular performer was in a gay porn film? As has been discussed on the list's talk page, vendors are the only ones we've found so far. If anyone can provide a better one, I'll be happy to change the links to that. Until then, this is the only way we have of avoiding BLP and providing a reliable citation. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS To satyrTN - yes, plenty of other reliable sources - you've been given some, I could be one but you seem determined that we only have commercial sources. I feel sorry for Chidom who seems to have been forced to do things against his better judgment just to keep the page going. Cannonmc 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monoliths in popular culture[edit]

Monoliths in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The title says it all, really. Appearantly the article attempts to list different monoliths that can be seen in popular work. As of now, it deals mainly with the monoliths from Space Oddysey. Appears to be original research, has no references and has been tagged for these shortcomings for about a month Dr bab 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. FWIW, the text now here reads better, to me, than the text that is at The Monolith. At minimum, the see also link should indicate what The Monolith is about; it is not obvious from the title that The Monolith is about the 2001 monolith. In that case, perhaps the relevant majority of this article should move to either The Monolith or Monolith (2001: A Space Odyssey), the see-also link pointed to that one, and The Monolith redirected there. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Footballers Playing Abroad[edit]

Irish Footballers Playing Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like an indiscriminate and pointless list to me. Criteria for inclusion are foggy at best, and could potentially include anyone from Ireland playing any grade or quality of football. Lankiveil 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Wait a second, many footballer's pages are not up to the second (with caps and goals), and those are fine, as long as they have the little thing about when it was updated at the bottom. Couldn't we just do that with this? (write at the top, "Correct as of") theworm2345 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area 10 Project Space Peckham[edit]

Area 10 Project Space Peckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:ORG. Article also has WP:COI issues.RJASE1 Talk 12:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respite[edit]

Respite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a dictionary definition, basically. It's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, so no need to do that again. Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. Orderinchaos 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr St Clair Johnson[edit]

Mr St Clair Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article nominally about a character on an Australian TV series, I Got You Babe, which I cannot find. Is more likely an attack/joke/hoax page about a schoolteacher, see this diff by the creator. All significant edits are by anons or new accounts. Unreferenced. Not specific enough for a db-attack, and a contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, probably a CSD A7 candidate, but certainly no evidence of notability. --- Deville (Talk) 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Francis[edit]

Non notable person. Deputy Chairman/Deputy Head? Pally01 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Jayanti Swarozgar Yojana[edit]

Swarna Jayanti Swarozgar Yojana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is almost completely empty, and has been for over a month. Robinson weijman 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: If this article is kept, its name should probably be changed to "Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana", according to a quick Google search (see e.g. MAVIM). Robinson weijman 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beuningse Boys[edit]

Beuningse Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

amateur football club Matthew_hk tc 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHFPodmladak[edit]

BHFPodmladak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unknown fans group of football club Matthew_hk tc 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also nominated

BH Female Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

even more reason then - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isigqumo[edit]

Isigqumo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution, no sources appear to exist on this at all. The article pretty much comes out and admits this. There are various links at the end of the article, none of which are about this language. We have no way of knowing if this even exists. Xyzzyplugh 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Martinez Middle School[edit]

Bob Martinez Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, prod removed without comment by anon IP. Part of a flurry of over a hundred Tampa Bay-area middle and elementary school stubs created 14 months ago, no edits of any kind from February 2006 until article prodded. Completely fails WP:ATT, fails WP:NN as well, no reason to believe that the article will ever be sourced or substantively improved.  Ravenswing  13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, mm, good point, the prod was removed on the sixth day, but I'll take a deletion decision here instead.  Ravenswing  18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to School District 34 Abbotsford. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsqui Elementary School[edit]

Matsqui Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school, single sentence stub created in May 2006, no substantive edits made since then and infobox likely out of date. Completely fails WP:ATT, fails WP:NN, no assertion of notability, no reason to believe this article will ever be sourced or improved.  RGTraynor  13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 34 Abbotsford. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that would mess things up, as anybody clicking on this school's link at School District 34 Abbotsford would be bounced back to School District 34 Abbotsford. I guess this should just be Deleteed to leave a red link at School District 34 Abbotsford. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeware[edit]

Hopeware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable neologism and dictionary definition. I looked for sources, but the most I could find were things like blog posts and discussions -- people using the word colloquially, but without anything reliable to assert its widespread use. Compare the Google results for hopeware definition with other "ware" terms like shareware definition and spyware definition. Those terms have reached widespread acceptance in technology vocabulary, and are defined by many reliable sources. Hopeware has not achieved that kind of distinction. Leebo T/C 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdous Azam Khan[edit]

Ferdous Azam Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, appears to be a non-notable CEO of a non-notable company, nothing more than a passing mention in a few google results. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 05:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth.sg[edit]

Youth.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB.RJASE1 Talk 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoadingReadyRun[edit]

LoadingReadyRun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted per this AfD, it was recently created again, speedy tagged as a repost, and contested. You can see the article talkpage for the reason it was contested. None of the reasoning there meets WP:WEB though and overall I don't see any greater case for keeping this now than when it was originally deleted as an AfD. It isn't an exact repost though, and IMO, wasn't close enough for a speedy. Regardless I think this is a pretty clear delete. Isotope23 14:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/c 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female porn stars by decade[edit]

List of female porn stars by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is redundant to a category of porn stars by decade. kingboyk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Most porn stars don't have their careers entirely within one decade. Keep with modifications per User:Ceyockey. Epbr123 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Masi Strain[edit]

The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masi Strain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Appears to be a hoax, as there are no Google hits for "Masi Strain". It's unsourced as well. Leebo T/C 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ugh, you're right. I can't see pictures when I'm on this computer (due to filters), so I didn't notice the fact that the article targets a person. Tagged as an attack page. Leebo T/C 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virvint Capital Management[edit]

Virvint Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a contested deletion. The article is about a recent startup and has no sources other than the company's own website, and I believe it is unsourceable. If this were a recently created article, it probably would have been shot on sight. I was told to come to you guys, and the following conversation ensued:

If I go to afd, how will you vote? Maybe we could just skip that step .. I don't want to get into some deletion process if there is a good reason to keep these after all.[17]
Well there are rules that state no original research. but there is also a rule that states if a source can be referenced, it should not be deleted. so I will vote no for delete. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia i.e. the sum of all human knowledge. [18]
Do you mean that you think we can reference a source? Which one(s)?[19]

No response. Oh well. Better safe than sorry. You know what to do. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - probably should have been speedied. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAT International[edit]

GAT International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a contested deletion. The article has no sources other than the company's own website, and I believe it is unsourceable, and reads like an advert. If this were a recently created article, it probably would have been shot on sight. I was told to come to you guys, and the following conversation ensued:

If I go to afd, how will you vote? Maybe we could just skip that step .. I don't want to get into some deletion process if there is a good reason to keep these after all.[20]
Well there are rules that state no original research. but there is also a rule that states if a source can be referenced, it should not be deleted. so I will vote no for delete. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia i.e. the sum of all human knowledge. [21]
Do you mean that you think we can reference a source? Which one(s)?[22]

No response. Oh well. Better safe than sorry. You know what to do. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM--Greatestrowerever 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anjel[edit]

Anjel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted - spam, no evidence of notability, possible scam (see history). - Mike Rosoft 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Talent[edit]

Explore Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, advert Rich257 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike weapons & equipment[edit]

Counter-Strike weapons & equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Counter-Strike_equipment ("Clear violation of WP:NOT as information only useful in the successful execution of a video game. There is no value to this entry beyond the scope of being helpful in playing Counter-Strike. It's a game guide folks") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike weapons ("unencylcopedic fancruft" Jestix 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fans of this game seem to be very cyber-aggressive ;-) Its quite naturally that fans of XY try to expand the theme XY in wikipedia as much as possible... --Jestix 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature on political science[edit]

List of literature on political science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had initially typed a ((prod)) rationale for this article but decided, upon reading it, to bring to AFD instead. Better safe than sorry, and all that.

This seems to be the only list of its kind ("literature on [subject]") and it is a hopelessly incomplete one at that ("literature" includes both books and articles). However, those aren't really reasons to delete an article. Arguably, this might be better handled by a category, but that too is largely a personal preference on which I'm loathe to base deletion. I think this list violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NOT#DIR. The best way to express my sentiment is this: Wikipedia is not a syllabus.

For the sake of avoiding instruction creep, please do not add syllabi to WP:NOT. Like I wrote, this is the only such article I was able to find; there's no need to create a separate rule to cover just one article. -- Black Falcon 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the title would include the word important, as each item in the list would only be included if it were notable. In any case, I lean towards deletion of this list per a rewrite would be no different than starting a new article. That is unless someone (perhaps from the poli sci wikiproject) wanted to clean it up. By the way, as for a list of publications in the social sciences, there are often published bibliographies on subjects from which we could cite notability of books. There are also statistics of most cited works, which would also allow us to say certain works are notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Laity[edit]

Jack_Laity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability and Mr. Laity doesn't appear to be notable. Article was already prodded, creator removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the keep arguments are not convincing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrazy (film)[edit]

Democrazy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a no-budget straight-to-video B movie (actually not even that, B movies were actually shown in movie theatres, this never has been as far as we can tell) written, produced, directed and acted by Michael Legge, whose notability seems not to spread much beyond his immediate circle despite prolific and protracted attempts to boost his profile through Wikipedia. This article asserts that it won a B Movie Festival awar. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence this is considered significant. The sources cited are trivial, and not provably independent. At least one takes its text from IMDB, which is, of course, user edited (and indie films are usually added by their producers). It was previously deleted by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy, which was created by Legge's fans before the film was even released. The primary notability criterion is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. I see no evidence that this film has been the primary subject of any such non-trivial independent sources. There are notably bad films, often made by Ed Wood. There are (subjectively) bad notable films, <cough>Waterworld</cough>. This does not appear to be either. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That only works if the award is in some way significant. Apparently Fairy dishwasher liquid was awarded "dishwasher product of the year" - does that in and of itself make the product notable? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If true, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who gave the award or whether the award is notable? --Minderbinder 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no evidence that the award is worth anything; he mailed a copy of his movie in with $40.00 and got an award. Its not of the same meaning as the Sundance Film Festival. Badlydrawnjeff, you haven't given any proof for your claims. Arbustoo 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any arguments for keep on that page. Perhaps you could be more specific. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, what part of my ((db-repost)) tag was unclear? I even included the LINK TO THE AFD in the edit summary: yeah, it fails the "makes no claim to significance" portion, but perhaps you missed that there are other criteria for CSD? Second, I think I understood your comments enough to know that your phrase "successfully argued for" seems to be essentially meaningless, but perhaps there are subtleties that I'm missing. Certainly I understand the meta-message of language like "conspiracy theory" -- and I'm sure you do, too. Third, your threats to block anyone disagreeing with your wheel-warring makes you an odd choice for a complainant about aggression, not to mention a wee bit hypocritical to complain about sarcasm given the characterization of other comments as being "conspiracy theories". Fourth, treating the articles on their merits means examining them in toto and their apparent reasons for existence, given their linkages -- which makes no difference, really, since even examined individually they're failures due to being un- or badly sourced advertising-like and vanity treatments of unnotable personalities and their works. I've certainly never suggested you were the "enemy" -- God knows WHAT made you bring THAT up -- but now that you mention it you seem to be making some kind of point about God-knows-what principle at the expense of actual encyclopedic standards and purposes. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plank's edit history shows very little activity outside the promotion of Legge's work. The assertion that these films are written about "all over the internet" may be true, but it seems to be Plank and Pitchka (now renamed) who are doing the writing. And actually this [24] suggests that "all over the internet" is something of an overstatement: around 300 unique Googles, including Wikipedia. Add to that two previous deletions and a clearly out-process re-creation by Mel Etitis, who is just about the only editor on this article who is not a Legge SPA. I think we are being had. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid[edit]

Allegations of apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted at its second AfD nomination as violating WP:SYNT. DRV overturned, citing insufficient evidence of consensus on that crucial point in the debate. The matter is returned to AfD for further consideration. Please consult the AfD and DRV before commenting. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do imagine that the people using the term "apartheid" on this page are using it incorrectly. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a keep because it's using it correctly ("inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime"), whilst almost every other entry on this list is using it as a synonym for "any kind of social divide" - tourist apartheid, financial apartheid, gender apartheid etc etc etc. I don't accept that use of it in the vernacular sense of "two groups of people being treated different for whatever reason" is an acceptable use of the phrase on this page, given that the page says from the start that it is using the term in its legal sense. And, as I say above, if the article is using the word in its broadest sense, I'm pretty certain I could write a plausible "Allegations of apartheid" page about any country in the world. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have it exactly wrong: Israelis and Palestinians are not different "racial" groups; on the contrary, genetic research indicates that they are closely related. In reality the article the term best applies to is Allegations of Brazilian apartheid; I recommend reading it. As for writing an article about "any country in the world", it's not as easy as you suggest; you'd have to quote reliable sources for a start. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no, G-Dett. In my mind, your vote demonstrates rather well (to me, in any event) that what you think are justifiable accusations against Israel should not be leveled against any other country, no matter what the facts are. --Leifern 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your mind indeed. In reality, however I have not voiced any objections whatsoever, here or anywhere else, to anyone's invocation of "apartheid" in various human-rights contexts. What I've voiced an objection to is the invention, on the part of Wikipedians in a gross violation of WP:SYNTH, of a single topic with no RS-backing whatsoever conflating these disparate things.--G-Dett 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen on 17:58, 11 April 2007: "Obvious Delete [...] It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't."
G-Dett on 21:50, 11 April 2007: "The 'topic' that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a WP:POINT."
--tickle me 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are badly misunderstanding this. Individuals describing various unconnected situations and using the term "apartheid" among others was not invented by wikipedia editors. Linking these completely different subjects and turning them into a general topic worthy of an article called "Allegations of apartheid" was created solely by wikipedia editors. This topic does not exist in the wider world.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely concur with Zleitzen's point above. The info in the article is sourced yes, but the title and its implication is not and is OR + the whole nine yards. Baristarim 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think murder vs. apartheid is a good comparison because murder is far too general. Allegations of murder would be more like Allegations of human rights violations. The connection is the comparison/accusation of a specific form of human rights violation. <<-armon->> 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right -- I don't think anyone is accusing Shimeru's Aunt Tilly of committing apartheid either. It's much more like claiming we can't have an article on history of genocide because no one's exactly sure how many people you have to kill for it to be called a genocide. These things require a dose of WP:COMMON. -- Kendrick7talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History of Genocide is a bad comparison, Kendrick. An appropriate comparison would be an article called Allegations of Genocide, gathering together various discussions of the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the "bloodless genocide" of the Pitcairn Islanders,[30] the genocide of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories,[31] the genocide of Tibet's indigenous culture by China[32] (and that of Cornish coastal towns by the United Kingdom[33]), the "cultural genocide" of the Welsh in the 19th century who were punished by the Brits for speaking their native tongue,[34], and the genocide of 8000 men in Srebrenica.--G-Dett 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly. But the murder comparison is also appropriate, because, while "apartheid" has a more specific meaning than "murder", many of the instances of its usage do not fit that meaning. ("Nuclear apartheid"?) If anything, those murder examples have more in common with each other than the various "allegations" in the article we're discussing do. And, yes, "allegations of apartheid" is rather different from history of apartheid. Among other things, anyone can allege something, and perhaps even get a reliable source to report on it. This does not make it a notable part of history. Shimeru 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lousy idea. Should we merge all genocides into History of genocide too? Maybe the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are just WP:POVFORKs? Obviously, in the case of apartheid, some allegations are more widespread in reliable sources than others. To not keep the articles separate without throwing away facts would cause a problem with WP:Undue weight not to mention WP:LENGTH. I would split out every country and put the articles in Template:Allegations of apartheid, which someone started doing and then stopped, after which point Austrailia's got deleted and Brazil's did not. No reason for all the sections not to have the same opportunity. -- Kendrick7talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust is a defined topic, "Allegations of apartheid" is not a defined topic. An article describing a policy is a legitimate article on a legitimate topic. Allegations that this is just like South Africa (which in effect these articles are) actually makes it more difficult to describe the policy, and hence creates an unneccessary fork that does not serve readers. Only merging all these articles into legitimate areas where these topics are properly explored can end the sense that they have been created to make a point, and are merely POV/content forks of wider issues. Make these positive steps now rather than later.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apartheid means different things to different people, just like genocide means different things to different people. No one is claiming all apartheids are just like South Africa. To say we can't have an article about a concept we don't have an exact definition for is just a Loki's Wager argument. -- Kendrick7talk 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct again. When a bunch of Israeli focussed editors turned up en masse to oppose merges related to Cuba, and one prominent Israeli focussed editor actually started reverting my routine efforts to make Tourism in Cuba into a good article to ensure some foothold in a strategy involving these articles, it became apparent that this game of WP:POINT had gone on far enough. When this strategy is actively interfering with unrelated legitimate content and the work of unrelated editors, its time to pull the plug.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are certainly correct that much of this content was eagerly created as a WP:POINT but that's not a valid reason for deletion; I too tried to fix the Cuba tourism article for a time and gave up. However, I think generally crimes against humanity rise to a level beyond mere issues of "human rights" which can mean a lot of various less serious infractions. I wouldn't merge the Armenian genocide into Human rights in Turkey as happy as that might make the Turks (though it would upset my grumpy old landlord; it's a tough call -- nah, I just couldn't go it to my grocer, my banker, my downstairs neighbors, and my barber – well... he holds a razor to my neck once a month, don't you know?). -- Kendrick7talk 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, that last comparison came out of nowhere, and the fact that I am originally Turkish has nothing to do with it, right? :) Find better arguments and avoid such straw mans, you are actually harming your position.. Talk on content, not the contributors. Baristarim 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops -- I had no idea you were from Turkey; I do in fact live in Watertown, Massachusetts, "the third-largest Armenian community in the United States." -- Kendrick7talk 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Although I confess -- the part about the barber was for comic effect[reply]
Ok, no worries. I did have a feeling about that barber part now that you mention it :) Baristarim 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, now we're getting into a more complex issue, but the definition of "a crime against humanity" is open to vast amounts of distortion and political manoeuvrings and is itself a propagandistic phrase with little or no meaning. Interestingly, your Armenian Genocide is an excellent case in point (read the work of Niall Ferguson with a critical eye and you'll see what I mean). These phrases are used to channel sentiment towards a political point of view and hence are inherently misleading. Nevertheless, Armenian genocide is considered a fairly established title for the events in question, despite reservations from certain parties. Do you think that titling our various events "allegations of apartheid" is a fair effort to present a situation in as NPOV a way as possible? Which should be our goal. Or does it veer closer to channelling sentiment towards a particular POV? -- Zleitzen(talk) 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's fair. I'm reminded of the words of Dr. Homer Whipple: After all, it can't happen here. If there are allegations that "it's" happening, where ever "here" might happen to be, I'd want to know about it and be able to judge the allegations on their own merits. I'd love to live in a world where the worst thing that could ever happen is a POV article about something existed on the wikipedia, but I don't think I do. -- Kendrick7talk 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support that - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should confused using a more "neutral" term with a less accurate one. Segregation can be de jure or de facto (e.g. self-segregation), whereas apartheid is exclusively de jure.* Segregation can imply separate but equal whereas apartheid is when one group maintains dominance over another so the first group can maintain their dominance over the society as a whole. Sure, it's less offensive to water it down, but the reason it's less offensive is solely because the meaning of "segregation" is so much more open to interpretation. -- Kendrick7talk 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) *Though where the executive isn't in any way beholden to a judiciary of show trails which may aim to give the appearance of equality, this may be actually of the form that might makes right; De jure of course has no meaning when there's no rule of law, or it doesn't actually apply to the oppressed.[reply]
Comment You can't rename this article Social segregation partly because the subject of this article is not Apartheid. Again, you can't "move the relevant information into 'Human Rights in X'", as Baristarim proposed bucause the subject is not whether apartheid is practiced in the countries listed. If, pace Zleitzen, you have significant material "debat[ing] the intricacies of Maori disempowerment" that should be in a different article. As Leifern observed at the very top of this page, this is an article about the use of a political rhetorical device. It seems obvious to me that apartheid is alleged as a way of (simplifying slightly) capturing Mandela's moral weight for accusations of racism in disparate locales. It's tax day, and I don't have time to research quotes, but I don't believe that's an original observation on my part. So I'm alleging, without present proof but confidently, that the subject Allegations (better: Accusations) of Apartheid is notable and addressed by many published sources. So, at worst the present article is undeveloped (and slightly misnamed). But, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and flawed articles can be allowed time to develop, so long as the subject is encyclopedic. There is no problem here that needs to be fixed by deletion. Andyvphil 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". None of these refer to "accusations of racism in disparate locales". And, of course, none of these have been studied as a collective topic elsewhere. You write "flawed articles can be allowed time to develop", this article has had nearly a year to develop and has only succeeded in setting a bad precedent that has caused numerous problems all over wikipedia.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's largely because of an earlier concensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid to merge topics like gender apartheid and global apartheid into one article, instead of a disambiguation page and this is the result. If the consense has now changed upon seeing the result, then it make sense to resplit these topics out. -- Kendrick7talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to alleviate confusion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid was archived from the version here, but the archive has gone missing. -- Kendrick7talk 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, you're not following my point. This article does not (and should not) include "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". It includes accusations of those things, accusations that implicitly assert that what is going on is akin to racism, and that fighting whatever is asserted to be going on is akin to the work of Mandela. A lot of the accusations and implicit assertions are ridiculous...but that doesn't make the meme non-notable. Andyvphil 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andyvphil, when you're done with your taxes if you can find some RS's who discuss accusations of apartheid generally, as a meme or a genre of rhetoric or whatever, please do come forward with them. That's the sine qua non here. I've searched casually and not thoroughly, but presently the only people I know of who discuss "allegations of apartheid" as a rhetorical figure are Wikipedians.--G-Dett 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, Andyvphil. Something like "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" etc has nothing to do with racism or "the work of Mandela", its merely a coined informal term to describe exclusive hotels and beaches for tourists, that exist throughout the Caribbean, but which are notable in Cuba because they compromise Cuba's egalitarian constitution. Ironically, Mandela would be furious at the comparison and I imagine would be pushing the delete button faster than anyone. Anyway, that should be evidence enough that the various sections are disconnected and are by no means describing issues that "are akin to racism". They are merely listing disparate situations that have had the word apartheid applied to them on occasion by various partisans. These things get thrown around by partisans all the time. Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state anyone? Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag? -- Zleitzen(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning This article is comprised of subarticles which individually survived AFDs before (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid). But WP:CONSENSUS generated at WP:Centralized discussion was to WP:MERGE them. Now people, without knowing the history, are complaining that the consenus merge resulted in a WP:SYNTH and now want to delete the whole article. So this is going in circles. -- Kendrick7talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little or no arguments presented by the three keeps above (two by prominent Israeli focussed editors), and they only add to the "false consensus" contrived to slant this debate, that we have seen elsewhere. We just hope the closing administrator views these in the same light as the WP:ALLORNOTHING votes above, and understands that consensus can be subverted to suit certain agendas in the face of basic core wikipeida values. If, perchance, Israeli focussed editors succeed here in this effort to subvert content that impacts on content relating to many regions, then we've got serious issues. These issues are not going away, and will be hammered out relentlessly until some kind of acceptable settlement is established. Because to keep this obviously spurious article that impacts on African and Latin American situations - simply for strategic gains relating to some nation in the middle east - is not on.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Mangojuice. Sourced = We could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. Balanced = Do you believe that an article that accuses a party of mistreatment in its title is "balanced"? Afghanistan = no alternative view. Brazil = no alternative view. Bosnia and Herzegovina = no alternative view. People's Republic of China = no alternative view. Iran = no alternative view. Kazakhstan = no alternative view etc etc etc. The reason why there are no alternative views there is largely because this article sets up a near impossible task for editors to find counterpoints, and skewers the issue from its inception. This is because the premise is inhernintly unbalanced, especially against non English speaking nations. In the case of Kazakhstan, the term is used once by someone called James Oberg on a website called "The Space Review". How on earth is an editor expected to find sources to counter that and remain within NOR? Israel focussed editors have had to scour for many hours to come up with counter arguments to find balance, and that is for a nation that carries a healthy English speaking media. I spent months digging for sources to discover some kind of counterpoints to make the Cuba article more acceptable to rightfully disgruntled editors who were adding POV tags. This is poor practice. Not synthesis? Please show me a collective study that treats racism in Brazil and legal property rights in Kazakhstan as being under the same umbrella outside wikipedia. If you can, then maybe I will agree with you. Cover these issues in a neutral fashion on appropriate neutral pages with appropriate neutral titles and end this poor advert for wikipedia. -- Zleitzen(talk) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section of Tourism in Cuba is balanced
    Whereas
  • Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba is not balanced.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider it balanced because of the word "allegations." It's understood that these are just allegations, that the accusations aren't necessarily true or fair, just from that word. If there are places in the text where this isn't clear, ((sofixit)). As for other articles, their POV issues are not the discussion topic here. Mangojuicetalk 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that solution or analysis makes any effort to address the many major problems that have arisen from this article as outlined above, nor the potential problems that will arise from it in the future. It seems to suggest that it is acceptable to just content fork any allegations to a separate article. Since creation, the negative impact on wikipedia caused by the precedent set by this article has escalated month by month. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or better still, I think perhaps this article should be renamed simply "Apartheid" with a leading link to the "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" page. IMO With all the uses of the term that are extant today, it might be the more logical approach. Gatoclass 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid is an Afrikaner word and was the official policy of the National Party in South Africa. These other uses are not the same. They are informal, coined rhetorical references made in passing. No one would seek out apartheid and expect to find information about legal property rights in Kazahkstan. To use a comparison, when people look up Gulag, should they be faced with sections about Guantanamo bay, simply because some groups have rhetorically described it as a "gulag" in passing [37]? In fact, here is someone calling the whole of Israel a gulag [38], here is someone calling New York's treatment of the disabled a gulag [39], and someone else describing a "Chinese gulag" [40]. These types of rhetorical expressions made by partisans occur all the time. Should we disambig Gulag and have spin off articles named Allegations that New York is a gulag and so on? -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the term:

1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

So if even the dictionary definition includes the broader uses of the term, such as "cultural" and "gender" apartheid, why shouldn't Wiki cover these usages in its own entry? Gatoclass 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This dictionary also defines Gulag as "a place or situation of great suffering and hardship" [41], which essentially means that a sourced Allegations that Israel is a gulag remains on the table if the rationale provided above is applied. Anyway, there is a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and this is outlined in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It explicately explains why a wikipedia article about an octopus describes the animal, whilst Wiktionary has an article about the word "octopus": "its part of speech... its usage". If you look octopus up in a dictionary it has an alternative definitition "Something, such as a multinational corporation, that has many powerful, centrally controlled branches states" [42]. But an encyclopedia does not take that usage and create the article "Allegations of octopus" that has Allegations of octopus practices by Coca Cola, Allegations of octopus by Disney, Allegations that Packard is an octopus - all have been referred to as "like an octopus" and all of these could be sourced to the nines if need be. This is because we are creating an encyclopedia, not a usage guide. There is fundamental difference between the dictionary definition of "apartheid" or "octopus" that appears in the first listing, and is covered in that manifestation by encyclopedias such as Britannica etc, and the alternative usage that is applied in the second dictionary listing that is covered in dictionaries.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's just say for a moment you are right. If this one goes, then all the articles dealing with such allegations should go. Quite frankly, the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article is such a battleground, and hence such a convoluted mess, that I can't see much point in retaining it anyhow - except maybe as a means to keep the more zealous editors away from more important pages :) Gatoclass 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's one of the fundamental arguments, Gatoclass. That these articles have failed to address complex issues in a satisfactory manner.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon, Jayjg and others RaveenS 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted once RaveenS. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake did not know that this was going on for this many days, I thought it was some kind another nomination. Will be careful next time :-( RaveenS 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There are no actual citations supporting this article, only anecdotal statements that articles exist without citation information. The emergence of those citations would be a valid trigger for taking this deletion action to Deletion review; merger of content into Sweet Potato Queens can be accomplished by requesting that this deletion be temporarily overturned to support Content review. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens[edit]

Sweet Tea Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN group consisting of ten people Qaqaq 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Muffin. WjBscribe 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin paper cup[edit]

Muffin paper cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article concerns a non-notable product (I guess is the paper lining when you buy a cupcake.) It just has no reason for being. Suggest delete and merge any useful content to "muffin" Wehwalt 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Of course, I would be happy to change my opinion if someone could come up with a reliable source about the history of the muffin cup. I just couldn't find anything.Chunky Rice 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - actually, when you think about it, every single manufactured good is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Cupcake liners will come in boxes that may say what they're made of, what is an acceptable use for them, and so on; and being manufactured, they'll also have engineering schematics, or even ISO/QS standards for their manufacture. The factory will have a tooling manual on how to set up the machine; the engineer would have devised the optimum number of crimps per circle, and you might find discussions on that topic in some periodical for manufacturing engineers. And I bet some older cookbooks (written back when people cooked, ha ha) would even have small sections on cupcake liners - when to use them and when not, or even which brands to look for. What say you all to that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about satisfying WP:N? Because those would be either primary source documents produced by the maker of the product (instructions, patent info, production docs, etc.) or trivial mentions (cookbooks). The only exception would be somethign that was in a manufacturing journal, and if you can turn up such a document, you'd be halfway to multiple sources.Chunky Rice 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that there will be writeups in periodicals relating to the optimal number of crimps per circle. I also bet you won't find them on the internet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of other sources, then by all means, add them to the article, but it sounds like you're just speculating.Chunky Rice 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm really starting to waste everyone's time here, but I just went to my mom's cabinets and found some Reynolds cupcake liners. Here's an example of available info: They come in 4 sizes (60, 80, 100, 120mL - not sure about the unit, I can't remember). There is a US Patent for them. I agree this is "primary sources", but the information should still be useable (though I agree it doesn't satisfy your WP:N), as I don't see how one can reasonably dispute its verifiability. I dunno why something that exists and is significant in baking fails notability - but I can see your point if your argument is that a cupcake liner article simply doesn't fit in an encyclopaedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[44] - the last paragraph under "pans" says: "Paper or foil muffin cup liners are sometimes used to line the muffin pans. The advantage of paper liners is not only does it make clean-up easier but they also help to keep the muffins moist and help prevent them from drying out. However, if you like your muffins to have a crust, do not use paper liners. Instead, spray the muffin pan with a non stick vegetable spray." Sounds just like something from the article, in fact. And the link was already added to the article on 11 April. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - added a reference into the article from the Hormel Foods site. There, now you have documented proof that muffin cups exist. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signa (opera)[edit]

Signa (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research per author's own edit log bd_ 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I guess I was just thrown off by the non-standard format of the article. It's not written in a way one would expect about a work of fiction. It needs to be rewritten with attention to our Manual of Style, but the opera itself is not eligible for deletion simply because he worked on it as his thesis. The original research needs to be purged, that's all. Leebo T/C 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment notwithstanding the article (and others) need to be purged of the OR, opinionating and non-encyclopaedic parts - Tiswas(t/c) 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torry Harris Business Solutions[edit]

Torry Harris Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable IT middleware implementation company. Was speedied thrice and deleted once through WP:PROD before. Lupo 11:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In such a heavily contested debate, I feel it's important to come to a conclusion; I could easily have closed this as "no consensus" as there were plenty of people in each camp. Instead, I have made this decision based on the arguments. From the debate, I see three main reasons for deletion: (1) insufficient sourcing, (2) OR by synthesis, and (3) notability. Insufficient sourcing is a borderline deletion reason in the first place (sourceability is more to the point) but in any case, there are loads of citations, and many users feel that the sourcing is not insufficient, which makes this an editing concern. The OR by synthesis argument did not gain traction, and was well-rebuffed. The notability concern is the strongest: it seems some users feel that the topic itself must have been the subject of independent works for the topic to be important enough to cover. In this case, I have to conclude that that judgement has not been accepted, and WP:NOT#Paper gives clear guidance on topics that not everyone agrees are suitable for inclusion: keep it, there's no harm. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In writing the above, I had actually not counted !votes, but after writing it I did so, and the count does favor keeping by a decent margin. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter[edit]

Dates in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted at AfD. A reposted, edited version was then speedy deleted as CSD G4. A DRV consensus (very narrowly) determined the new draft was distinctive enough to warrant its own AfD. The matter is submitted for full consideration, especially of WP:SYNT issues. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Strongly agree with the above - the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. I can just about tolerate fancruft articles for, say, a long-running TV series where someone might not have seen every episode, or might not remember the details & hence an entry might be useful (along the lines of, "which Star Trek episode was it where Captain Kirk had to kill Joan Collins to stop the human race becoming extinct?"), but it's a reasonable guess that anyone who cares enough about Harry Potter to be looking things up here will own all six books. If this is going to be kept, it should be on Wikibooks and not here. Otherwise, why not have a similar article for every work of fiction? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you that the US initial print run for the next book is 12 million copies. That is unprecedented. So the 'few' people who have read the book in english as their own deliberate choice will be around 50-100 million? Two of the HP artcles are in the top 100 accessed articles on wiki. So what are the odds that this article gets more hits than most on wiki? I would also remind you that people are creatures of habit. If someone looks up their favourite book on wiki, they may also click a few links and start reading something else. This principle has been noted by quite a few schoolteachers, trying to persuade people to read books for pleasure, and the books are now included as required reading for teaching students in the uk (I know one). The issue of exactly when things happen in the stories is important to understanding various elements of the plot. The existence of the article solves a number of potential difficulties for people maintaining other articles, because it sidesteps debate about dating on the page of individual articles, and presents the available information all in one place, here, where they can read before messing with all the dates in other articles. Sandpiper 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the conceptually rather similar Narnian timeline is a featured list. Sandpiper 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I were the Emperor of Wikiland, I'd happily delete the Narnian timeline as well; but the reason that won't happen is that the Narnia one's sourced and referenced to multiple independent non-trivial sources, whereas the Harry Potter one may have 163 references, but all are either to the books themselves, to fansites or to Harry Potter Lexicon - which is where this article, along with its many cousins, ought to be instead of on Wikipedia. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus Andiron. You wrote, Why do we need an article that regurgitates information that can be found in the books?. The whole principle of an encyclopedia is to regurgitate information found elsewhere. (I am not trying to be sarcastic and hope you don't take it that way; I just can't think of another way to express the idea.) The article supplements others on the Harry Potter books and provides information so that readers will not have to go to the books (which, if I'm not mistaken, comprise more than 1000 pages). -- Black Falcon 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2500 pages, 3000 including forethcoming final book Sandpiper 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Black Falcon All right, I'm going to hit a few points here. First of all, you are defending the article without any prior knowledge, and I commend you for that. And you can support it, but without any context, you have no idea what any of the dates mean. Therefore, you could not use the page. If someone does not have any prior knowledge of Harry Potter, like you, then the dates hold no significance. The article is only intended for people with a reasonable knowledge of the plot. I believe that an encyclopedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work that covers a wide variety of topics that are accessible to everyone. This article does not adhere to that. And you can argue that there are other articles out there (Quantum Physics) that are also not accessible. But then we're getting into a case of comparing and that is counterproductive. I would still like you to address the absence of notable, non first party sources. Also, please keep in mind AGF. I do not believe that it was necessary to comment that Iridescenti holds a bias for one side. Let's keep this civil. --Cyrus Andiron 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, please, Cyrus? It clearly explains where the dates derive from, the noted problems with them, even touches briefly on the controversy that surrounded the timeline (with Warner Bros and the Lexicon site squabbling that each deserved the credit). And then the timeline itself explains how all the dates fit together, and the relevance of each to the plot of the novel. A reader not up to speed with the books might find it dull (but then, there are no doubt people who'd question the scintillation factor of an article on Quantum Theory, or the origins of Satan in Western thought), but not unintelligible. Nor is a lack of sources outside the novel grounds for deletion: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sources for articles on fiction says, "In addition to the source material, there are many sources of in-depth information for writers of article on fictional subjects (although some are more reliable than others). Note that when using the fictional work itself to give plot summaries, character biographies, and the like, the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary." Does that or does that not mean that secondary sources are encouraged, but not required? Otherwise, one would expect some sort of warning. Michael Sanders 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the dates like this: 1979 - the year in which Regulus Black, the brother of Sirius Black, is shown as having died on the Black Family Tree have no meaning to someone who is not familiar with the series. That makes it accessible to only a certain group of people. Also, we are not talking about plot summaries, we are talking about a collection of dates. I do not believe that the argument you suggested applies to this discussion. There is a difference between a timeline and a plot summary. I believe that this applies much more: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. That comes directly from here. --Cyrus Andiron 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1) the phrase "wherever possible" - implying that when such are not available, primary sources may be used (provided that they are used correctly, as specified elsewhere) and 2) That is no specific ban on the use of primary sources and 3) That is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Michael Sanders 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles. I've made my points above and stated my belief that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia and cannot be attributable to reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyrus Andiron. I have no idea what any of the dates mean as long as I don't read the main Harry Potter articles (that's what I mean by "this article supplements others"). Not all articles are required to comprehensively cover everything about a topic. Otherwise what's the point of internal links and "See also" sections? Some topics are inherently more specialised and require that they be linked to more general pages (as, for instance, the pages on the Harry Potter books). Regarding Iridescenti, I did not say that he is "biased" but rather that his statements suggest (to me) that his argument is "based" in a personal opinion that the subject matter of timelines of fictional universes is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This viewpoint, although it is one with which I disagree, is neither "evil" nor in any sense morally wrong. Also, I do see it is a far-fetched inference given his expressed desire to see deleted a featured article on a similar theme. I also do not think, nor did I intend to imply, that he acts in bad faith; I merely stated my impression of his comments. -- Black Falcon 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. You are correct to note that I support retention of "the article without any prior knowledge" of the books. Although you made no other comments on that point, I should note that I have restricted my appraisal of the article solely to whether the content presented meets Wikipedia policies and whether I feel the arguments for deletion stand up to scrutiny. -- Black Falcon 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. You wrote, the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. That is, quite simply, incorrect. I obviously care enough to participate in the DRV and this AFD, yet I have not read any of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I don't even know the titles of half of them. There's Goblin of Fire, Sorcerer's Stone, Wizard of something (I want to say Alcatraz, but I know that's wrong), and ... that's all I know. The fact that you wish to delete a similar better article that is a featured list suggests to me that your argument may be based in your personal dislike of the subject matter of the article rather than a problem of the article itself. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. The Narnia article appears to have only three sources mentioned. Two appear to derive from the same person, who claims to have been given a copy of the timeline by CS Lewis. The third is an author who wrote something claiming that some works attributed posthumously to Lewis by the first author were in fact not so. There are no other coroborating sources, and the author is dead so can't be asked. Yes, the timeline was published by Hooper so is a referenceable source whether it is genuine or not, but in this case Warner bros have done the same thing, and do have the benefit of the corroboration of the living author. The Narnia article also claims that most of those dates are only traceable from the separate timeline, whereas these are largely traceable from the books themselves. Sourcing here seems to be better. Sandpiper 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the difference. Narnia has three sources listed, all published books. The Harry Potter timeline uses the books by Rowling, the Warner Bros. timeline (corroborated with Rowling), and the Harry Potter Lexicon. The lexicon is a fan created encyclopedia. Again, who verifies that the information there is accurate. --Cyrus Andiron 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Warner Bros, who published it on their DVD editions of the films, claiming it to be approved by Rowling. As you can see if you read the article (or look at one of the DVDs). Michael Sanders 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but that furthers my point as well. All sources for this article go directly through Rowling. We're back at square one without any secondary sources. --Cyrus Andiron 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing in the rules preventing use of primary sources. For that matter, if this goes straight to Rowling - well, how can any article in wikipedia be written? Any referencing of the voyage of the Beagle, for example, would go straight to Charles Darwin. Michael Sanders 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add also that "accuracy confirmed by Rowling" is not the same as "written by Rowling". That is, Rowling's approval of the sources does not make them primary sources; on the contrary, I would say it makes them doubly reliable secondary sources. -- Black Falcon 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BF got in first) Erm, I was going to say that this is a work of fiction, and if Rowling, as author says that black is white in her world, well, then it is. Lexicon is a secondary source in that it confirms the derived timeline directly on the basis of the books content. Lexicon do not claim Rowling told them, rather that they deduced the information. Later Rowling confirmed they were correct, or at least authorised a similar timeline. At least we do have the input of Rowling into this, unlike the narnia case where Lewis is dead and can't comment. Rowling writes detective novels, and is on record as saying she does not lie to her readers. With regard to the three sources on the Narnia article, the last one seems to be by someone arguing that the single source of the first two is suspect. Sandpiper 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment relative to the Narnia comparison and discussions above: I would also point out that there is also a precedent and fairly close similarity to the article Timeline of Arda which reflects the History of Middle Earth as told by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Unfinished Tales, and the general The History of Middle-Earth which constitutes some twelve volumes of texts. The histories and Middle-Earth years were presented, albeit very much in-universe, and admittedly without regard to "real calendar years" as it were. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what position is being advanced by the article? If anyone could say, then maybe the article could be rewritten to avoid this. So far (this is the third debate), no one has explained what position is allegedly being advanced by a synthesis of sources. Sandpiper 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see that synthesis can be an argument for deletion of an entire article, in any event. It is a rule about content. If you think some of the content is a synthesis, then say what it is, and something can be done about it. Warner bros has published definitive dates eg when harry went to school. The dates have been agreed by the author. The book says eg Professor McGonagall started teaching 30 years ago on a certain page, therefore she started teaching in 1956. Is it being suggested that subtracting 30 from a current date is an impermissable synthesis? Sandpiper 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I'm concerned, synthesis is not a big issue. Adding and subtracting to arrive at dates is different than manipulating multiple texts to create a new point. I'll grant you the dates. I think the sticking point for this article is the fact that it has not been covered by notable, non trivial sources. Right now, most of the 163 sources are from the Harry Potter books themselves or other publications by Rowling. That is my biggest issue. And, as mentioned by Iridescenti, that is what separates it from the Narnian timeline. --Cyrus Andiron 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Narnia article states that the only source for the timeline is a copy given by the author to one Walter Hooper, who wrote it up. Thus it essentially derives from the word of the said Mr Hooper, which the article also says has been brought into question with regard to other material he claims was from Lewis, who was once his employer. This information has been published by Warner bros, checked by Rowling, and is also verifiable independantly to a significant extent from the works themselves. Sandpiper 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Narnian timeline, despite the validity of Hooper sometimes being called into question, the dates have been used in a number of scholarly works on Narnia since (see the five books at the end of the article). Naturally, with the HP series not over yet, though, there is still time for its timeline to be incorporated into other print material. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First party sources are allowed to be used in the articles themselves, particularly articles regarding works of fiction. Would you like to specify how it uses in-universe perspective? Michael Sanders 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This article is not written from an in-universe perspective. An article written from an in-universe perspective would not contain statement such as: "The timeline itself contains flaws", "Rowling later gave further confirmation", "Rowling has specified", "According to Rowling", or any reference to anything that does not exist solely in the Harry Potter fictional universe.
  2. "Primary source" does not automatically equate with "unreliable" (I presume that's what you meant to imply by linking to WP:RS). In fact, per WP:RS, Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia: and primary sources are one of the three types. The only restriction on primary sources is that they should be used "with care".
  3. As my knowledge of the Harry Potter series is extremely limited, I will do no more than note that claim that all of the sources are primary was challenged in the DRV. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history is that HP-Lexicon created a timeline based upon information contained in the books, and some additional statements by Rowling. Warner subsequently published another timeline without officially stating its source, but effectively endorsing its accuracy as the creators of the films. This timeline is included on DVDs of the films, if you play them in a computer. Lexicon claim that Warner used their timeline, and back this claim by stating that a 'mistake' in their timeline was reproduced exactly on the DVD. This claim is posted here [45]. That page also goes through the arguments used to determine dates. There are a number of other pages, including this [46], if you want to see a really big list of dates. Some dates are not from the books, but from separate statements by Rowling published on her website and (I understand) on authorised trading card games. It should also be noted that Rowling has recommended a few fansites to anyone interested in more information about her works, including HP-Lexicon. She said that she uses it herself to check facts, see her website comment here[47]. I make it therefore that HP-Lexicon is a good secondary source of information, being endorsed by the author herself. Warner is either a second primary source, or a secondary source, depending on how you interpret their information. Since the information is fact-checked by the author to conform to her series of books, I take it to be another reputable secondary source. Sandpiper 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my belief that a secondary source should not have input from the author of the primary source. The entire point of a secondary sources is that it can offer analysis or information without being influenced by the suggestions or demands of the primary source. Secondary sources are meant to be analytical; a take on the primary source of information. --Cyrus Andiron 12:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that notability is definitely one of the main problems. Specifically: A notable topic that has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Right now, there are not any independent published works that support the notability of the timeline. We have the books, the lexicon, Rowling's Timeline and the Warner Bros. timeline. All of these are related and come through one person: Rowling. There are no other published sources that could confirm, deny, or comment on any of the information in this article. I also have a problem with the word derived, which appears in the first sentence of the article. Basically, that means to to trace from a source or origin. To me that sounds like unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is stricly forbidden by OR. --Cyrus Andiron 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Comment: The Synthesis of Published Material claim above applies to "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Everyone seems to be leaving this last part out, and stating that Synthesis of information in general is somehow bad and forbidden. Everything in the Wikipedia is synthesis - information gathered and combined together from multiple sources. This is not the intent of the ban. The ban is on making an argument and advancing a position by synthesizing materials. The example is: We believe C. Source 1 says "A" and Source 2 says "B", and A and B together may imply C, therefore we have "C", QED. An absurd example: Mary bought some canned catfood at the local store, according to her grocer. Her neighbor said Mary's cat died last month. Therefore Mary must be eating catfood, because she cannot afford human food. It may be true as theories go, but it is disallowed as synthesizing a novel position that Mary eats cat food, based on circumstantial, not direct "evidence". That is what the Synthesis position on Original Research is all about. Nobody is attempting to advance a Position C here, so "Synthesis OR" arument does not apply. In addition, the question of the word "derived": As stated in the article, the derivation was done by the Lexicon and/or Warner Bros., not the wiki editors who assembled the article. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wonder how old Dumbledore is, you can find that in the article Albus Dumbledore, where his birthyear is given as 1845, with a source. SO why would you come and look for it in the "Dates in Harry Potter" article? If there is a decent source (like an interview with the author) for the supposed age of a major character, then it is failry logical that that info is added in the article about that subject, who is on his own notable. However, to compile (or reproduce) a list of such dates on its own is still rather useless. Fram 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of exactly when certain things happened compared to each other is important to the plot. The main comparison is between Harry's generation at school, and his parents generation. However, the principle villain was at the same school, interacting with roughly harry's grandparents generation. Keeping all this lot straight (who knew who) is a lot easier if you can see it in a timeline. This is a detective novel, though this sometimes seems to be overlooked. Something which greatly interests readers is sorting out the clues in the text left by Rowling. Rather than drawing up their own list, it is presented here. But the issue is really that after reading Dumbledore's dates in his article it is then possible to click the date link to this article, and obtain further information about dates, their derivation, who were contemporaries, etc. It is rather foolish to rewrite all this in every article. That is why we have links, so people can click one and see more detailed information on a particular topic. One specific reason for the existence of articles like this is that the information is relevant to many articles. Sandpiper 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the books, and fail to see how this timeline helps me in any way, or what info related to e.g. Dumbledores age should be included in the Dumbledore article which isn't there already. Rewriting this list in every article is a fine example of a strawman: this would indeed be foolish, as it would serve no purpose. I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? The timeline is a useless piece of plot summary which hasn't received any critical comments from reliable sources, making the first half of the article lacking in reliable secondary sources establishing notability (for the timeline, obviously not for Harry Potter). Fram 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? " That seems to be a pretty stupid point: what is the point of wikipedia, or, indeed, any encyclopaedia at all, by that logic? Why should we have an article on the second world war - there are plenty of thorough dissections out there, aren't there? A reader can go to library and read about quantum theory, can look in the newspapers to see how climate change is doing, can grab a biography of Kennedy - so why read a garbled version of any of those things here, where it will have been badly typed up and misunderstood by some kid/professor/whatever at a computer? The point of wikipedia is to be a thorough resource on everything, provided that it can be properly sourced and verified, and provided it is notable enough. This article is properly sourced and verified. It is an article on an extraordinarily successful and popular series of books, which is pretty integral to an understanding of the series, and to understanding how all the dates fit together. Michael Sanders 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how these arguments, several of which don't appear to be relevant to deletion, apply here. Michael Sanders 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also remind everyone that "The deletion process is really a discussion. Wikipedia has particular standards for deletion and editors explain why they believe certain rules apply. Some of those desiring deletion are not adequately explaining why they believe it fits criteria for deletion: see Always explain your reasoning..."Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. In addition, this article conforms to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion Michael Sanders 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandpiper - I - and the others arguing delete - are neither anti-Harry Potter fanatics, nor ivory-tower intellectuals not wanting to see Wikipedia polluted with low culture (at least, I hope the others aren't). However, I believe that while an article about a work of fiction or major fictional character is generally acceptable, and an article about a particular object/concept of significance within that work of fiction can be acceptable (eg TIE fighter, Horcrux, Charn), there is a qualitative difference between these and this type of article; whilst the former are genuinely useful towards explaining concepts used within a culturally significant work which may be used in a wider context or in discussion of the work to people who may not have read/seen or may not remember the work, the latter is a self-referential type of article which pretty much by definition is not going to be of interest or use to people other than the most diehard fans. To use the example used elsewhere in this AfD, I can picture someone looking up Quantum Mechanics wanting to find out more about the subject; I can even picture someone looking up Blood purity having come across the term and wanting to know more about it; I cannot picture anyone outside the Harry Potter community looking up this article, and consequently feel it would be better suited to either a Harry Potter site or to Wikibooks. And (while I realise it ain't gonna happen), I would say the same about Narnian Timeline, Star Wars Timeline etc, and in any event your argument regarding the Narnia list above is just a very long way of saying WP:WAX. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: About claiming WP:WAX - The article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where WAX is located, is simply an essay suggestion, not in any way a policy or even a guideline. Quoting: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not a valid argument for deletion. You say only those who have read Harry Potter will be able to understand it. Leaving the questionable nature of that statement aside: how many people have read Harry Potter? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Ten million? More? Certainly, enough people have read it to make it a relevant article to wikipedia readers - more so than an article on quantum mechanics (that's populism for you). This article is "qualitatively useful" to those who wish to understand how the events in Rowling's novels, and the backstory she created for those novels, falls together. It conforms to wikipedia rules. It is intelligible to those who have read the novels (and, I would contend, those who haven't). It gives the background information about the issue. It is not 'self-referential', if by that you mean it quotes information verbatim from the books - it also uses information from the comic relief books, Rowling's interviews, her website, much of which is, or may be, hard for 'the average reader' (whom we all serve at wikipedia) to locate. The timeline and the information surrounding it both serve those purposes. As for having it here - why have anything here? But we do, because if we can source it and verify it and satisfy notability (all done here), we can control it, and ensure it remains encyclopaedic. That's why we write about history, or politics, or sciences, or books, or tv shows, or the hundreds of other things on wikipedia. To ensure that we are as thorough and as comprehensive as possible. Michael Sanders 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is notability satisfied? I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources discussing this timeline. Harry Potter is extremely notable, but that does not automatically make this timeline notable (and popularity among fans is not notability for Wikipedia). 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment My thoughts exactly, this discussion is not about Harry Potter, it's about the "derived" timeline that corresponds to it. Harry Potter is not up for deletion right now, but Dates in Harry Potter is. You have to consider them as separate entities. This timeline is not sourced by anything other than the primary sources that all go through Rowling. Therefore, it does not meet notabilty because there are not multiple non trivial sources. Also, if you're going to claim those as sources and cite dates then events, then you are just restating what can be found in the book. That seems like a plot summary to me, which would violate WP:NOT.--Cyrus Andiron 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. coverage of Harry Potter on wiki is not one article, but 300. We could perhaps theoretically put all that information onto one page, which would take half an hour to load, and be pretty useless. So instead, we split the topic into different articles. We try to do so in a sensible way, and one topic which comes up here and there is dating of events. The article was linked to loads of others, presumably these links have not been restored despite the article being restored? It is effectively a footnote to many other articles. It exists because a sensible encyclopedia would include it. I have to say, if I had to choose a dozen HP articles to delete, this would certainly not be one of them. I would regard it, for example, as more important to the topic of HP than the articles on the films. But this is an absurd comparison: wiki is not paper and we do not have to choose which part of the collected information to chop for lack of space.
Aside from the book, the other sources are not primary. They were not written by Rowling! You should not conflate sources that are "based in the book and checked for accuracy by the book's author" with "written by the author". They are secondary sources that are doubly reliable because the author (in addition to regular editors) checked the information for accuraccy. -- Black Falcon 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I've said this before. The entire point of having secondary sources is that they are not subject to the input of the original author. That is how analysis and criticism are created. If every secondary source was subjected to the opinion of the original author, then there would be no analysis of the source material. The information contained in these sources would be the exact same if Rowling had published it. She corroborated with them to write it. Therefore, this article still fails notabilty, as I said before, because there are not multiple non trivial sources that support it. This is elaborated in more detail above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you saying? if critic X says something about the work, and the author says 'yes, thats right', and researcher Y says something else, and the the author says 'thats right too, give me everything anyone has written about my work and I will confirm or deny it for you', then all these secondary sources become primary ones, and suddenly there are no secondary sources on a subject any more? So someone cirticises the invasion of Iraq, the whitehouse say 'Ok, I agree, you are right', and suddenly the fact of the invasion and that it was criticised ceases to be reportable? History is history and remains a record of what happened whatever happens next. Sandpiper 07:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus et al So the argument seems to come down to: 1. The timeline was synthesized, which is disallowed by WP:SYNTH: (not true - it was synthesized by OTHERS and the synthesis did not attempt to prove a point, which is a necessary condition for the synthesis ban). 2. It was not created by Rowling therefore it is not reliably sourced per WP:RS: (incorrect - it was produced by Warner Bros., the Producer and owner of the HP copyrights and trademarks). 3. It was shown to Rowling before publication for approval, therefore it is no longer notable: (Huh???) So non-creation by Rowling makes it synthesis, creation by others with non-approval by Rowling makes it unreliable, but creation by others with approval by Rowling makes it non-notable, therefore it is disallowed no matter how it came to be?. I do not think I have ever seen such a twisted and bizarre rational for an AFD. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: no, the argument is that half of the article is a plot summary (rewriting it so that it says "Rowling says that X is" instead of "X is" may superfluously remove the in-universe aspect, but doesn't change anything), and that the other half is a discussion of how that chronology was made, but that there are no secondary sources about the timeline to establish its notability. The timeline itself is the primary source for the discussion of the timeline (just like the books and interviews with Rowling are the primary source for the timeline itself), and there are no secondary (reliable, not fanmade) sources for the discussion of this timeline to indicate that it has any notability (unlike, of course, Harry Potter and the books and movies and so on, who are very notable). 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I find what you are saying something of a paradox. There are three sources here. The books by Rowling, the timeline published by warner, and the timeline allegedly copied by warner, which first appeared on Lexicon. I still make that Primary source Rowling, secondary source Lexicon which extracted and tabuleted info from the books as a timeline, but also extracted real world dates from the information. Tertiary source Warner, who re-published this timeline and thus confirmed it. Lexicon created the timeline by themselves. I repeat that Rowling has endorsed them as a source of information about HP and thus they are a good source for reference purposes. But in this case, the later publication by Warner of the identical information (including Lexicon's 'mistakes') completely conrfirmed their accuracy as a source in this specific case. Even if Warner's timeline being identical was purely coincidence, it still confirms the accuracy of Lexicon. The whole business also made the story quite interesting. Please note 'fanmade' does not mean anything. University professors and professional literary critics are fans too. In this case Lexicon has been conirmed twice over as a reliable source for this information. If you check, you will notice that policy on sourcing states that consideration of what constitutes a reliable source must take into account the nature of the subject concerned and the specific relevance of the source. Sandpiper 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true either. The books do not mention real-world dates, but they certainly have a chronology. Book 1 is Harrys first year at school..book 2 is Harry's second year, and so on. During the action we see flasbacks of one sort or another, where we learn about the main characters parents generation at school, and indeed Voldemort who might be around their grandparents generation. Quite often this information is released in a way that eg in book 5 we read about Harry's 5th year, and learn about what his parents did in 5th year. Many events are described relative to each other in a way which only requires the addition of one or two fixed dates, and then all the dates become fixed. As to reaction to the timeline, well no, of course not. It is not controversial, except here. It extracts information from the books, but no one disputes that this was done in a sensible way and has now been made official by the publishers. On the whole it is more important to appreciate that certain events happen in the same year, or one just after another, rather than the specific year, I agree. But this does not invalidate the usefulness of the timeline, which still shows in a clear way which events happen at the same time. As has already been pointed out, there are enough die-hard fans out there to have pre-ordered half a million copies of a book which will be freely available at knock-down prices in every major supermarket in the UK, never mind the bookshops, on the day of publication. So why do they pre-order their books for collection at midnight on the day of publication? Because this is the kind of subject which really does have vast numbers of people interested in core information about the series, which this is. Sandpiper 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Folken: You say: The books do not mention real-world dates. OK - well you must have forgotten about Sir Nick's deathday cake. "DIED 31st October, 1492". See ch. 8 of Chamber of Secrets , about half-way through, for reference. That anchor date, plus the earlier statement that it is the five-hundredth anniversary of Nick's death-day, places Halloween night of Year 2 in the series, when Harry was 12 years old, squarely on 31 October 1992, thus his birth on 31 July 1980, and so forth. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two important real life dates mentioned by Rowling. One was from the Black family tree, which she donated for charity, and in which Draco Malfoy's birthdate is given as 1980. The very same Draco Malfoy, who is only two months older than Harry, according to JK Rowling's website. Which puts Harry's birthdate in 1980. The second one is the already mentioned date in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where the ghost Nick celebrated his 500th deathday. The date of his death given in the book (chapter 8) as 1492, therefore the book takes place in 1992. Harry is 12 years old at that point, therefore this date, too, puts his birthyear in 1980. All the other dates given in the article are either from the Black family tree, for example Regulus Black's deathdate, or given in the books or by Rowling on her website, when it is for example stated, that this character is two years older than Harry and that one three years younger. No Original Research at all. Neville Longbottom 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are all proving my point: you have to closely look at the book to find a single date mentioned, which is a proof that only die-hard fans can notice this. One single date in more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't establish the notability of dates in HP...Besides, the article has only one single external, secondary source, a fansite (hence "only interesting for a small number of die-hard fans") Folken de Fanel 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, please stop assuming that you represent some sort of mass opinion, or vested interest: just because you failed to notice a pretty explicit date reference within the books, and the associated references to what happened such and such years ago, is not proof positive that everyone except 'die hard fans' noticed it. More to the point, the article is of sufficient notability for wikipedia because it is focused on a notable topic (i.e. Harry Potter). Michael Sanders 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, stop attacking me each time I don't agree with you. It's not because you can't find anything convincing to add to the debate, that you can bark at everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Besides, we are not talking about "harry potter", but "dates in harry potter", which is quite different. And Dates in HP aren't notable, because they are inexistent. One occurence among more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't make it "notable". And we have not enough different secondary sources which could justify its notability. Folken de Fanel 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Iridescenti: You must have the incorrect AFD here. The article in question, currently named Chronology of the Harry Potter stories has many dozens, if not hundreds, of links to other HP pages including Harry Potter, and similar numbers of external links to references. For all intents and purposes, every HP related article which has an in-universe date reference (eg: characters, storylines, major event descriptions, etc.) have dates that are linked back to this article, which acts as a date verification source. It is probably one of the most completely cross-referenced articles in the Wikipedia. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the most thoroughly sourced - I mean, yes, most of the sources refer to authorial work, or the dubious work of the Lexicon (a discussion for another day), but there are plenty of articles of the same narrow range of sources without that mitigating factor. Michael Sanders 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The What Links Here? page shows that the only mainspace pages that either link here or redirect in via Dates in Harry Potter are Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Cho Chang, Rubeus Hagrid and Minerva McGonagall - that's just a statement of fact, not a value judgement of any kind. Incidentally, this is technically a deletion discussion on Dates in Harry Potter and not Chronology of the Harry Potter stories - read the header at the top of the section and the AfD log - but I (and I assume everyone else here) am treating it as a nomination of the Chronology and not the empty-shell Dates article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit history of this article was largely lost when it was deleted and restored. Can anyone with the authority please restore the rest of its considerably longer history? Sandpiper 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescenti - The AfD is for the Chronology of the Harry Potter stories, not the outdated Dates in Harry Potter redirection stub. The What Links Here tool is invalid, because removal bots removed the links when the article was first deleted. What happened here is that when the original Dates in Harry Potter article was first deleted, a couple of weeks back, vast numbers of articles within the HP Project suddenly had red-links back to the deleted page. Most of those annoying redlined links were dutifully taken down by well meaning editors and cleanup bots. Meanwhile the article was re-established due to a faulty AfD process, and then renamed due to complaints that it was "too crufty". This eliminated the long-term history of the article up for review, and makes it appear, in the What Links Here tool, that the article is non-notable because hardly anything links there anymore. We will have to tediously restore all those links - many many dozens of them - for the What Links Here tool to be correct in the sense of intent. Those of us who have been involved in the HP articles for more than the length of an AfD know that virtually EVERYTHING in the HP Project, which had in-universe dates in them, had linked to the Chronology / Dates page, and vice versa. I'll take it up with the HP project page to help re-establish the hundreds of Date links in the hundreds of HP articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'd already be re-established: were it not for the fact that editors are generally chary about spending a lot of time on efforts they fear will be wasted after five days. Michael Sanders 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fram a clean-up or removal bot? S/he is the editor who stripped out all the links within a few hours of the deletion of the article. Michael Sanders 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I was just about to ask you if you had time to re-establish date links. But I agree - why re-establish links that may go away again in a couple days. You just cannot win with deletionists thinking they are in control. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. There was a correct AfD, the result was delete, and I cleaned up all the redlinks this left behind (not removing any info, just removing the links). No need to call me or anyone "a deletionist who thinks he is in control". Anyway, you shouldn't link those dates to this article, but to the source used to establish that date: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in that way. Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Fram - I was not talking specifically about you, and certainly not to you. You did a fine job of cleaning up the red-linked dates, even though the article was under appeal for re-instatement. I was talking to Michael about what appeared to be an effort to first delete all the links to an article, and then say the article should be deleted as non-notable because there were no links to it, which is a bizarre and twisted approach to accomplish the deed. That is exactly the sort of editors we have been dealing with in this particularly irrational and heated AfD. Again apologies - the "deletionist" remark was referring those who are really struggling to come up with fantastic new rationals for deletion - and the "delete because it is non-notable because there are no links to it because we deleted them" was just the latest in the series. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Fram's defence, the article wasn't under appeal at that time - after I discovered how the original AfD had gone, I rewrote it to resolve the AfD complaints and reposted it. The appeal wasn't made until it was twice speedily deleted (which, the issue now having passed, I shall hold my silence about). However, it was slightly...hasty, and perhaps over-zealous, to remove all the links so quickly. If a deleted article had that many links, clearly the deletion will cause trouble; it's not a particularly good idea to exacerbate the problem, or indeed to wade in. As for the linking system, ideally, all 'in-universe' dates should be linked up to the article (otherwise, they end up being linked to the historical year articles, which causes a bleed between 'in-universe' and 'extra-universe'); important dates, I suppose, should be referenced within the articles themselves, as well. But nonetheless, there is a difference between using an article as a source, and using it as a convenient short-hand: if I write "Louis XVI was King of France" as "Louis XVI was King of France", I'm not using the article to source that he was King; merely to link up the title to the relevant article. The same is true here. Michael Sanders 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies and defence accepted ;-) I don't think it is over-zealous to delete all links after an AfD has closed as a delete (one could just as well argue that reintroducing all those links again during the next AfD is over-zealous), but that is not really important now. 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are plenty of valid arguments for keeping it - see above - but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't one of them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well if a cat-hater dog-lover put up Cat for AfD, then one of the primary arguments against deletion would be that the AfD proposal itself is biased, and that articles for Dog, Mouse, Rat, Monkey, Racoon, etc etc etc exist as a precedent and a model, and that the Cat AfD is absurd. To your point, may I remind you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, and I quote: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors.. "Well, I happen to strongly disagree with that essay, therefore it is invalid". That reflects the opinion of this author. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you happen to disagree with that essay, and therefor it is invalid? Strange reasoning there... Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point. The opinions of the authors of the essay are not policies or guidelines. I meant to place the remark in quotes, as if it was a valid argument - which I have now. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, T-dot is right - the very nature of an "essay" is an expression of opinion - and whilst the reputation and authority of the writer affects the degree to which the essay is taken as authoritative, it is still, at the end of the day, an essay, a formulation of beliefs and opinions which cannot be taken as binding - in this case, someone could write a wiki-essay saying "Precedent is very important in wikipedia. If one article is judged to be tolerable by policy, editors feel ethically obliged to tolerate other articles allowed by the same decisions...", so what would make either more authoritative? Michael Sanders 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a plot summary, and "notability" isn't defined by the number of readers, but by the reactions to this particular issue, and a notable subject must have "multiple" sources. There's only one secondary source for this...Folken de Fanel 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows and accepts a certain degree of plot-summary, in order to give a good accounting of a notable subject, i.e. Harry Potter. Michael Sanders 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it can hardly be argued that without this article, Wikipedia would not have a good accounting of this notable subject. This article is superfluous and goes beyond what is necessary to understand the Harry Potter articles. Fram 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without this article, Wikipedia would suffer a distinct drop in its accounting of the subject. For the reasons outlined above by everyone favouring 'keep'. Michael Sanders 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I think we are on the whole repeating ourselves, However...The noteability of this particular article has to be judged for what it is: which is one small but distinct part of the whole coverage of HP. It now has links restored to about 70 other articles (not including talk etc). It exists because the issue of dating is important to all of them. Not to mention of interest to a reader seeking to understand how the books are structured. People are dismissing this as a 'plot summary', but actually it is more an 'authors tool' which gives us a behind the scenes look at the books. From the point of view of understanding the books, it is a lot more useful than a number of others. Sandpiper 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are definitely repeating ourselves, which is why I stopped responding a couple of days ago. This discussion is completely out of hand. It would be ridiculous to expect anyone new to the discussion to read every opinion before commenting. As a result, there is rampant redundancy in most of the arguments. All that is left to do is let the closing admin sort it out. I disagree with every point you just laid forward for keeping the article and my objections are explained at length above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out of hand: the case is simply that both sides hold strong views, and that there is *no consensus* as to whether to delete or not delete. Michael Sanders 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. PeaceNT 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTable[edit]

OpenTable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is likely advertisement Anthony Appleyard 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a related note, the site's lengthy press page may have more useful resources, although some of the articles there appear to be trivial mentions in larger pieces. JavaTenor 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the article had been around as Opentable for rather longer than that before being moved to OpenTable - see [48], so I don't think the AfD nomination was improper on that ground. As regards your abstention, I don't think this is a California-specific discussion; the corporation is based in California, but books reservations for restaurants in 46 states as well as Mexico, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, and the UK. JavaTenor 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I'd try, but it's a subject so outside my area that I wouldn't be confident in getting anything right - what I know about California is pretty much gleaned from Beach Boys lyrics. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Langston[edit]

Nick Langston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Does an article on you meet the criteria "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."? I see no evidence that it does. Please read WP:N for more details.Shiva0x007 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to notability (music), amongst other things it states: "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" and, "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Notable musicians are mentioned and an internet search for individuals such as Andy Kinsman and Dennis Rollins (who are referred to) and John Paul Gard (who is not referred to) will confirm their notability, as would a search amongst the local media of Bristol. With respect to "the most prominent representative of a notable style", I would make no such claims to Nick Langston being the "most prominent", but perhaps "a prominent". I would also point to the Regional Youth Music Awards http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=107007375 which refers to Nick Langston as an "established artist" along with a range of other established artists including Lemar, Massive Attack and Roni Size and also http://www.thornburyfm.org/html/pres-nickl.html . The references to Nick Langston on entries for Tantric Jazz and East Bristol Jazz Club are clearly verifiable from those institutions' own websites and others. The Supergrass website is backed by a huge fanbase and the demo at Stargoat Studios is generally known by hardcore Supergrass fans. However, as I said earlier, I clearly have less knowledge on this process than others and wish only to include information that is appropriate for wikipedia users. NLAcreative 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Rocket Ryanjunk 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Rockets Work[edit]

How Rockets Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

page Rocket does this job already Anthony Appleyard 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was the "I" that I was referring to. Articles should not be written from a first person perspective. This article is written more like a high school essay than an encyclopedia article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WP:V is not negotiable.Cúchullain t/c 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omerta (MMORPG)[edit]

Omerta (MMORPG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally speedily deleted this article under criteria A7 (as it was tagged) and G11. Aside from meeting these criteria, the article is unsourced and is not-notable (more specifically failing WP:ORG and WP:WEB). I'm bringing it to AFD due to a dispute at my talk page. cj | talk 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to The Wack Pack. Ryanjunk 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`gina-dance[edit]

`gina-dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a neologism based on a limited event at best. - Tiswas(t/c) 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Author)[edit]

Sean Kennedy (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability, previously voted to delete as Sean Kennedy ---- Bennie Noakes 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually follow the link you'll find that this "200 word Wired article" is accompanied by 15 minutes of audio interview, of Kennedy and O'Brien. Please check it out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:BIO's second paragraph states clearly "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Should we keep that in mind? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I'm quite aware of WP:BIO and would never so much as consider participating in an AfD vote or discussion were I not. Rest assured, I have kept in mind the paragraph you have quoted. Victoriagirl 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you don't mind me asking, precisely why do you consider that the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Do you disagree with the opinion that the man has a following, as well as the opinion that the man has made unique contributions to his field (the 2-Way ICQ during radio broadcasts, the style of the 'rants'), as well as the opinion that the man is known for originating new concepts (Server as a god, Xenu's Wog Mecha, each of the Klans, and other such memes?). If any of the above opinions can be supported, the article should be kept. It's natural that there should not be a large amount of 'mainstream' coverage of Kennedy, as he considers the concept of 'mainstream' itself to be dangerous and controlling, however, this doesn't mean that he has nothing to contribute to the Sum Of Human Knowledge(TM). OldMixcoatl 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is a reconstruction of an entry deleted three weeks earlier - as such it runs counter to Wikipedia policy. While some may disagree with the decision, it is not appropriate to simply reintroduce the article. Victoriagirl 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate this, and I do apologise as the creator of the updated article (being new to this place and not having seen the second discussion under AfD), it seems that a number of mistakes were made as well as my own. Firstly, the article was submitted here instead of under deletion review. Secondly, people voted for speedy delete, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the criteria. From below, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The and instead of an or means that if the revisions made do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted but the copy is not substantially identical the article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion.

In which case I ask you, even assuming that Sean Kennedy has received absolutely no recognition from third party news sources, assuming that all his writing is, due it being self-published, critically void (both assumptions I strongly disagree with), is the article not warranted due to any of the three points raised above? OldMixcoatl 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment At the risk of appearing to bite a newby, I must correct OldMixcoatl. In fact, DanDud88 was the creator of the article. When reintroduced, the article clearly failed to address WP:NOTE, the reason it had been deleted three weeks earlier (in fact, not a single reference was provided). In my opinion, further editing has not rectified this situation. Whether or not it meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY rests on how much one verson owes to the other; a moot point, I suppose, as it wasn't nominated for Speedy Deletion in the first place. To address your final paragraph, OldMixcoatl - I have never made the claim that Kennedy's work is "critically void". My issue with his books - which I now learn are self-published - is this: there is no way to verify that they actually exist. Even self-published books are supposed to be deposited with Library and Archives Canada - and yet the books are not listed at that institution, nor at the Vancouver Public Library, nor at the libraries of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. All this speaks to verifiability and, by extension, WP:NOTE. In short, how are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be considered outside the mainstream, I must wonder why it is that not one of Vancouver's alternative papers has seen fit to publish an article on the man. If he is indeed known for originating new concepts, as you've written above, citations should be easy to provide. As it stands, I think Sean Kennedy is best discussed within the Wikipedia entry on Rant Media. Victoriagirl 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it happens, this [49] was the edit in which I created the current article, under Sean Kennedy. DanDud88 copied the article into Sean Kennedy (Author) as part of his creation of the disambiguation page. But this is a minor point, and I had forgotten there was an (in my opinion) far worse article about the same person under Sean Kennedy before I made mine.OldMixcoatl 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies to OldMixcoatl and DanDud88. It would appear that an article on the Sean Kennedy under discussion was first reintroduced by Grimtrekkie at 19:27, 3 April 2007. It was completely rewritten by OldMixcoatl six hours later. Victoriagirl 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As another sidenote, a version of The Scabbed Wings Of Abbadon can be found here:[], while an audio book of The Bloodstained Rabbit can be found here: [].OldMixcoatl 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate the effort, I must point out that these are simply audio downloads. The article states that Kennedy is the author of two books. Victoriagirl 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the link provided to Scabbed Wings is a zipped pdf file, rather than an audio file. I can't find the Bloodstained Rabbit in pdf, unfortunately no-one has scanned it in, and it was a very limited run ([50]) which has sold out. There are a couple blog entries and the like about receiving the text novel (e.g. [51]).OldMixcoatl 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to be a stickler, but audio and text files aren't books. I note that the Rant Media website indicated Scabbed Wings as a forthcoming publication, which pretty well expains why I haven't been able to find any library records. This, of course, leaves The Bloodstained Rabbit. Recognizing that blogs are "largely not acceptable as sources", I put it that there must be some third party source indicating that it was actually published. Was there not one book review? Did no copy make it into any library? Victoriagirl 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is somewhat amusing considering I'm looking at Bloodstained on my shelf right now. I did see someone say somewhere on the Rant forums I believe that they donated it to their local library. Tracking it down is not made easier by the fact that it has no ISBN, a feature Scabbed Wings will have when it is out later this month, so I understand. If I can be of some assistance in proving that the book is, in fact, in print and on my shelf please let me know. CodingRooster— CodingRooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment While it's my opinion that The Bloodstained Rabbit was published as a book, what we are looking for here are verifiable facts. The issue is that no source has yet been found to prove that the book exists. I point to this problem as it speaks volumes to notability. In short, I wonder why it is that a book published by a man who has such a "significant cult following" (as claimed on this page) has never been so much as mentioned in the alternative media, mainstream media or academic press. Victoriagirl 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Vancover sun http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg Theres others too http://rantmedia.ca/media.php Know1uno 4:15 PM April 11

it's not exactly a repost, but a reconstructed article. A fair bit better than the last one that got deleted, from an NPOV standpoint. The different title, also, is because since the last deletion a few other people at Wikipedia found two other Sean Kennedies that they felt merited articles - so this one now has to be identified as "Sean Kennedy (author)". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the fact that the current article is not identical to that which was deleted is irrelevant. It is, as you say, a reconstruction - as such it clearly falls under the WP:SPEEDY policy. Whether or not NPOV issues have been addressed is irrelevant. the simple fact is that the original article was deleted for failing to meet WP:NOTE and nothing else. The new article fails to address this issue. Victoriagirl 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPEEDY says a speedy delete is warranted for "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This copy is substantially different from the old, and when I saw it'd been re-created I personally added the footnotes (that were never there before) to try to address WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and comment - in case anyone was wondering, I did not create this article - I just watched the empty space left after the last AfD to see how long it'd take for someone to create a new article here. And, when it came back, I tried to add some notes and clean up the language. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I recognize the work of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I maintain that the new article fails to address WP:NOTE. I'm afraid a seven year-old mini-profile in Spin and vaguely described segment on Way of the Master Radio - not exactly a published source - just don't make the grade in the eyes of this girl. Victoriagirl 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it doesn't meet WP:N with the references provided in this AfD and the article, I doubt any more is going to come to light. There is more out there on him I'm sure (apparently he was even on CBC radio, according to the article's first AfD), but it's just impossible to find. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what the focus of the articles are? Sean is a major part of most RantRadio articles because he is its loudest voice! Even the pictre on the Sun article has Sean front and center. He is an important part of RantRadio. So what if the articile is about RantRadio if it is then it is also a little about Sean. Know1uno 10:45 April 12

Comment That's a good point, the photos are just as published as the text of the article. So if the photo has Sean as the subject, then that's him being made the subject of a published source. OldMixcoatl 08:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To claim that a photograph accompanying an article is in some way a separate published source is, I would argue, more than a stretch. That said, the matter is irrelevant; the photo in question clearly captures three individuals (all identified in the caption), the most prominently featured being Sean Kennedy. In no way is he the subject. Victoriagirl 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raggedy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.241.129 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).— 81.98.241.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Turney[edit]

Cliff Turney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deprodded, so listing here. No indication of notability. Darksun 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - This doesn't seem to be the case, based on the low number of Google hits (admittedly, not a conclusive test, but I don't have other ways of testing it)
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - Is he? Are details of the theory on Wikipedia? If so, it should be made clear in the article
  3. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Is there any significant independant analysis of his work?

If the notability can be shown, fine. There is still time left before the end of the AFD. However, I've yet to see any significant improvement to the article. --Darksun 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think he meets the first criterion, probably not so much the latter two. His full name is "Clifford Turney", by the way, which yields some additional results. And take this quotation Cliff Turney put these principles into effect, not only in this University but also through his national profile as a reformer and scholar. His numerous books and other publications on teacher education were of the highest standard, and were complemented by his membership of several influential committees of inquiry into teacher education, his leadership of several academic and professional societies, and his work in editing scholarly journals. [56]. I acknowledge it is not from a fully independent source, yet even if you disregard the qualitative descriptions ('of the highest standard', etc.), judging from this and some of the other stuff I've read about him (his being a foundation dean of his faculty, for instance), he is at least as notable as many other academics we have articles on. --JoanneB 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motron Software[edit]

Motron Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Mostly unsourced. Only claim of notability is winning a young entrepeneur contest for a school project. --Onorem 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No sources that would be considered reliable for determining notability have been added since the AfD began. Forums are not reliable sources. --Onorem 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I own Motron Software and I state here and now that all of theses statements are true. There were a few mistakes, but I fixed them so you can abolish the AfD notice. Stevenup7002 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Stevenup7002[reply]
Please read WP:RS, WP:CORP, and WP:COI. Notability has not been established, and you are not considered a reliable source. --Onorem 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was the one who experienced all of this. How can we get rid of the Afd? Stevenup7002 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Steven[reply]
Did you read any of the links left here or on your talk page? What you say you experienced is not verifiable. An AfD discussion generally lasts 5 days unless it's obvious one way or the other that it isn't necessary. This one may end up being relisted for more comments since it was unlisted by someone from the AfD log... --Onorem 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable company. Self-sourced information and forums are not sources that establish notability under WP:CORP. Try again when the company is public. UnitedStatesian 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all.Cúchullain t/c 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Signal (Film)[edit]

The Signal (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for speedy then contested. Essentially, there is no credible evidence that this meets any of our guidelines. It is completely unsourced. Complicating things is the fact that it appears there is a film called The Signal that may in fact be notable as it screened at Sundance. This is not that movie though. Add to that the fact that if you look at the originator's username and contributions, it's not a stretch to see a possible WP:COI here. I'd also suggest bundling the following related articles here as well:
Andre Boyer
Sarah Ashley
CJ Johnson
Nick Thiel
Han Le
None of these individuals meet WP:BIO; they have a few minor appearances in television and an IMDB page. Most were speedy tagged as well, but the speedies were contested. My opinion is delete all. Isotope23 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good call... sorry I missed that when I nominated these.--Isotope23 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ths Signal is in the process of being added to the IMDB database. I did not see any inclusion of it on an online encyclopedia but, the film has been broken up into pieces on www.youtube.com. There is also a main website for the film at www.myspace.com/thesignaliscoming. The Signal is an independent film and is cureently being circulated to film and video festivals.

This was deleted because I didn't think it complied to the guidelines. It doesn't give anything away it was just a correction: "A previously deleted part of the article gives it away; "The Signal has also been broken up into webisodes airing on You Tube""

I don't think the cast should be lumped into the same category as the film because they are individuals and have other valid work that has been verified by IMDB and My Space. Therefore they are noteworthy. The film however should be considered for deletion because after reviweing more details I see it doesn't meet all the guidelines for wikipedia. I didn't know that. I'm not trying to seel anything I'm just adding an independent film.

You cannot be added to IMDB unless there is verification that your work has been on television, film, or screened at festivals. They have editors that get paid to make sure everything the truth. It's actually harder to add something there than wikipedia. I am going to read the links you posted so, I can understand the process of adding information to wikipedia. I'm a bit confused as to why there's so much animosity towards a one project.

After reading the guidelines, I will make the necessary changes promptly.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De arte alea[edit]

De arte alea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had considered merely tagging this for references (which it lacks) but figured a simple subject like this, and I may as well try to source it myself. A Google search on the topic, however, turned up scant few results and each one was a mirror of this article. Google scholar was not of any more use. I now have to question whether this lost work really existed at all, and barring some new sources it appears to be more a non-notable, imagined work - if that. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can concede the fact that Claudius did write about the subject of gambling - Seutonius is a sufficient source for that fact. However to make the connection that the title was De Arte Alea is erroneous. The translation of Seutonius you provide says "even publishing a book on the art", and if we are to take the other link at boargamestudies.com at face value, at best we can expand that to say "publishing a book on the art of dice". To make the assertion that this, therefore, means a lost work titled De Arte Alea was written by Claudius constitutes WP:OR. Lacking a source to that effect or more information on the subject (which does not seem forthcoming) a better solution than this article would be to place that source in Lost work and change the entry under Claudius to read "a book on the art of dice" rather than a link to a purported book of this name. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear a sentence or two could be added to the Claudius article, but this article plainly should be deleted. We don't have articles titled some name somebody just pulled out of their butt. 2005 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendacity[edit]

Mendacity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN student film. Article text mentions a couple local awards, sparing this from A7. However, Google results that I got were mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant. Would a Fresno County Public Schools-ish award make a student film notable, anyway? Action Jackson IV 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem the movie[edit]

Mayhem the movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a non-notable proposed movie and the article has serious WP:COI issues as it appears to have been authored by the filmmaker. Mattinbgn/ talk 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Town[edit]

Bomb Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND and is self-posted by a member of the band creating a WP:COI. Ronbo76 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is legit references to a band...its relivant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scragglerock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 April 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all — anthony[review] 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Chopper Bikes[edit]

Junior's Dream Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the American Chopper bikes are here on AFD. None are notable. All articles violate WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Delete

  1. Junior's Dream Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. POW/MIA Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Mikey's Blues Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. Christmas Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Fire Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Comanche Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Cody's Old School Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. Black Widow Spider Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. Lance Armstrong Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. NAPA Drag Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. New York Jets Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  12. Lincoln Mark LT Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  13. Statue of Liberty Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  14. I, Robot Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  15. Dixie Chopper Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  16. Davis Love III Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  17. Carroll Shelby Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GreenJoe 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Rogerd's approach is correct. Where references are needed, the cite video provides at least the bare minimum from the episode itself. And, if the result is merge, could we at least agree there are enough bikes that they might warrant a split-off to List of American Chopper motorcycles or List of motorcycles by Orange County Choppers or something? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to merging all into a list of OCC bikes. However, with all the images, and all the possible additions, that could be a very big article. Wavy G 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If these articles survive the AFD (which at this point I think it will), we should reference all of the other articles and perhaps add some language to make it clear that the articles represent an episode of a TV show. I wouldn't bother until the AFD is concluded, since in the unlikely event they don't survive, it would be wasted effort. --rogerd 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Arlt[edit]

Gregory Arlt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is unsourced, reads like a press release or CV and would need to be substantially rewritten to be of any use to Wikipedia Mattinbgn/ talk 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Denk[edit]

Alexander Denk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I redirected this to Anna Nicole Smith and it was reverted, so let's have a discussion here. This gentleman is not the father of anyone famous and has no other reason for being notable. Surely the article should be redirected, at most with some minimal info added, to the main article on the subject. Chick Bowen 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ageless wisdom (2nd nomination)[edit]

Ageless wisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was prodded; prod was contested with a hangon tag rather than just by deleting the prod notice. I'm bringing the debate here for further discussion and copying the prod and hangon reasons below. No opinion from me. NawlinWiki 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes & external links have been significantly reduced. It's getting better, please take another look. Jon33 11 April 2007
Totally rewrote the first two paragraphs in the article and the # of links has been slashed down to four. Jon33
It is not a redundant promotion. This topic is not covered already in Wikipedia. TheGreat White Brotherhood is a group of men, not a body of teachings. Theosophical movement had founders.The Ageless wisdom has existed since the dawn of time on this planet and is not a possession of any particular group, nor is it religious material like enlightenment. Furthermore it was not created or started. It is literally "ageless". Jon33 11 April 2007
Yes, the topic is covered. The idea that an ageless body of knowledge has been passed down over the years by great spiritual leaders, right into the lap of a few occultists who lay claim to it, is covered in the Great White Brotherhood article. You seem to be saying that this article describes what the members of the Brotherhood know, rather than the Brothers themselves, but that is within the scope of the GWB article itself. There is still no encyclopedic content or citations in the article, and you have failed to prove that this is a unique religious concept not directly synonymous with enlightenment or the GWB. Just using a different phrase to describe it does not make it different. Algabal 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment i did not prod this article person who did did not use edit summary so i did a edit summary for themOo7565 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was me. I wrote the original and Oo75 seconded it. Algabal 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that it would, if it were important enough be in either of those articles on Theosophy or the Great White Brotherhood, is mistaken. It is there but in a diffent form. The Theosophical teachings as well as the teachings of the Great White Brotherhood, Alice Bailey and Helena Roerich are what we call the "ageless wisdom" . Just becasue it is not mentioned on the totally unrelated enlightenment page, and partially related Theosophy page does not negate it's existence or significance. Jon33
No, it is there in exactly the same form, just not using the words 'ageless wisdom' and with less of an Alice Bailey/Benjamin Creme promotional motive. Again, the article is redundant. If you wish to expand upon the teachings of Helena Roerich, Madame Blavatsky and Benjamin Creme, do so in their articles. Algabal 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Stories[edit]

Tower Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Near orphan, no statement of importance, no sources. Was nominated for CSD long ago but didn't meet any criteria at the time. kingboyk 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Target of any redirect left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athorism[edit]

Athorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Since the ((prod)) was removed, we're doing this the slow and painful way. I'm afraid I can not see how this satisfies the notability criteria here. This is a neologism or clever rhetorical device employed by Richard Dawkins. But we aren't going to have an article for every clever concept these evolutionary biologist come up with. If we do, as one editor put it, then fossil rabbits in the precambrian should be the first to have an article. Merzul 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no objection here to Merzul's redirect suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be unambiguous, consider my position to be delete and redirect per Merzul. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for all the edits, messed up my comment... will be using the preview button a lot more in the future Demong 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitschrock[edit]

Kitschrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A musical genre, made up by a band one day, that no other bands (AFAIK) claim to be in. Too obscure to be notable, no references, and seemingly original research. Google does not help much. An option is to give it a slight mention in the band's article, but either way I say delete. →EdGl 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not a problem. I'll give this another shot. Remember, I'm still neutral on the topic. I'm just trying to show that this genre exists and is indeed a genre. Whether it's notable enough to deserve its own page is questionable, but then again, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of the information in the article is factually inaccurate and the genre has at least a few notable bands (Meat Loaf and Ratt, to mention two). I'm not tied to this article in any way, but I don't want it to be deleted for the wrong reasons. The articles below are just a few that I found per my LexisNexis search and then retrieved from the newspaper's website. There are indeed more where this came from, and there were even more that I couldn't retrieve from the newspapers' websites because of time archives.
So take a look and we should evaluate it from there. :) Rockstar915 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it seems like this word is a neologism, which we "ought to avoid", but with references such as yours, it is certainly possible for "inclusionists" to make a valid "keep" argument. However, I think a possible merge into Kitsch is probably the most suitable. I simply don't see the potential for this article to expand to more than a several-sentence stub. What say you (Rockstar, and everyone)? →EdGl 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I like your idea to merge it into kitsch. I think it would actually fit perfectly into one of the sub-sections. As of right now, however, I would say that don't think it's in any shape to merge. Maybe we should delete it and then rewrite it into the kitsch article? Or else we could just throw in a few sentences from the kitschrock article into kitch. But I agree, I'm still not convinced it deserves its own page, especially after looking at the kitsch article. So I think I'm going to officially vote merge into kitsch. Rockstar915 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand -- there exist reliable sources about the genre, so technically it is not a neologism. Sure, it needs cleanup and probably a merge, but why suggest delete? Rockstar915 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, read the opening sentence (or paragraph) at WP:NEO; despite some coverage, it could still be considered a "neologism." The word "protologism" may be what you were thinking of. →EdGl 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - probably all musical genre names started as neologisms ("heavy metal", "rock and roll" to name a few). However, one problem with neologisms is that there may be used in the media, but until they reach a certain critical mass, the definition is still up for grabs. I can't read all your sources, but what I do see corroborates the use of the term - though perhaps not in the way this article suggests. I think adding something to the kitsch article (based on the sources you have found) would be great. I just wouldn't use anything from this article unless it happens to coincide with the sources. So, more precisely, my suggestion is to delete, redirect and add something to kitsch based on what you have found, if you are inclined to do the editing there.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metasciences[edit]

The Metasciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that seems to exist primarily on MySpace Mrmctorso 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to redirect it to 2006-07 Philadelphia Flyers season. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers[edit]

2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It might be possible to write a good article about the 2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers. But this article, as it stands, looks to be completely original research and editorial opinion. It looks like it's either someone's original analysis of the team or a cut-and-paste of an analysis from somewhere. Since the article will literally require a complete rewrite from scratch to meet policies for WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I recommend temporarilly deleting and redirecting to Philadelphia Flyers for now without prejudice for a better article being written from scratch independently at a future date. Dugwiki 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on AFD because I'd effectively be deleting the contents of the article. I also wanted to avoid, for example, the redirect simply being reverted by the article's author. So since this will effectively delete the contents of the article, and to make sure I have consensus for the move and to make sure the redirect sticks, I'm putting it up for afd to be safe. Dugwiki 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to avoid the redirect being reverted by the author of the article, perhaps you should have talked with them? They could have even requested a speedy deletion since they were effectively the only editor. I think that would have been preferable to AfD in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll simply have to agree to disagree then. Dugwiki 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you recommending the article be kept? Or deleted? Dugwiki 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recommending you try a different method than AfD in cases like this. It would have been much more preferable to talk to the user, explain the situation, and hopefully help them to be a better Wikipedia contributor. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but trying would have cost little. FrozenPurpleCube 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take no position whatsoever as to whether NHL teams need articles by year or not. FrozenPurpleCube 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, the central question for this nomination is whether or not to delete the article. If you're not commenting on that, then there's not much to say. Dugwiki 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave you my advice for the future as much as this article. It's often helpful to know there are other methods to achieve the same goal. FrozenPurpleCube 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you do things you're way, and I'll do things my way. I'm more interested in whether or not this article is deleted or kept. Dugwiki 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like anybody much cares. Maybe it'd be faster to contact the editor, see if they'll request self-deletion? FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, it hasn't even been up a day yet. Dugwiki 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Improve Per nom--eskimospy(talk) 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I would tend to agree that AfD was not a great option but since it's here... The article is original research and would require such a complete rewrite that I see no point in keeping it for keeping's sake. Of course, no prejudice against re-creation. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that suggestion, although I should mention that there's probably nothing worth actually "merging" from the nominated article. Just a guess, but it's probably going to simply be a redirect with no text actually copied over. Dugwiki 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So it is written, so let it be done. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jura River (Paris)[edit]

Jura River (Paris) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, does not appear to exist other than as a single reference in a Robert Charroux book (external link is just quoting the book, google search only finds that link and Wikipedia mirrors). Kmusser 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Bag[edit]

Z-Bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism that I can't find any reference to anywhere except this article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires: Dawn of Man Expansion[edit]

Age of Empires: Dawn of Man Expansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unofficial expansion to Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (itself an expansion to Age of Empires), which is not notable enough for inclusion. · AO Talk 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose There are sources that can confirm the information. In fact, some of them are in the article, and many more can be produced. ~ Giggy! Talk | Contribs About Me | To Do List 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Cúchullain t/c 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Equalizer[edit]

The Great Equalizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The NewsMax reference forming the foundation of this article, and the phrase _The Great Equalizer_, appears to fail the attribution test of WP:ATT, and fails the reliable sources test of WP:RS, and appears to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP, being based upon a personal blog of Miguel A. Faria. I suggest that this article be deleted. The citation of the Joel Miller commentary also fails a WP:NOT#SOAP test and the WP:ATT test. Additionally, the term _The Great Equalizer_ is severely ambiguated. SaltyBoatr 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google web search finds The Great Equalizer used to describe a very broad range of topics, including: cancer, home ownership, the atom bomb, education, a Rick Borsten fiction novel, a Television series, computing power, the Internet, the search engine, assistive technology for disable people, mathematics, marriage, shopbots, In-stent restenosis, Romantic Love, automation and more. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google book search returns plenty of references, the top nineteen refer to a different usage than 'firearms', with the twentieth being the first containing the 'firearm' reference. Per WP:ATT, I argue, a Wikipedia article about how firearms are The Great Equalizer fails a credible attribution test. Similar for a Google scholar search, and I argue that for an article in Wikipedia to state that _The Great Equaliser_ means firearms, that such an association should be confirmed through a check of scholarly work, and it is not confirmed. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of this article failing the WP:NOT#SOAP test is this entry on the talk page, which frames this AfD as 'doing the bidding the the gun prohibitionists'. I argue that this article plays a part in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox in the gun politics debate. SaltyBoatr 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Dman727; Please clarify, do you mean: 'Seems to be sourced.', Or: Is sourced, per WP:ATT? SaltyBoatr 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not to sure what you mean. The article is sourced with sources. It could use more and the article is not in great shape. I did just notice that the article is only a couple days old, so I would suggest giving this more time to develop into a better written article. Nonethless the phrase has been around for awhile. Dman727 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean, what I am asking, is whether the sources meet WP:ATT. The sources appear to me to not meet WP:V and to be based on blogs, which WP:ATT disallows. I agree the phrase has been around for a while and is used with at least twenty different meanings, with the disease cancer being the first, and guns being the twentieth. Check Google books, or Google scholar to confirm this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't see how this phrase merits an article with twenty meanings, it just isn't scholarly. What it really is, is a soapbox in the gun politics debate, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SaltyBoatr 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wiki is not a soapbox and that one of the reason why the article should be cleaned up. But its clearly a noteable term and is sourced. Dman727 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A notable term with twenty+ definitions, I argue the term should be defined in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary SaltyBoatr 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning. As a matter of fact, the meaning that this article attempts to give it would make it a misnomer, because giving a weak person a firearm to defend himself or herself from a stronger but unarmed attacker doesn't "equalise" anything. Regardless, this article asserts that the term specifically pertains to firearms, and its only source to back this claim up shows the term being used just like a colloquialism is typically used; it doesn't demonstrate the term being defined for any purpose outside of that article. Its very foundation, then, is unsourced. If a source can't be found that actually defines this phrase as referring specifically to a weapon in the context that the article defines it, then the article should not exist as it does now. If such a source can not be found, then the only way this article could remain relatively unchanged is by acknowledging that the term's article-designated definition applies only to that author's article, and any others that it sources using that way. MVMosin 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? As far as I can tell, the very first use of this term is regarding the colt revolver. This makes that the original definition, even if cherry-picking wikibooks as a justification for deletion produces the excuse that it's definition number twenty. Note that "the great equalizer" has 283,000 hits on Google itself. This, alone, would be sufficient to prove it's worth an entry, as it's a unique enough phrase, not something that just spontaneously occurs in random speech. Note, too, that adding the word "handgun" after the phrase produces over 30,000 results, "firearms" over 40,000. But, again, it's most important that this phrase, which nobody denies is in significant use, has the 19th century colt revolver as its only even claimed origin, as well as firearms as a very common modern usage, perhaps the most common.
As noted, though, the article is also brand-new. I still suspect a connection between the anti-gun stance of the editor suggesting it, and the prematurity and censorship-orientation of the suggestion. Especially since even the rationale used -- that there are other usages beside that of firearms -- would more strongly suggest adding to the article, not deleting it entirely.
A broad perusal of wikipedia shows that people are far more likely to delete information based on relatively mild criteria like "it wasn't positioned correctly in the article" or "it wasn't properly cited" when their edits just happen to show a reason to suspect bias against that kind of info. If it's embarassing to Clinton, but true, it's more likely to be deleted by a Liberal...if it's embarassing to Bush, more likely to be deleted by a neocon, when in both cases most other editors would have fixed it, instead.
Oh, and why doesn't the Johns Hopkins article referring to the 19th century Colt as having that title "count" as a reference?--Kaz 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked: Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? Yes, there are many, and none of which involve firearms, see this one from 1905, where the phrase means 'education'. And from 1905, meaning 'blood'. From 1871 meaning 'atmosphere'. From 1854 meaning 'education'. From 1886 meaning 'public school'. By the way, a search of public domain books (generally the older books) finds zero results if one includes 'firearms' in the search phrase, ditto for 'gun', 'colt', and 'revolver'. SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your references use those three words in the middle of longer phrases. "The great equalizer of the human condition" and "the great equalizer of the conditions of men", for example. These phrases in context imply either that the author is simply communicating, rather referring to a known phrase, and the three words are a coincidence, or that the subsequent "of the X" is him expanding the known phrase to fit new circumstances. If you say "a grand master", you mean chess. If you want to use it to mean anything else, you say "a grand master of X", like those authors did. And note that none of them predate the invention of the Colt revolver in 1836. In fact, the earliest one is a full generation later, after the phrase "The Great Equalizer" would have been well-established, making the modification of the phrase to fit educational rhetoric quite natural. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears based on original research. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the 'Johns Hopkins' article you cite? Your link which you provided is subscription only. The abstract of the article includes this sentence "The revolver thus earned itself the moniker "the Peacemaker," or more aptly "the Great Equalizer." , which 'aptly' suggests that the phrase was coined by the author in 2004, not 100 years ago when the phrase used was "the Peacemaker". Perhaps this encyclopedia article should be renamed 'the Peacemaker'? SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you could claim that "aptly", by which the author means that of the two famous phrases, the latter fits better, could mean it was coined in 2004, which surely everyone on here of any reasonable age would remember firsthand to have been used many years before. The Colt revolver was invented, as I said, in the 1830s, and it's this gun to which he refers. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your response to mean that you have not actually read the Johns Hopkins article upon which you base your argument. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked with the reference section at my local library, and found that the article being cited by Kaz is not actually properly cited as The Great Equalizer and not really about the Colt Revolver. The correct citation should be: The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed.(Book Review). Kerry M. Kartchner. SAIS Review 24.1 (Wntr-Spring 2004): p169-172. Further evidence that 'The Great Equalizer' is a massively ambiguated term, in this case, a 2004 book about Nuclear Weapons, and not notable as a distinct article. SaltyBoatr 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't make any sense...that people have said this or that levelled the differences between men has no bearing on whether the actual, precise phrase "The Great Equalizer" originates with the Colt Revolver, much less whether it's wiki-worthy, which it would be regardless of its origins. Prove that people commonly used the exact phrase The Great Equalizer to refer to death in the 17th century, and you only give us more reason to expand the article.--Kaz 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that user Kaz holds a vested position and fails to disclose that he/she is the primary author of this article[63]. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you're assuming your own bias is the kind shared by everyone else. I am making specific, detailed arguments, which are of the same value even if I were Elvis Presley reincarnate. While you have a specific agenda of censorship here, because you don't like the way "The Great Equalizer" points out a specific attribute of the handgun, my own arguments are simply for the keeping of information in wikipedia, regardless of its effect. You will find that in my debates all through my 4000+ edits. Information that has any relevance should be included and retained, regardless of what position it supports or denies.
Good editors fix problems with information, rather than just censoring it wholesale. Your bizarre premise of "this is a very widely used phrase, therefore should be deleted" is a prime example of not behaving that way. A perusal of your edits shows you're anti-gun, and that is your likely agenda here. If The Great Equalizer accidentally supported your position, instead of accidentally supporting a position you oppose, you'd be defending it, not trying to censor it. --Kaz 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem attack on me does nothing to defend your argument. SaltyBoatr 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MVMosin said it well: The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning.[64] I have researched this term, The Great Equalizer, and found more than twenty different definitions of the term. The dozens of definitions of this term belongs in Wictionary, not Wikepedia. Of the three citations provided by Kaz, two fail WP:ATT because they lack credibility being based on fringe blogs, and the third is only incidentally related to firearms, being primarily a book review about the problem of nuclear proliferation not 'firearms'. SaltyBoatr 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of protest songs[edit]

List of protest songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect this will prove controversial but here goes. What we have here is an infinite list that can never come close to completion, making every single entry on it arbitrary. The fact is nearly every song by bands like Crass, Dead Kennedys, Subhumans could easily qualify for this list, though only a few are included. And that's just a few bands from one specific genre. Peruse the talk page and you'll see ample discussions of problems of inclusion, definition, and verifiability, mostly unsettled in any general sense. Songs by redlinked bands are not uncommon, leading me to believe people are adding songs by their garage band. The article is way too long to have any sort of quality control, and who knows how many completely erroneous entries there are. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with brackets in their titles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about romance (including breakups) are examples of debates on articles with similar problems that have since been deleted.

Oh, and please don't drag the whole "a lot of people have worked on this article so we should keep it" arugment in. It's irrelevent, and doesn't hold water. R. fiend 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Anti-Polish sentiment. I will merely redirect; further merging can be done if anyone wants to. Mangojuicetalk 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organised persecution of ethnic Poles[edit]

Organised persecution of ethnic Poles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merely a fork to dump together various events never considered related in the historiography. Makes similar sense as the hypothetical article titled, say, Ethnic persecution organised by Poles to include various massacres and pogroms conducted by Poles throughout the history (not to say that this is unique as any nation in its history is complicit for carrying massacres and ethnic persecution). --Irpen 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never considered related - where? In the Soviet Union?

There are many ethnic articles about expulsions of Germans. There are no such article about expulsions of Poles, I'm going to write one or remove all German articles.Xx236 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply. I compared these articles about Germans and can see your point. Yes, there is certain overlap here. Article about "persecution" also describes anti-German sentiment and rightly so. This is because any action (persecution) requires first to convince people that such action is necessary (hence the "anti-sentiment"). Still, I think it is perfectly fine to have some degree of overlap in articles about different subjects if it makes the articles more readable. This is common for many scientific papers in WP. Biophys 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested a merge at Talk:Anti-German sentiment; feel free to comment there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any native-speaker here? Is a sentiment the same as mass exterminations and expulsions? Bullshit.Xx236 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owens Park[edit]

Owens Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No significance apparent; it's just student accomodation. Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Takumi Ichinose[edit]

The result was Merge and redirect to Characters of Nana (manga). Sr13 (T|C) 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Ichinose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

completely unsourced article on a character in a band in a manga. And it has a trivia section! I got news for you. That header should be moved to the top... Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Esposito[edit]

Cameron Esposito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. All tags regarding notability to this article have been sumarily removed without substantial article improvement. Ronbo76 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability First and foremost, the focus of the article isn't even on her participation in said "arbitrary" school, but rather it chronicles her successes and notable establishments in the field of comedy--namely the similar track she is on, ie: Amy Poehler (BC grad) and other comedians who started off in the Boston/Chicago improv theatres. If this article is worthy of deletion, so is half of the shit you administrators publish on this site. TeamCopy 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was not for whether the person in question is notable, as I tend to avoid that criteria. I was more concerned with the lack of reliable sources, and the only official publication present in the sources confirms a trivial detail. Better sources like newspapers, magazines, or books would do this article a world of good and if they verified the right information(name, place, and activities) would get my vote for a keep. i kan reed 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just delete it then

Why prolong this discussion if clearly the stupid hierarchy of Wikipedia will win out? Delete the damn page already, then. Wikipedia is in no way a credible website; no wonder professors dismiss it as a joke. TeamCopy 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tasnim[edit]

Ahmed Tasnim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, stub bd_ 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey of a Thousand Miles[edit]

The Journey of a Thousand Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a single episode. There are no reliable sources for the article to be more than just a plot summary. Attempted prods were contested, seemingly on priciple only. In this case merging is not an acceptable solution because the list of episodes or the main article would just become overwhelmed with needless plot details. Jay32183 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are from the same series and also have no reliable sources to improve beyond episode sammaries:

The Apprentice (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big as Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bird of Paradise (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Black Vipers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chameleon (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chucky Choo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Citadel of Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Crystal Glasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dangerous Minds (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Deep Freeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Demon Seed (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Dream Stalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreamscape (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Emperor Scorpion Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enter the Dragon (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Evil Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finding Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannibal's Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hear Some Evil, See Some Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the Flesh (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judging Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katnappe! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Temptation of Raimundo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Life and Times of Hannibal Roy Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like a Rock! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mala Mala Jong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Master Monk Guan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Homey Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The New Order (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night of the Sapphire Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oil in the Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omi Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pandatown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Return of Master Monk Guan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Return of PandaBubba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring of the Nine Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Royal Rumble (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sands of Time (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saving Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Screams of the Siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Shard of Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shen Yi Bu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sizing Up Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something Jermaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tangled Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time After Time (Part 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Treasure of the Blind Swordsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wu Got the Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Year of the Green Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also note, I have been a major contrinutor to these pages. I have looked for reliable sources; none exist. The pages cannot be improved to a point where they satisfy the expectations set out in WP:EPISODE. Jay32183 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, that is another misconception people have when reading WP:EPISODE. An episode needs to be independently notable, and it is not enough that the series itself is notable. Not only that, but it violates policy if it's nothing more than a plot summary that isn't needed for the overall topic. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, but you will note I did not refer to WP:EPISODE but rather it is my own opinion that there is such a rough consensus is from the observations I have made regarding episodes of television shows being on Wikipedia including discussions here on AfD. Would you like me to dig up the past AfD's I've seen to explain how I've come to that opinion? (Note I do not concur with your description of WP:EPISODE anyway, but I wasn't working from it, so it's a non-issue to me, other than to say I don't agree, and I think it's obvious more discussion is desirable since these things keep coming up). FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am mistaken, then, in linking your rationale with WP:EPISODE. However, your rational is still flawed, as "rough consensus" in this case is not often reliable. Very often we have articles and trends on Wikipedia that are more like, default human behavior, rather than an actual "consensus". All the time we have tons of new editors who simply just copy what they've seen and don't consider past discussions, guidelines, or even policy. The nature of many discussions then make people defensive, and become attached to their views and become more closed minded. A new user (or often an existing user) comes on, does a bunch of work they think is good, gets reverted because of guidelines or policy, they get defensive, thus they form a position. That to me is a false consensus.
And I think failing to recognize that people do care about the episodes of television shows, that they are distinct enough fictional works that they can be covered appropriately is a bad idea. It would be one thing if Wikipedia were paper, but it's not, so it can support more articles. And if individual plays can get articles in paper encyclopedias, I think there's a good reason to include it. Your concern about reversions and bureaucracy are certainly valid, but in this case, I think deleting these pages would be giving into the bureaucracy problem, not resisting it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your own comments, for example. In none of them have you address this specific show or how likely it is or isn't for these articles to contain real-world information. Rather, you've just presented generic arguments in defense of episode articles. Have you actually seen Xiaolin Showdown? The individual episodes are hardly notable. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen the show, but that doesn't matter since I think there is a great deal of validity in covering individual episodes of most dramatic televisions shows. (the only exception I can think of is Soaps, which are not titled or otherwise discrete, so I consider them more one story line). Since each episode of this show is a distinct story, and no different than most every other television show I'd support an article for, I therefore support covers of its episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, merging is not an option in this case. The list of episodes already has sufficiently detailed plot summaries, so merging will make the list temporarily too long. Content will end up removed and we'll have redirects with really long histories because the merger happened even though the content didn't stick. Why leave a redirect with a history when there isn't content from it anywhere? Jay32183 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no sense in deleting the information since the effective cost is minimal? If you want to save Wikipedia's hardware, you'd need to do more than deleting a few article histories. It's like boiling the ocean away with a candle. Besides, I'd say describing the various Showdowns (found in the episode articles, but not the combined page) would be worth merging even if nothing else was. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The showdowns are only of interest to fanboys, and is just very specific plot information. My reasoning for not wanting the history to remain has nothing to do with Wikipedia cleaning up its filespace, but with Wikipedia preserving an historical record of something it should have never had in the first place. Just so you know, I am a fan of the show. I leave Cartoon Network on as backround noise and the show is on almost daily. My opinion of the show is not effecting my opinion on what is best for Wikipedia. Also, I did a lot of the work saving Abyssinia, Henry at FAR/FARC, so don't assume I'm against individual episode articles in general. Notable episodes are definitely worth including and we should strive for feature status on such articles. These articles would never make FA by the way, they fail 1b. Jay32183 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "fanboy." I've seen maybe 3 episodes, but the showdown is an extremely important part of each episode. Leaving that out would be like not mentioning the murder in an episode of Monk. - Peregrine Fisher 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me we don't mention every murder in Monk... -- Ned Scott 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we don't, since well, not all of the episodes of Monk have articles yet. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat disquieted by any remark that declares something of only interest to fanboys. That's a subjective judgment on your part as to what people may care about, and not an actual reasoning on the subject. Now me, I think the Showdowns represent a distinct feature of the series that easily qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, as they make for a fairly important part of the episode, almost like the monsters in Power Rangers episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know if this or this is a reliable source? Also, this site has storyboards and comments by a XS director that could used for production information. - Peregrine Fisher 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a review of the season one dvd set, it just happens to mention two of the episodes. The second doesn't have anything more than what Wikipedia already has, except user reviews, which aren't so reliable. The third doesn't actually have production information, because he wasn't a director, he was the animation director. That means he was in charge of the animators. The important production information would come from the writers. We probably will get about as much as we would looking up information on the general animation process but with specific names, which isn't actually helpful. Jay32183 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they are reliable? - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first and the third are reliable for what little content they have, the second is about as reliable as imdb or tv.com. You won't be getting much out of them though. You'll be able to further confirm plot details. But you won't get stuff like how the writers came up with ideas, or critics views on individual episodes, other than that "The Journey of a Thousand Miles" establishes the series by being the first episode. I read that review a long time ago. Jay32183 05:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)." - These articles are verifiable and do not contain OR.
  • "If the articles are very short, consider merging them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." - Merge into season pages if you want. That would help with garnering a good amount of outside sources per article.
Seems pretty clear to me. Merge at most, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kool aid mouth[edit]

Kool aid mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page references an expression with less than 150 Google hits (checked on 11.4.2007), so in my opinion it is not notable enough to even pass the Pokemon test. It seems like this was first created by a user created specifically for that purpose, and I tend to suspect original research there. The article resisted a prod, but it was removed by 216.191.192.58, not exactly a reputable editor. Eldar 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was early close and delete. Nonsense copy-and-paste job of an existing article under an irrelevant title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Race[edit]

Turkish Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A garbage of the sentences.There is no any word in the text related with titleMust.T C 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 Stones Untitled 2007 Album (album)[edit]

12 Stones Untitled 2007 Album (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing but speculation; not enough info at this point ← amiИa (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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