< July 31	August 2 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to torture in popular culture[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This article is written like a personal essay. Furthermore, no references are provided. Like many "in popular culture" entries: not verifiable and mostly trivial. Tomj 22:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it suffer before it dies. Right now, this is an essay, and poorly written at that - has a movie ever asked you to "emphasise with the victim"??? ;-) Unless someone is able to upgrade it to "more or less decent" in the next few days, my vote is delete per WP:OR, WP:NN and WP:TRIVIA. --Targeman 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Water Delete it. Complete OR. Delete per the rules.Ravenmasterq 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial. And nonencyclopedic. Have mercy and do it quickly, or add a self-reference to this article on Wikipedia as "torture in popular culture," then delete. --Evb-wiki 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like someone's thesis, the author can publish on his personal website, but certainly not here.--Kylohk 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands; calling it a thesis is a little much--its an elementary school paper at the most. We need something to call this that fits better than OR--everything is supportable, but there isnt enough content to do the subject justice. I have no idea why it was titled in p. c.,DGG (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reminds me of destructive creativity which also read like a school report on the subject; using sourced claims to prove a concept or idea. Anynobody 09:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The examination of the portrayal of torture in popular culture is ~~not~~ just an exercise in trivia." College essay, horribly written, OR, unsourced, etc. María (críticame) 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Maria. True, very true. Bulldog123 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently about 24 rather than torture. Mandsford 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the appearance in Star Trek, which at WP has the status accorded the Virgin Mary in Rome, cannot save this one. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment High five on that one, C.S.!Mandsford 14:10, 4 August 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 result was Merge→Joker (comics). The question of whether or not to do a selective merge can be handled after the fact through cleanup of the content after merger. Though the main consensus is for merge and cleanup is a good idea, it's not part of the expressed consensus ... but I will nonetheless place a modified version of Template:cleanup-afd on the section arising from the merger to direct editors here to consider the cleanup commentary. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate versions of the Joker[edit]

A trivial list that could easily renamed "Non-notable appearances by the Joker". The content is not substantial enough to warrant it's own article. The article itself is a stub and most likely cannot be expanded beyond it's current state. The Filmaker 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems pretty standard in comic book articles to include information on alternate versions of the character. Presumably this was forked off from the main Joker article per WP:SUMMARY because of the size of that article. Not saying that I necessarily approve of the article but given other examples from Category:Alternate versions of what specifically is wrong with the concept of this article? Otto4711 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't exactly a valid argument that something should be kept. But you are neutral at the moment. The issue that the article is just a list of trivial appearances by the Joker. They are not affecting the grander scheme of things, so why are they worth mentioning? The Filmaker 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joker. -- Jelly Soup 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the page on the joker as suggested above. This is an appropriate section of that article, but without further expansion, not likely to be of much use on its own. In the comic book market, "alternate" versions of principles characters makes for a regular practice that has been itself the subject of substantial coverage. Is it worth covering on its own? No, I wouldn't say so in this case. If there's some concerns wtih clutter on the Joker article, then Alternate versions of the Batman is far more sustainable on its own, and would be a reasonable place to discuss the Joker anyway. The Joker doesn't exist without the Batman as far as I know. FrozenPurpleCube 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact that most, if not all, of these examples are trivial cameos from one-shot comics. If it were merged back into the Joker article, any experienced editor that is half-way good at what he is doing would remove them after realizing that they are not notable enough for inclusion. The Filmaker 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a hundred other editors might decide, no, actually it does merit inclusion. I see at least three editors here who feel it should be merged. However, that question is best settled either on the page about the Joker, or considering the wide applicability of the issue, on the Wikiproject Comics talk page. Or in an RFC if you want to involve more people. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the joker as previously mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G82490 (talk • contribs)
Selective Merge - The article, as it now stands, is unreferenced. As the nominator says, some of these probably trivial, so if sources can be found for notable examples of this list, it should be trimmed down to those, and these merged into the Joker (comics) article. ◄Zahakiel► 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason while the article is unreferenced is that, at least at this point, the article features no analysis or commentary on the subjects and thus does not require references (as the references for plots of artistic work, is the work itself) per this quote from the Featured Article Director: "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary. Raul654 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)" The Filmaker 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may for many lists and similar articles, the elements of this article DO contain commentary about the appearances; (e.g., history, the "silver age" appearances, information about inspiration, sequels, etc., etc.) and while this information indicates enough notability to be included in a selective merge, that's precisely the kind of thing for which you'd want references. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mkae it into one article -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.209.247 (talk • contribs) 18:14, August 4, 2007.

The result was Speedy Deleted Was speedy deleted. Non admin close --Longing.... 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Film Reel Named Emotion[edit]

Zero google hits for "a film reel named emotion". No claims of notability. It's too bad we can't speedy things like this. Corvus cornix 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly not notable enough, page seems to have been crated by film producer, attempt at advertising, like Fræ films, producers. Toon 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Why can't we speedy things like this? This is pretty much a textbook WP:A7 --Longing.... 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's neither a person, a company, a group, or a website. Corvus cornix 23:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not really relevant, the point is that the article doesn't assert notability. Anyway, it was speedied anyway. In the future, tag it as A7 or Nocontext. --Longing.... 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Good Things Come To An Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

Non-existent episode of a cartoon. Only source to this article is a fansite, which is hardly reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete obvious hoax. No google results except wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kkr ou ni 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax.--JForget 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as it's a hoax. Could be a G3 (vandalism). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un notable and not needed. Marlith ^T/C 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lots of "trivia" in addition to above concerns. Anynobody 09:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if "This episode was most likely never seen in any place", how could it possibly be notable? Nyttend 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (Michelle Williams album)[edit]

Appears to be either an example of crystalballery or a hoax. I have been unable to find any reference to the title of this supposed new album online, nor have I been able to verify any of the information presented in the text. http://www.michellewilliamsonline.com/ mentions only that a new album is 'coming soon'. Kurt Shaped Box 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bring the article back when the album has been released and there's substance to put in it. All else is really just speculation and speculation isn't encyclopedic. --Malcolmxl5 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also the AfD for Make Him See Me,[1] which also claims to be Williams' third studio album. --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:HOAX or WP:CRYSTAL. --Evb-wiki 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Anynobody 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to contributors/closing admin - this article has recently been moved unchanged to Michelle William's third studio album. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make Him See Me[edit]

Probable hoax. Googling for "michelle williams" "make him see me" returns nothing of relevance, other than the article itself and the Michelle Williams (singer) article. Kurt Shaped Box 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So both this and 'Phoenix' in the AfD above[2] are Michelle William's third studio album! If proof is needed why we should not have speculative articles, here it is. Delete this (and the 'Phoenix' article) and write the article when the one album has been released. --Malcolmxl5 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This sort of thing is far from unique. There were two separate articles about Lindsay Lohan's next album (with different titles) a few weeks ago - both of which turned out to be complete fabrications (one of them even had knocked-up-in-photoshop artwork!). I don't know if this is a recent thing or not (maybe I'm just noticing it more) but there seems to be a heck of a lot of misinformation and/or sneaky vandalism being added to pop music-related articles at present. Maybe it's time to start cracking down hard on users who create this kind of thing? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced & unsourcable. If it isn't a hoax, it'll certainly be recreated when sources become available. --Moonriddengirl 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:HOAX or WP:CRYSTAL. --Evb-wiki 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - come back if and when it's released and garners media attention. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep ~Kylu (u|t) 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Li[edit]

Only the thinnest assertion of notability for this non-notable model. Deleted once after uncontested prod, but was shortly recreated. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO, etc. etc. Valrith 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-notable model?!?! I really wish people would do more of their own research, before tagging and listing for deletion. She has been a cover model for Playboy! (among others) I even had already spent a mere two seconds with google to provide you with a link earlier. Even with a very brief glance over she appears to be ok. Mathmo ^Talk 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Can you say c-o-v-e-r m-o-d-e-l ?! You're kidding me when you say non-notable, aren't you?--Kkr ou ni 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings exactly! Mathmo ^Talk 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple Playboy-related covers, prominent calender covers for three years, several online biographies, subject of an interview... Notable. Dekkappai 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, but do we really need to know her shoe size? Clarityfiend 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of the ((Template:Female adult bio)), and I found the information, so I included it. Along with blood type, it's a statistic of interest in Asian countries, though maybe less so in others. If you think that bit of information is not necessary, feel free to join in the debate here. Dekkappai 01:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't pre-determine what a person may or may not find of interest. For instance it is quite likely I'd find it an interesting fact if a person had AB blood type, it is not that common. Mathmo ^Talk 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple online biographies?? I see two, if you're extremely loose about defining biography. One of those is little more than a gallery page, and neither of those is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs)

1<2. Mathmo ^Talk 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think being a cover model of a major publication is enough to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps this AfD should be speedy closed, it is clear the article is going to be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I were in a bad mood I might make an accusation of WP:OSTRICH here. Very notable model. WP:PORNBIO does not apply to people who appear on the cover of Playboy otherwise you'd have to place people ranging from Jessica Alba to Katarina Witt under this banner. 23skidoo 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending to feel that perhaps even more generically the ostrich concept needs to be applied to this nominator.... oh well, I hope Valrith can learn something from the nomination of this article. If so, then it wasn't completely a waste that it was nominated. Mathmo ^Talk 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lansbridge University[edit]

Delete Private online university without any claim to accreditation or notability. The article smells like spam, which is fixable, but the notability issue remains. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Universities are notable. Liransh 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Neutral While I personally feel that any WP:SCHOOL that has more than a couple hundred students is notable, this one does seem a bit spammy, not to mention it's a business, and not a place that's notable to the community. If it HAS an actual campus, I'd say keep, otherwise, I doubt this will ever be notable enough for an article --Longing.... 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The university website explicitly state that it doesn't have a campus. Liransh 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then there's your answer. I still doubt it will be notable, but at the same time I feel strongly that, 40 years from now, anyone should be able to put in the name of their hometown and schools and get at least proof that they ever existed on Wikipedia. But at the same time, I'm conflicted because this is definitely a business, and probably not as close to people's hearts, nor is it a significant part of any community, or a geographic landmark, built in bricks up on a hill. --Longing.... 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is accredited[3] by the Canadian DETC which accreditation is recognized by the United States. I don't see the spam here, just a stub in pretty factual language. ~~But the reason it passes WP:N is that it was opposed by academics and recently ordered shut.~~ --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I jumped the gun. There are two "Lansbridge University" entities, with related ownership but separate management. One was shut down, the other continues to operate.[4] The article should probably cover both, I should think. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Spam was removed by subsequent edit, see recent history, but that was only part of the concern. Notabiilty still remains. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous history of this article is not auspicious, so let's go slowly. Carlossuarez notified me of this AfD, so I imagine he wants a vigorous discussion. Any tertiary institute should have an article. The requirement that it have a campus doesn't apply any more--many undoubtedly notable colleges do not. Does this open the door to any business that wants to call itself a school? I don't want to have to decide that, but if it offers degrees, or things that purports to be degrees, as this one does, then it counts. But it needs to exist--just like any other organization. This one does exist, at least according to its own website, though it would be good to have some third party RS confirming the claim that is has 200 students, & been in existence for 6 years.

I do not see that accreditation is required. We have articles on a number of unaccredited institutions--some that have lost accreditation, some that have never been accredited--and for good reason, some that have chosen not to be accredited, such as some small bible colleges. The argument has been made that it is appropriate to have articles on the unaccredited, so people have the information. But in any case this college does claim to be accredited by the US Education and Training Council, which is a recognised US national accreditor for distance programs. [5]. It accredits schools of great variety, and is recognized by the WS DOE. (in the US, "regional" accreditors accredit conventional institutions, "national" ones accredit business schools and other for-profit entities. (The relationship between the two is not harmonious, and politics is very much involved.) The ETC accredits 5 non-US institutions among its 100--some specialized and respectable, some well known and controversial, most very obscure. The US DOE of course does not control the accreditation of non US institutions directly or indirectly, or authorize anyone to do so, and the ETC website admits as much & says the US authorization does not apply to these 5. The University also claims to have passed "the required validation procedure for the MBA program on September 29, 1999 to offer an MBA in New Brunswick.

Size does not matter, we have articles on schools considerably smaller than this.

This is one of a pair of institutions with the same name, apparently owned by the same company--the other one is in British Columbia, and has been closed by the BC government--the relationship is frankly put forth on the college's web site. (If I were looking for an online business college, this would be a rather conspicuous red flag.) The material has been systematically eliminated from the present article by 156.34.149.130--but it has also been inserted by someone with an obvious bias. If we have an article, it would need watching.

What we do need is reliable information to write an article, and this is the dubious part. The first 3rd party source is the paragraph on the accreditor's web site listed. I think it sufficient to prove existence, and to establish the address and the degrees offered, and that it has been listed since 1999. It does not prove notability. The 2nd source is inclusion in an article quoted on the university's web site from "BACK TO SCHOOL: Your guide to 16 of the country's best executive MBAs The Globe and Mail, September 30, 2006. [6] Whether this is selective I cannot tell--the others are mostly excellent well-known conventional universities. Normally, we'd consider that newspaper a reputable responsible source. I also found a profile in Business Week: [7] which at least documents the number of students at 238--it also documents an entering class of 12. It's based on info from the University, but Business Week has usually been assumed to be a RS. None of these actually show notability; they all count as directory information.

But it turns out there are 2 good CBC sources, one from 2001, [8], one from 2007 [9] Read them, & you'll see why those associated with the school did not list them in the article. DGG (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You should edit the article to add those reports. Perhaps we don't have to answer the underlying question whether anything that charges people money and sends them fancy sheepskins is inherently notable, because there are lots of educational software or other businesses around that provide education and certificates thereof for money. Some of these, everyone would agree are notable University of Phoenix, some in the vast middle ground, and some would require the indulgence of the community accepting the underlying question in the affirmative Carlos University where for sending me lots of money I can send out a fabulous printed degree of your choice. :-) Here, this one may survive in the vast middle ground closer quite far from the universal agreement side. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done so. I've now restored the sourced part of the earlier content, and added the refs. from here. DGG (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above consensus, as universities, even online ones, are presumed to be notable, unless shown otherwise by verifiable sources to be a diploma mill. This article can be fixed per WP:HEY. Thank you, DGG. Bearian 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn: Found a source that asserts notability, nominator withdrew AfD. Non-admin closure --Longing.... 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dempsey[edit]

~~Non-notable playwright, orphaned page, page created 08/29/2003 with the content "Sandra Dempsey is a Canadian playwright." and it has not changed since. -Old Hoss 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak keep I am not familiar with the Canadian playwriting scene. However, the original content was "Multi-award-winning playwright Sandra Dempsey" and I have found a secondary source (The Writers' Union of Canada) to support this.[10] I have edited the stub to assert notability and to add the source. Others with more familiarity with this area can expand the article. --Malcolmxl5 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I ran across the same source as Malcolmxl5, two honourable mentions, two finalists, and one grand prize, for three different works, is probably notable. It just needs some TLC --Longing.... 21:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn will instead place ((expert-subject)) template on page. Nom was based on 4 years of no content, maybe it is a salvageable article after all.--Old Hoss 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Davis Square restaurants[edit]

was an expired prod which I deleted, author requested restoration so in effect a belated contested prod. In any event, it's still basically a visitor guide or directory, not notable, and not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. There's not even an assertation of notability, it's just a list of places to eat (and drink). --Malcolmxl5 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#DIR. No context, consists primarily of external links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete shouldn't even need to be said, we aren't a directory and we shouldn't pretend that we are --Longing.... 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, a textbook violation of WP:NOT.--Targeman 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per directory. Squidfryerchef 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exemplifies how much there is to do in Davis Square, and is part of the reason why it was rated one of the hippest places to live (mentioned here: Davis Square All locations that have wiki pages are linked to, if not there website, or nothing. I was going to further expand this to describe the kind of people attracted to each locations at different times of night and day, but I've been busy. Its meant to become more than a directory, and it wont be a guide (tell you were to go and not to) but give you a close to 'objective' respresentation of the culture each location attracts. -- [[User::Bcrules82]]

comment - the hipness of the square is already established with references in Davis Square article itself. -- Whpq 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - its clearly just a directory -- Whpq 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A travel directory, spam magnet, and an extremely minor one, to boot. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. It looks like the general consensus is for delete, though a couple of folks advocate merging to Communists for Kerry (in fact, one delete comment effectively switched to a support for merger). As the article has been userfied, the content remains available to draw from for inclusion in that article without a formal merge; for reference, here is the permalink for the userfied content. A note on Wikipedia:userfication—this is typically done by creating a sub-page of the user page, though in some instances, such as this autobiographical one, the content can go on or as the user page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lenin[edit]

No reliable sources at all from a search on Yahoo or Google. The one potentially reliable link on the article--the Village Voice--doesn't even mention him. Fails WP:BIO--possible WP:COI issue as well; author is Newyorklenin (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with you. He is mentioned - briefly - in Communists for Kerry and that is enough imo. --Malcolmxl5 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source from a Google search http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:WL7srgGUKbUJ:www.voideville.com/about.html+ivan+lenin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The Village Voice article has my photo and mentions me as "Ivan the Horrible" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorklenin (talk • contribs) 22:34, August 1, 2007

Comment. Have you read WP:NOTE and WP:BIO? You will need at least to have "...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Malcolmxl5 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it, and last time I checked, I don't own The Village Voice, or have any affiliation with it :). The VV is a major newspaper in New York, the coverage is rather significant, so I don't see why you have a problem.

--Newyorklenin

'Significant coverage' means, I believe, widespread coverage but others can confirm. --Malcolmxl5 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The VV source is sufficient to establish notability for Deep Dish Cabaret, but Ivan the Horrible is only covered incidentally in both provided sources. Appearance listings are generally insufficient for WP:BIO for performers. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, but I believe the mention in VV is not by any means incidental, and qualifies as more than "appearance listing". Besides, a group that I co-founded (Communists For Kerry) was covered all over, from FOX to Washington Post. I will dig for links. Newyorklenin
  - It's a photograph, a caption, and one sentence. That is not a substantial review by our standards. --Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's mentioned in the Village Voice - but only in passing. Bigdaddy1981 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found - sorry Ivan, but a single sentence is not substantial independent coverage, nor is a page advertising a show you're taking part in. Iain99 09:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point well taken, Iain99. I couldn't find a definition of "substantial" in any of the links provided in this discussion, but at the end it's up to the community, and I respect that. I guess I should go and make myself more famous :) Thanks, Newyorklenin
Comment - some of the information might be merged into the Communists for Kerry article (e.g. his being the founder) Bigdaddy1981 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some of the information could be included in that article, and teh page could possibly be redirected to there for the moment. And Cheers Ivan - good luck getting famous. Iain99 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Communists for Kerry. Does not seem to be notable on his own yet Alex Bakharev 00:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy him, userfy him. The VV article mentions him in one sentence and has a photo of him. Michael Musto drops names more often. Bearian 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I did it myself; content has been userfied and username is now blue. Bearian 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. One reference from a reliable source was presented during the discussion, which alleviates in part the concern about the article being unsourced, but cleanup is needed as mentioned in the discussion, and additional reliable sources are needed; thus I will add Template:refimprove. As part of closure I have a) added the single reliable source mentioned below to the article and b) removed the transwiki'd how-to section. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square foot gardening[edit]

Unsourced article, reads as a "how to" rather than an encyclopedia topic. The entire subject deals with a method proposed by a single book - as such, it is not even a notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional for one author's ideas. If this became a huge fad that would be another thing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis type of gardening has actually received a mention in the Canadian Gardening Magazine, Canada's biggest magazine on gardening, here: [11], so it ought to be notable. So this time, it should be fixed to not sound like a how-to-guide, and the bit that's transwikied should be removed.--Kylohk 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a notable, specific form of raised bed gardening [12]. --araetzsch

— araetzsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve the article - As others have noted, the article needs work, but because I've been hearing about "square foot gardening" for years, my general knowledge tells me that the topic is notable. In support of this impression, I find that Google returns 158,000 hits for the phrase "Square foot gardening", including many personal websites (not affiliated with the author) about the topic, such as http://timssquarefootgarden.com/ http://www.annwn.com/garden/squarefoot.shtml, and http://users.aristotle.net/~shicks/sqft/, and at least one fairly active online forum on the topic: http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/sqfoot/.--orlady 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - Carlossuarez46's argument shows convincingly that this is not a trivial article nor a loose collection of unrelated information, further comments reflect that as well. In a poorly written state, such things may be hard to discern (no doubt!) but there are at least promises to rework the article to address any remaining concerns. Cheers, Wily D 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

List of trivial appearances, with no greater context, unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT#IINFO Eyrian 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a directory of loosely associated items that is already covered in a multitude of other articles in Category:Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is unquestionably a notable and iconic character. That does not mean that a list of every mention of Holmes gathered into a pile is worthwhile. None of the keep arguments in the last AFD hold up under scrutiny. Otto4711 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes is just a trivia article. In fact, if he's that popular, such info should at best be briefly merged to the influence section of Sherlock Holmes.--Kylohk 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lots of nonsense as well, the article claims Fox Mulder, Jessica Fletcher, Philip Marlowe, and just about every other fictional detective in history were based on Holmes. Saikokira 02:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT. Eusebeus 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced collection of indiscriminate info. Sherlock Holmes, though obviously noteworthy and depicted and mentioned often enough in various forms of media, should not be the subject of trivial listcruft. Any important adaptations should be moved to the main article with the blanket "Holmes is important in popular culture, etc etc" explanation. Other than that, 99% of this list is unencyclopedic. In short, if his name is merely mentioned in passing in some book or TV show somewhere, it doesn't belong. Anywhere. María (críticame) 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Sad, because Sherlock Holmes really has become a pop culture figure and so many of us Conan Doyle fans have watched as later authors attempt to make their own Holmes and Watson stories. Instead, it's the laundry list, and the idea that every later detective, from Herucle Poirot to Adrian Monk, is a spinoff of Holmes-- that's insulting. Mandsford 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don;t think its quite as hopeless as that. True, there is what is even for these lists a large amount of really slight allusions. But they can be removed. I've removed the ones about which I feel confident. I think what remains can in general be sourced. Since it will take much much longer to properly source this and the similar articles than it did to nominate them, I would think it a sign of good faith to withdraw these nominations for a n appropriate time. Even manually, anyone could file one of these in two minutes or so--it would one person possibly many hours to source a single article. That's 100:1 or so. DGG (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a challenge to myself, I decided to see what I could do in two minutes, literally. I added one famous book (which I've actually read) and one article that appears on point as general references. Google Scholar alone has 945 more. That will take the several days - or it appear, weeks-- to sort out. there is that much material. DGG (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should Delete the list, create the article Influence of Sherlock Holmes stories on popular culture, and write an ARTICLE, not a list. I assure you that none of those Google scholar articles will just be a laundry list of places were Holmes has popped up. CaveatLector^Talk 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate your efforts, DGG. A good article about Sherlock Holmes could be created, and this isn't a "Delete and Salt" type of thing; I'd like to assist in the edit process. I think that delete will probably win out on this one, but nothing to stop us from saving your improved version to our own computers. Mandsford 12:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is an exception to the normal delete of pop culture artilces, because the phenomenon of Holmes in popular culture is itself the subject of discussion and coverage by reliable sources, e.g., National Public Radio (US), A book entitled The Baker Street Reader: Cornerstone Writings About Sherlock Holmes (Contributions to the Study of Popular Culture), and University of Minnesota library. This subject differs from the huge number of "in popular culture" subjects which can never be more than a list of cross-references to the "icon". Here, the phenomenon itself is notable. The article, in its current state, is very much like many we have deleted; but unlike those, this may yet be a great article because it is a notable subject - it ought to be improved rather than deleted. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Carlossuarez46. Two solid references, notable as per opponents, and not too crufty. Bearian 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46's and Bearian's points.Number36 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the above points for retention. I would also add two other points; firstly Holmes does appear just about everywhere and secondly this page is the only way to keep on top of the amount of rubbish tagged onto the main article. People get annoyed when you remove their cherished addition about a Holmes appearance they read in a comic. Needs work, not deletion. Pydos 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46 and the WP:CONSENSUS of about a couple dozen editors who contributed to this article. DHowell 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework per Carlossuarez46. There's a solid article to be written on this topic, and some of the requisite content is in the page as it exists. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm syndrome in popular culture[edit]

Inappropriate list of trivia (WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), simply mentioning times the syndrome has appeared, with no reliable independent sources. Eyrian 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as not only a directory of loosely associated topics but a mass of unacceptable original research. This laundry list of instances of someone's supposedly succumbing to Stockholm syndrome tells us nothing about the syndrome and nothing about the fiction from which the examples are drawn. There are no sources indicating that these examples are all Stockholm syndrome and indeed a number of them were created before the incident in Stockholm even happened. Otto4711 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orgy of OR. Bigdaddy1981 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Original research and loosely associated topics. Saikokira 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The researcher in me loves these kind of lists, but that doesn't make them appropriate for Wikipedia. OR is OR. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and great applause for Eyrian for finding all these atrocious articles. Bulldog123 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you get down to it, nearly every film depiction of a hostage situation is going to evolve into a story about the relationship between the captors and the captives. That's not the influence of the Stockholm incident, it's basic storytelling. Mandsford 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no WP:RSes that say that the Stockholm syndrome's place in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made a request at WP:RFC that the larger issue of pop-culture articles be addressed. I would "vote" to merge back into the main article. Bearian 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Glass[edit]

Article is blatant advertising -- two references are purely promotional, the other no longer exists. HalJor 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.--NAHID 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. --Fire Star 火星 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral leaning to~~ Weak keep. Cleanup for advert language and unverified assertions can be accomplished w/o deletion. The AVN source is real, and is an independent sex industry magazine. The Eros-Ny (a NY zine) mention is trivial. ~~I will do more searching.~~ All other sources seem to be press release sites. According to the source, the company created a line for a notable porn star - Lisa Sparxxx - and though notability is not inherited it does lend credence to the idea that this isn't just some local dildo shop. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS material independent from XXX Glass to build the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you check out the article's talk, several new sources detailing lines created for other notable porn stars are evidenced. I'll be checking the reliability of the sources given and hopefully adding them to the article. A company contracted 4+ times to work with adult film industry stars certainly seems notable to me. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to Fire sale. ELIMINATORJR 22:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firesail[edit]

Lack of notability KMS 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Live Free or Die Hard, or if the information is already there, delete it.Ravenmasterq 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is actually called "fire sale" in the movie. There is already a link for this from Live Free or Die Hard to Fire sale#Live Free or Die Hard. KMS 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the movie's article, I don't see merging this doing anything but lowering the quality of the movie's article. Not only is it a neologism, but we can actually put a timestamp on it to show how much of an neologism it is! -Longing.... 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like "firesail" is a misspelling of the concept named "fire sale" in the movie. KMS 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to the film article, but conceivably to fire sale. Reliably sourced reviews of the film use "fire Sale".[13][14] --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect→Fire sale and tag with Template:R from misspelling; redirecting to Live Free or Die Hard would not be appropriate because the this is only one of several uses, the movie reference not being the most prevalent. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draven[edit]

Article was deprodded with an edit summary Large company, notable. There are no sources to establish notability in the article and when I prodded it a few days ago I did a search and couldn't turn up anything to satisfy WP:RS - just online shopping sites. I am no expert in the field but I cannot verify notability here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would think it should fall under blatant advertisement. One's myspace page is no proper reference.Ravenmasterq 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I find the company personally kind of interesting, but that doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability for companies. 13 pages into a google search, I've yet to find a non-blog page that is not a shopping venue. They seem to be famous, but fame doesn't equal notability. --Moonriddengirl 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Not notable, no independent sources, and what appears to be unreleased company research leads to deletion. Bearian 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. -- Visviva 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements in popular culture[edit]

Collection of trivial uses, conveying no information about popular perceptions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a far-too indiscriminate list that covers a huge array of topics in a loosely-connected way. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection. Useight 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and indiscriminate. CaveatLector^Talk 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another trivia article.--JForget 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objected as I am not sure that it should be deleted as it was created in responce to the listing of media sources of element use on the classical elements page. I think that the question is what represents an element for use in this article. Also it allows people to look up and compare the uses of the idea of element use. It is a common theme in most media in some form or another, which can show greater information of the ideology of the media. Is it a western view or something more eastern? What is an element, is it just one of the cla ssical elements or something else? How does the idea of elemental forces link with the development of the media source? It shows that common themes tend to appear, like linking Ice with the element of Water. Perhaps this article just needs a better editor then me to bring it all together, still I see an articule like this appearing either here or with in the classical element page. If the latter, then it will cause a major expanse of that article which would just require it's own page in time. Perhaps if you give an idea what would make this articule better, I can correct it. Thanks. HVulpes 10:18, 1 Augest 2007 (UTC)

First of all, 'better here than there is never a good argument for keeping something. You could rename the article 'Cultural impact of the classical elements'. Find sources and then write an article detailing how and why (in prose, and not prose that merely lists occurances) this philosophical idea has had an impact on western culture. CaveatLector^Talk 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have been thinking that this might work better as a catergory rather then an article page. Linking media with uses of the theme of elemental power together for easier access. Then if someone is commenting on the themes of elements, one can look up different examples for use. Not sure if this is a better idea or a worse one. Comments? Hvulpes 9:29, 3 Augest 2007 (UTC)
Keep I wouldn't have guessed from the title that this was about the Earth-Water-Fire-Air meaning of "classical elements". Looks like the article is going to get buried-drowned-burned-blown away on this one. Not a bad idea for an article, however: 16th Century chemistry is 21st Century magic. I'll be the George Foreman voter on this one. Save it to your hard drive. Mandsford 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as unreferenced original research. Sadly, it is on a notable topic and could possibly be improved, but I am not an expert on this topic. I also need to comment that this is another article that might be part of a larger effort used to sort out lots of Pop-culture references, and I have requested it be discussed at WP:RFC. Bearian 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as sources are available, see below. The reviews on many of the items will show that they talk about it to a significant degree. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to source something like this in 5 days. And finding articles on the general theme is a little tricky because of the lack of good search terms. "elements" is not a specific word. :However, 10 minutes work found "Narrative Performance in the Contemporary Monster Story" by Daniel Punday in The Modern Language Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 803-820 for which the excerpt in google scholar is 1/ "Contemporary theory, as well as popular culture, is clearly in sympathy with ... It stresses elements common to the entire cosmos: earth, water, fire, air; " (i think that's enough to show that the concept too is discussed. I didn't want to say Keep earlier until I had found at least something). There are related ones too 2/ "The Popular Art of Geomancy in the Medieval West and contemporary Asia" by L Braswell-Means - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1990 -" divination,’ is a form of divination associated with the Western Middle Ages, based upon signs derived from the elements: earth, air, fire, and water. and 3/ "Review: Record Reviews" Author(s) of Review: William Ivey in Western Folklore, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 269-273 "... it is this very failing which gives Songs of Earth, Water, Fire and Sky ... become increasingly adept at applying folkloristics to popular culture, modern country". I think this is enough to show that the literature exists and that it is sourceable, and i remind people that it just has to be sourceable to be kept, not have all the sources already there. . Obviously a proper essay will take a while, but an article does not have to be complete to escape being deleted.DGG (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and AndyJones. Mathmo ^Talk 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, unlike a lot of these articles this subject is notable for informing a large amount of fiction, often directly as opposed to tangentally. Some of the micro-trivia could usefully be stripped, though.ELIMINATORJR 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event in fiction[edit]

Trivia grab-bag, often of bare-mention references, unacceptable under WP:FIVE, or WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tidy up and find references instead of deleting. The fact that this part attracted enough contributors' interest to grow into an article, instead of just a section, makes it draw fire. However, it would be weird if that resulted in it being deleted altogether. Jake73 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is similar to those IPC articles.--JForget 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good list, many of these references are from literature, and there is nothing wrong with "in popular culture" articles per se. This is simply a subsection of the main article that grew large enough to merit its own page. Squidfryerchef 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am interested in the Tunguska event but this article is an obvious collection of more or less useless information (aka trivia), and that is a fundamental violation of WP:NOT. Anynobody 09:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been firmly established that merely because an article is 'useful' is no reason to keep it. Therefore it follows that arguments that an article is 'useless' must also be invalid. Personally I don't find this article useless at all, it has clear criteria for inclusion - and is therefore not a 'grab bag', and is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's coverage of written science fiction, which is woeful compared to its voluminous TV coverage. The references clearly can be sourced and, as has been pointed out, the fact that so much material has been amassed, and therefore had to be separated from the main article, would be a strange reason to lead to its dissolution. Nick mallory 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cleanse wikipedia of these conspiracy-theory-promoting trivia pages, please. Bulldog123 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as against conspiracy theories as you are, but this list is about Tunguska in fiction. Nobody's claiming any of these ideas are true in the article, it's just a compilation of all the uses the event has been put to in novels etc. Nick mallory 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still very trivial IMO. Do we really need to list every mention of it in media? Bulldog123 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tunguska was a real event that happened in the 20th Century and remains a mystery, so it has inspired a lot of fiction (not to mention documentaries). It's hard for me to agree that this as "trivia", any more so than theories about who killed JFK would be trivia. There's always a correct answer to a trivia question. More books, films and shows than I might have imagined. I didn't realize until seeing this one that the centennial is coming up in 2008. Indeed, this does a good job in addressing the speculations of various authors without bogging down in trivia. Well done. Mandsford 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is trivia because there is no purpose to the article. How about we list the number of times the letter "a" is used in novels? It would serve the same purpose as a list that about how many times Tunguska is referenced in novels. Who cares how many times it is mentioned? Can it really be monitored and ever be complete? How does one know that it is complete? Is there any other merit other than mentioning Tunguska or providing an explanation? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? There is no value to these types of articles other than to fans making this cruft of the worst order. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any mystery associated with the use of the letter "a" in the English language. Answer to last question: All of them, as long as they take turns.
Delete at first, Mandsfor's argument sounded appealing, but then there are lots of things and events that happened in real life that have been used somehow in fiction so to badly misquote Newton, for each article X there will be an equal and opposing article "X in fiction" which I think would be an unwelcome development. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very worthwhile to examine how this, originally quite obscure event, has permeated culture and what it's been associated with. RandomCritic 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's sourceable, both with respect to the individual entries and the general concept--the literature on this event is quite substantial. Not every article will have such a companion--only the ones where there are enough items--or enough notable items. I'd be perfectly willing to incorporate most of them in the articles on the events, except that most of these articles exist because they were split from the main ones as they were too large. It's absurd to go back and forth, especially as it is the clear intent as expressed at this and other afds to eliminate coverage entirely, because a few individual wikipedans consider that the whole concept of collecting in one place the works of the imagination that are based on a subject is trivial. That's their individual view, and they should be forcing it on us here. if the only question were which way to organize the material, there would be much less of a problem. At least half the comments above are of this type, and I think this campaign an outrageous attempt at intimidation by swamping afd. If it were in good faith it would have been proposed one or two a day, not 5 or ten. It's hard to AGF when these are still being introduced after protests at doing it this way, and even after an RfC has been filed about it. X in fiction is a sound academic topic and a very standard way to discuss literature. That some dont like it shows their own predilections, and they are welcome to them, as long as they dont try to recast WP to suit themselves. This is a cooperative enterprise. I tolerate topics I do not think important, and everyone does the same, because if we required 95% agreement on everything, there wouldnt be much left. I would love to delete very article on ever porn star--I think the web covers this part of the world well enough without us, and I would say the same for Pokemon. But I leave those articles alone. I guess there is a solution though--Citzendium should be very hospitable to topics such as these. DGG (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But only if there is enough material left after a tidy up to justify a seperate article. Some of the items in this page are mere passing references to the event, rather than examples of the event being an obvious or primary source of inspiration. Blibbka 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This mysterious event has inspired a lot of fiction -- one might call it a notable source of inspiration for science fiction, in particular. It would be sensible to include the fictional representations in the main article, but that article is overly long, so it is sensible to split this off as a subtopic.--orlady 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% PICO[edit]

Nominated for speedy as spam but declined. Article is about a trademarked logo owned by a company with which the article creator is involved. No references and no real notability outside of this context. Article creator has also created articles about his own company (speedied for non-notability) and a client company (speedied as spam). --Finngall ^talk 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nary a Ghit could I find. Clarityfiend 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing, non-notable, and unimportant --Longing.... 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't any references or any claim to notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter parodies[edit]

Long list of parodies, without any kind of cited analysis; References are merely locations of the primary sources from which these things come. Please note that attempting to establish popular perception by listing a number of unanalyzed entries constitutes selecting primary source documents to provide an overall impression, i.e. original research. Harry Potter is tremendously popular, and listing every one-off parody simply isn't encyclopedic. Eyrian 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's the point of list articles at all? What makes this article any different from Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc? Very little secondary analysis there that I can see. Plenty of direct references to primary sources. Yet it gets a star because it's high culture, and this gets a deletion nom because it isn't. Serendi^podous 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's featured; I have no immediate designs on it. --Eyrian 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not delete it though? It fails all of your criteria. Are you seriously saying that if this list was featured you wouldn't attempt to delete it? That's a pretty empty reason. Serendi^podous 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Eyrian 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's it? No? You give this article I've been slaving over for months a deletion nom and the most in depth rationale you can give for doing so is "No"? Serendi^podous 19:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying; I've given my reasons for the article currently under discussion. And I've replied to your question about the other. What are you asking about? --Eyrian 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your only reply was that it was featured. But looking at it, I can't see any analysis or use of secondary sources. What is the difference? Serendi^podous 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise? Not much at all. The fact that it's featured is the only reason. --Eyrian 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And you don't see how staggeringly unfair and arbitrary that stance is? Serendi^podous 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These lists are all alike. There are many copies. And I have a plan. --Eyrian 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How ironic. You make a stand against trivial pop culture by paraphrasing Battlestar Galactica. Whatever your plan may be, I still don't think this article should be deleted until you have the guts to go up against the featured lists. If you can't win against them, I can't see why you should win here. Serendi^podous 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that humor is an essential part of informal writing. I could cite Strunk and White about that, if you like. But I'd hardly say that my reference deserves mention; not even if I were famous.

By your logic, there are no iterative steps. If you can't do the end goal immediately, then you shouldn't start. Can't storm Normandy 'til we've taken Berlin, eh? --Eyrian 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, don't go up against the tough guys until you've beaten up all the wimps on the playground. What if, as Berlin comes over the horizon, you get your figurative butt kicked? What if the people who run featured lists gang up on you and send you home to momma crying? You would have deleted a large number of lists, but an equally large number of lists would remain, protected by their little gold stars. Your victory would be pretty hollow. Serendi^podous 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the chance of things changing at any time. And this isn't about some sort of personal victory; it's about making sure that Wikipedia conforms to its original principles (as outlined by the five pillars). --Eyrian 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty personal to me. From what I can tell you've launched this crusade pretty much singlehandedly. I, on the other hand, have struggled for months to locate sources for this article pretty much singlehandedly. So forgive me if my hand does not shake yours. Serendi^podous 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's lamentable; you're a good and skilled editor, and I'd hate to think of any acrimony. And I'm really not the only one. --Eyrian 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one for acrimony, but I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye after this. Not after what I've gone through. That's the thing you see. Wikipedia is personal. Serendi^podous 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Delete, Severus Delete (Dumbledore!) - also unsourced, no analysis. Will ^(talk) 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is sourced.--Rmky87 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, numerous parodies will be made; listing all of them isn't encyclopedic. No analysis and most have little or no notability. DiamondDragon DESU 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and Keep. There's plenty of information here, there just needs to be some third party analysis of the information. That would greatly improve the article's quality.Ravenmasterq 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this could ever be adequately sourced, and the topic is far too overreaching.Cap'n Walker 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of things have parodies, this is just a cluttered list of them for the popular Harry Potter. A notable subject being parodied, doesn't justify a cluttered and unencyclopedic trivial list. Many one-time parodies aren't useful or notable for an encyclopedia entry here. The article is sourced to a point: that's not the big issue here. You can source just about anything, that doesn't always just make it an instant article that is safe from deletion. RobJ1981 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic cruft of the lowest value. Bigdaddy1981 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please take the above squabble away from this AfD to your user talk page(s). Bigdaddy1981 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge into Harry Potter. If that's not possible, delete as listcruft and per WP:NOT. -- Jelly Soup 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better idea: Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge some content to Harry Potter. Parodies of Harry Potter exists as a body of work: there are inspired by the same series of books, they have appeared around the same time in response to the publicity surrounding the original series. At least some mention must be made that they exist. Recurring dreams 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see this kind of compilation as any more "original research" than other articles on Wikipedia that draw from sources of whatever kind. The primary sources here are not used to establish any conclusions other than the obvious one: that they are parodies of the Harry Potter series. These kinds of unobjectionable conclusions are clearly allowed by our policies on primary sources. But as for the article itself, I don't find the majority of the items on this list to be particularly important (certainly we shouldn't be listing self-published lulu books, as an obvious example), so it would clearly need culling if it stayed. This kind of minutiae is best suited for a fansite. — brighterorange (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would appear to be too late to make this point, however I should at least say that the reason I decided to edit this article in the first place was to counter a vein of misinformation in the media concerning Harry Potter parodies. Lunatic absolute free speech campaigners (the kind who believe that strangers have every right to read our mail) and anti-Potter vitriolics out to find whatever stick they can to beat the franchise have spread rumours that Harry Potter parodies have been deliberately suppressed by Rowling's lawyers, which is, they sternly admonish, against the law. These rumours have some basis in fact. A Russian author named Dimitri Yemets wrote a series of books called Tanya Grotter that he attempted to have published in Europe. Rowling's lawyers said no, as they were transparent Harry Potter knockoffs. Yemets argued that they were parody, and thus permitted under copyright. A team of Dutch lawyers examined the books, determined they were not parody, and forbade the books from being sold outside Russia. The books are bestsellers in Russia and Yemets is now a wealthy man. That's all that happened. As the article demonstrates, permitted parodies of Harry Potter are, in most cases, legion, and indeed the Barry Trotter series has sold almost a million copies. Another thing I wanted to highlight was the impact Harry Potter parodies have had on the Christian right in the United States, as they have fueled their lunacy over the books promoting Satanism. Serendi^podous 08:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic, clearly enough material for a separate article. Trim anything on LULU or similar & tag for cleanup in relation to other issues. AndyJones 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The response to a popular series in the form of parody is an interesting and encyclopedic subject.--Prosfilaes 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the idea that a list like this is unencyclopedic or trivial because it lacks a cited analysis. I was just reading my paper encyclopedia and it had a list of the American states, and one of the American presidents. It wasn't trivia just because they were listed this way as isolated facts without a detailed analysis of what it means that James K. Polk was the 11th president and why it's relevant to the concept of American Presidents in general. Following Eyrians argument since anyone could've been the 11th President, is it important that it just happened to be James K Polk? It's not like he was the first, or the current, or had some quality relevant to his presidency that made him stand out especially from all the others. That it would be relevant in the entry for James K Polk to note that he was the 11th President, but since encyclopedia's aren't directories a list like that is not suitable. Harry Potter is notable and a list of parodies is worthy for inclusion, it provides information.Number36 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Because other articles exist is not a reason for this to exist. It is trivia and cruft. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it could do with a trim, not every Harry Potter mention in media needs to be listed, but full actual dedicated parodies deserve a space.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.115.44 (talk • contribs).

— 80.103.115.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per this crusade of Eyrian's, there are only two acceptable outcomes: either every list on Wikipedia should go, or none of the lists should go. I have already mentioned that this list shares flaws with plenty of feautred lists. If he's willing to delete this list than he should be just as willing to delete them as well. Yet Eyrian is currently unwilling to challenge them. This is cowardly. If he has a problem with lists, he should take it up with the Wikipedia heirarchy and make a ban against any and all lists. This piecemeal attack on individual lists is underhanded and unfair. Serendi^podous 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take issue with another user, please take it up on said users talk page (or, better yet, not at all, instead remaining civil). Trying to deface someone in an attempt to tip the scale in your direction is no less bad than anything you are accusing Eyrian of. Many lists such as this have been deleted for similar reasons and many have not. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Jelly Soup 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for getting angry, but this whole scenario is so completely random and irrational that I find I have no logical grounds on which to base an argument, since logic does not apply in this case. I have yet to see, in any discussion I have had with anyone on this topic, (and I have had several) any rational justification for why some lists have been deleted and others retained. I do not want to see this list, which I have worked on slavishly for some time, deleted while some other list, which is its equal in terms of sourcing and topicality, is treated like royalty. Give me a quantifiable, rational explanation for this phenomenon and I will go away quietly and never trouble anyone on this topic again. Until then, yes, I will get angry because people have so far proven unwilling to discuss this in a rational manner. Serendi^podous 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given my reasons for agreeing with the deletion above. The only reason I seen you give for keep is 'I worked really hard and no other lists are being deleted'. While I sympathize (in all honesty), we have all had large amount of work deleted from Wikipedia for any number or reasons. If you feel that strongly about this, cast a vote (which I don't believe you've done yet), state your reasoning and challenge the rest to back up their votes. As far as lists go, nominate others for deletion if you think they fall under the same heading as this one. -- Jelly Soup 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my argument at least six times. Various lists exist on Wikipedia. Some of them are featured. At random, as an example, I picked Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a featured list, and examined it in light of the criticisms raised against this article. The main arguments against this article's existence are that it uses only primary sources, and that it does not make any kind of point. Both of these points apply to that article, but that one is featured, and this one is in danger of deletion. When I raised this with the original nominator, he agreed that there was nothing separating those two articles except that that one was featured, and this one was not. When I asked why he hadn't attempted to delete that article as well, he said because it was featured.

That should not matter. Just because an article is featured is no excuse for it not to be deleted. If it violates Wiki policy, it violates Wiki policy. Plenty of featured articles have been deleted in the past. So. My argument, stated for at least the sixth time, is this: either delete all the lists on Wikipedia, including the featured lists, or leave all lists alone. This article should not be deleted if other articles remain, protected only because someone decided to give them a gold star. It's illogical. Serendi^podous 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem you're taking more issue with Eyrian's position on this than the position of the other users who have voted. Yes, being featured doesn't make a list immune to deletion, I agree. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that this AfD is about a list that is nothing more than fancruft, listcruft and trivia. The other stuff exists defense rarely works. Challenge a few points being made by other users or accept that there isn't much more to be done. -- Jelly Soup 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not agree that either all lists should go or no lists should go. I'd regard either outcome a little absurd. There are many very poor and unnecessary lists, and they should go. The good ones should remain. The characteristics of a good one are that it contains significant content, and that there is reasonable support for the material there, either in the list itself or in the directly linked supporting articles. this list meets the requirements. Keeping really trivial lists does not improve the encyclopedia -- deleting important ones actively harms it. A campaign to remove large numbers of lists a once without allowing adequate time for improvement or defense is about as misguided a way of trying to improve the encyclopedia as possible. There is a related RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eyrian. DGG (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No such thing as cruft or non-notable. If it exists and is verifiable, it should be kept. Thanos6 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of people have proven that this is, in fact, cruft and non-notable. Just because it exists doesn't make it relevant. -- Jelly Soup 03:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything is relevant. Everything. Thanos6 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying that doesn't make it so. Prove your point. -- Jelly Soup 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're spending time talking about it, aren't we? Something is irrelevant only if no one mentions it at all. Your turn to prove it is so. Thanos6 11:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Spending time on a subject isn't valid grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The AfD archives are proof enough of that. -- Jelly Soup 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Prove it isn't relevant. Since both opinions are subjective, you can't do either. Serendi^podous 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which would mean that nether can you or Thanos. Therefore, the point is moot and we are still left with listcruft, fancruft and a violation of WP:NOT. Good game. -- Jelly Soup 11:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the reasons for deletion that I see here a glaringly faulty. This is obviously not OR at all. It has sources all over the place, not personal interpretations. The nom's interpretation of this article seem to violate NPOV, to me. If the editor thinks the article's existence violates POV, I fail to see how. Harry Potter is parodied everywhere because of its popularity. There a plenty of sources in the article, and everything seems pretty well-balanced. As for analysis, if it had analysis it wouldn't be a list, now would it? Lists don't require that sort of thing. If someone wanted to write an article about it, then they would have to provide analysis, but to demand it here under penalty of deletion is unreasonable. Unless a more reasonable and solid reason for deletion is put forward than "It's not an FA" and this false OR accusation, I see no reason for deletion. Lastly, to call this "fancruft" is a bit short-sighted given the huge influence of these books on the reading world. To ignore that effect as fancruft would be to ignore an important part of our culture. Wrad 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles) - Bunch of uncontextual trivia, the valid notable parodies (mainly the books) can be listed in the series article. Non-notable references like "Rowling appears as a wrestler on Celebrity Deathmatch, where she uses Harry Potter style spells against Stephen King" add nothing of value to either topic (the referenced or the referencer). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ward. -Adv193 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Wrad. -- azumanga 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nam tran[edit]

I can't find any evidence on Google that this person exists. Can someone find a reference? If not, I'm afraid deletion is the Plan B. Note to the faithful deletion sorters: Please add this to the Korea-related deletions. Shalom ^Hello 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no verification of existence in a cursory search. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A tricky one. I can't find any reference though his heyday obviously long predates the internet. I have flagged it up on the WikiProject Korea talk page and I see you [Shalom] have flagged it up on the author's talk page (though he/she is an infrequent editor). --Malcolmxl5 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The syllable tran is phonetically impossible in Korean. It's common in Vietnamese names, though. It's a stretch, but maybe they meant Nam Cam? --Reuben 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even WP:CSB caution doesn't trump WP:V, alas. Without sources, nothing we can keep. There are no interwiki links, either. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Reuben says, "Nam Tran" is not a Korean name (although the alleged gangster may have been of Vietnamese origin). I personally don't think a confusion with Nam Cam could have taken place here, as it would miss both the country and the date of birth by a very wide margin. This stub was written 15 months ago by a quasi-inactive user and has received no attention since. So delete it but without prejudice. --Targeman 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a hoax; even if the original author had a real person in mind and misspelled the name, there's nothing worth saving here. cab 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably a hoax. --ざくら木 15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Reuben. Mr. Killigan 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions.

The result was keep, no consensus to delete. There is a slight majority of users arguing to delete; however, the arguments on both sides are of reasonable strength and the dispute over encyclopedic merit should therefore be addressed through the editing process. -- Visviva 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech in popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia, per WP:FIVE (or WP:NOT#IINFO if you prefer). Eyrian 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I created this article long, long ago to get rid of the popular culture section of Georgia Institute of Technology, and made some attempt at sourcing a couple of them and adding a lead image. For a description of the issues surrounding "in popular culture" pages, see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. The main point that page makes is that "If properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, popular culture articles can attain quality and be a quality part of a topic." I think that it's possible to do so with this page, and while I haven't done so yet, nothing keeps this page from becoming every bit as beautiful as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I've been focusing on History of Georgia Tech and before that, I created a Featured List, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. ~~I'd also like to point out that WP:NOT and WP:POPCULTURE are not policy, but a guideline and an essay.~~ I can't think of a solid reason for or against deletion based on firmly established policies such as WP:N or WP:V, but a reasonably solid case can be made to keep the article per the WP:POPCULTURE essay and my project's promise to improve the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is policy. WP:FIVE transcends policy. --Eyrian 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I might have been thinking of the "Arguments to Avoid in AfD discussions" page, which I'd been looking at recently. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:FIVE applies here; if some effort is taken to source an "In Popular Culture" list, then it's not unverified, and if it's formatted properly, it's not trivia. I could understand using WP:TRIVIA as a deletion rationale, as long as we're sure that the list is trivia. WP:FIVE lists so many unrelated policies that it's hard to understand what problems a nominator has with the article when there are specific policy pages for each issue represented here. Just a suggestion. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Georgia Tech deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list is a list, whether the entries are separated by boxes or periods. What is missing is overall cited analysis to provide meaningful structure. That structure cannot exist without analysis. --Eyrian 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! Your comment is sooo funny in the context here, you do realise that WP:FIVE is a list! You are using a list to delete a list..... thanks for the chuckles! :D Mathmo ^Talk 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy, guideline, or essay that gives more detail on "overall cited analysis"? If I were to attempt to add some of that before this discussion is closed, what would I focus on for this article? As far as I can tell, that means to give a better definition of and context for the list's subject in the list's lead. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:V; articles need to be built on independent citations. If there aren't any, there shouldn't be an article. --Eyrian 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So if I went through and found references that each of (or most of) these examples of Georgia Tech in popular culture wasn't OR, you'd withdraw your nomination? Or does there need to be a cited work that discusses the article's specific subject? For example, something published about references to Georgia Tech in popular culture? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would need an independent reference containing significant coverage. In order for the subject of this article to be notable, that's what is required. The mentions of Georgia Tech can, of course, be present on the pages for each of the works mentioned. If you can find such references, then I would cheerfully withdraw the nomination. --Eyrian 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". I try and use some variation of the "trivia collection" theme, so that people know where to look. It really isn't that long, but I think I'll specify when possible. --Eyrian 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it's better for you to cite WP:TRIVIA instead of WP:FIVE, since both are accepted policy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a notable difference between Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and articles like this. A great part of the former is devoted to literary works about Joan and visual works that explicitly depict her. The pop culture stuff forms only a section of that article and is confined to more or less significant references. A collection of factoids like "In Deliverance (1972), one of the cars driven by the main characters has a front license plate that reads 'Georgia Tech'" isn't really in the same league. I can see only one or two entries in this article that could by any stretch be said to be about Georgia Tech. Deor 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable, relevant info in a prose format into the main article and redirect. If this is not accomplished, delete. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Disavian. Niayre 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, OR, non-notable. A Georgia Tech notebook is displayed on the shelf in a backroom where Ray Winstone and Leonardo Dicaprio go to beat up some guys in The Departed (2006). ? Please. And the fact that the Georgia Tech marching band played the marching band of a different school is not "Georgia Tech in popular culture", it's sub-nonsensical trivia. As is most of this crap. Corvus cornix 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the articles for schools like Harvard (the first school in the country) and UC Berkeley (one of the most well known and well respected institutions in the country) are plagued by pop cultural references (something that needs to be addressed in those articles), the editors opining here for a keep apparently believe that the cultural references to Georgia Tech (...) need their own article. I think this is where these sections and articles start to choke on themselves, as we have progressed from fanboys getting excited about the appearance of a mythological figure in their favorite television show to over-enthusiastic alumni throwing whatever reference to their school they can find, without regard to any sort of notability. CaveatLector^Talk 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia this insignificant is nothing but fancruft at best and pure junk at worst. I have never thought of Wikipedia as a repository factoids that only the most committed of alumni would begin to even care about. There is a wide differnce in "can attain quality" being quality. This is beyond the hope of being a quality article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep - I think that all of the main articles mentioned in this article either reference Tech in the appropriate places or simply keep this article. It's really not that bad when some of these references are fairly famous (e.g. Rudy sacking GT's Rudy Allen in Rudy or the Marilyn Monroe image). To cite the insignificant trivia as the reason to delete this article severely underrates some of the more interesting and notable trivia.--Excaliburhorn 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then surely you will have no problem with sourcing it. Corvus cornix02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not deleted soon, I will. It's not too hard to find most of these refs. --Excaliburhorn 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a collection of loosely associated non-notable topics. Saikokira 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all non-notable topics, even if this is my alma mater. The Marilyn Monroe picture deserves a good home, though. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - some trivial points in the movie listings, but this should not be deleted. It needs sourcing though, but I think this topic deserves to be retained. Irishjp 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; some of this might be merged into another article, such as the Tech locations seen on film. Mostly, this is not of interest even to a Tech grad. I recognize that there is an entire family of Tech articles, but this truly is all trivia, from start to finish. Well intentioned, but probably the most blatant violation of WP:TRIVIA I've encountered. Mandsford 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and surely most universities could come up with a similar article perhaps even of better quality, but still unencyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly most large universities could, and they should write them. No one has yet said why they would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia--the image of a university is an important and encyclopedic topic. DGG (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Has once again said it perfectly. Mathmo ^Talk 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as copyvio (CSD G12). Sorry, policy trumps consensus. —Kurykh 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Sri Lanka[edit]

I created this list from Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and someone placed a PROD tag, invoking Wikipedia is not a directory. Normally I would agree, but precedent has made Category:Lists of postal codes an exception to this rule. For a previous deletion debate on a similar article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Nepal. Shalom ^Hello 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While what goes on with other lists should not be a factor here, we should certainly not be keeping lists of post codes for developed countries where lots of editors live to defend them and delete such lists for developing countries where there might be less editors. The Napal list was kept recently. This one should be. If you do not accept his argument submit a combined AFD for every list of post codes on WP and let us see how that might fly. --Bduke 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But I'm confused as to why this discussion is even here, if you do not wish it to be deleted. Why not discuss the matter with the PRODding editor on the article talk page or his talk page? As I understand it, it's the burden of that editor to open an AfD, not of the editor who wants to defend it. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what we call "reference material". One does not read lists of postal codes from start to finish, one refers to them, hence the name reference. I believe that the Nepal list was deleted, not because we hate postal codes, but because it had only a few locations on it, making it useless as a reference. This one, so I gather, is a list of every place on the island from Adampan to Yudaganawa. Mandsford 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is merely a directory listing of what are claimed to be postal codes. It lacks sourcing to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V since this list is referenced only to "Computing Center, Faculty of Engineering University of Peradeniya. " It is not a published listing and is something short of a checkable reference. I could add one and no one could prove it was fake.WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also not a good "keep" argument. It is right up there with including the telephone book for Sri Lanka as an article. Edison 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIR, this is a pure sstatistical list that has no potential for expansion into an encyclopedic article. Transwiki to Wikisource is another option. hbdragon88 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is a copyvio, it's someone else's list (details on the talk page). I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Delete anyway per WP:NOT. andy 07:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not copyvio. Precedent would say to delete this, but I think we should re-examine that precedent and undo it. Populated places (which these are) are inherently notable. That does not mean that lists of them are. However, typically lists of populated places of a defined geographic region are keepers (whether or not they contain postal codes), just so long as their title and content give a little more than "yep, it's there" (e.g., List of cities in California, Comuni of the Province of Naples, and hundreds or perhaps thousands of others). Here there is some information about political subdivision along with post code. Putting the allegation of copyvio to the side, a List of towns and cities of Sri Lanka that also gives their post codes should be kept and this needs only slight reworking to fit that mold. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of every time someone spots a beagle on TV or in a book or movie tells us nothing about beagles, nothing about the fiction in which the beagle appears and nothing about the world around us. The things have nothing in common past the presence to a greater or lesser degree of a particular kind of dog. Otto4711 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Otto hit the nail on the head. --Eyrian 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. J-stan ^Talk 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the primary contributors to this and the FA-class Beagle article perform a merge of the appropriate content into a prose section and then redirect or delete the article. This can work really well, as evidence by the history of the also FA Guinea pig article and Cultural references to guinea pigs. The latter listcruft was transformed quite easily into a good paragraph of prose. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the end of that paragraph good? It's just a list with periods instead of boxes, without analytical depth, referenced only to the primary sources. I don't see how it's any different from the list we're discussing now. --Eyrian 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good because it takes a meaningless list, and creates a prose section that evidences why and how that animal has a presence in popular culture. "Analytical depth" about a small rodent (or a small dog) appearing in adverts and children's literature isn't necessary, but a mention of a subject's place in pop culture and fiction is. You'll also notice that we didn't just slap every mention from the original article in to the new version, but picked out the ones that were connected to other important facts about the animal, and then grouped them meaningfully according to age, type of media, and breadth of influence. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a rush to remove it. --Eyrian 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you asked... :) VanTucky ^(talk) 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of the entries on this list aren't even Beagles, so it will be no great loss. I split this off the main Beagle article when I was preparing it for FA, leaving behind only some relevant examples. The "In popular culture" sections of articles can be hotbeds for conflict, so it is often better to split them off, but this one hasn't been touched (except for somebody correcting a link) since I split it off. On a related note, since nobody was interested in it, there was no need for an AFD: a prod would have worked just fine. Yomangani ^talk 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more notable examples into Beagle. Still, as Yomangni correctly points out, not all of these are beagles. Dogs with floppy ears are cute and easy to draw, and I think that the author is assuming a lot. Snoopy was a beagle... Lucy said so. But Odie? ~~Underdog?~~ Mr. Peabody? Mr. Peabody??? See, I woulda sworn that Augie Doggy and Daddy Doggy were beagles, but in reality, beagles cannot walk upright no talk in complete sentences for any appreciable length of time. Mandsford 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more notable examples are already in Beagle (that's why I split this off initially). Yomangani ^talk 00:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Article asserts notability but provides no reliable secondary sources in support of assertions. Editors commenting here have not been able during the AFD discussion period to verify the claims by on-line searches. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig ritchie[edit]

This article appears to be about a non-notable person; I can find nothing on google to back it up anyway: [15]. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The Evil Spartan 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently a former editor of "Canadian Sportfishing", said to be Canada's top-selling angling publication, but I can't seem to verify that. A couple of books are on Amazon.[16] A google search with different criteria turns up more ghits but most seem to be about his books.[17] --Malcolmxl5 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until an editor chooses to initiate who can meet Wikipedia's policies. The article seems to assert sufficient notability in that "eight writing awards" alone and he may well have created a substantial body of work, but none of that seems to be verifiable. I've spent some fruitless time trying to find more info about those awards or locate third party sources talking about Ritchie and haven't found enough to satisfy verifiability. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Moonriddengirl 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourceable unidentified awards do not = notability. An editor is not necessarily an editor in chief, regardless of how big Canadian Sportfishing is. His one book that is identified by title cannot be found at Amazon which gives a good indication that it probably isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behold... The Arctopus[edit]

This article was speedied by myself once before, and restored by Gwalla. I spoke to him/her about it, and agreed to AfD this article. Anyway, I digress. The article passes WP:BAND, but is not notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. —« ANIMUM » 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~A good argument could be made for a speedy under A7~~, but there's no notability here whatsoever. It's one of the drawbacks of being an underground band, I guess. Sidatio 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)(edit: Not A7 after all, but still far from notable. Edited by Sidatio 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The external links are all to directory websites or myspace. The band lacks the kind of notability intended by WP:HOLE (an instructive essay), and the article reads like some kind of fansite. Shalom ^Hello 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:BAND. In fact if you follow the links in here, especially Colin Marston You will find a whole slew of articles that need to be deleted because they do not meet WP:BAND. Gorkymalorki 19:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see it meeting WP:BAND even if all the claims were sourced, which they aren't. I even think that the initial speedy was defensible as there is no assertion of meeting WP:BAND which is the measure of notability. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew based on the fact that it had been restored before from a speedy - wasn't clear on whether or not it could be re-tagged under those circumstances. Sidatio 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links from the band's forum (http://www.smnnews.com/board//showthread.php?t=153257) and again here on the drummer's professional site (http://charliezeleny.com/) list dates for two lengthy US tours - doesn't that mean they satisfy the notability guidelines? I apologize if I am not following the proper protocol in posting this, but I haven't been part of a deletion discussion before. Digestion 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. They aren't reliable sources independent of the fact as far as I can see. —« ANIMUM » 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You simply cannot expect a band of this genre to have their tour dates posted in a major newspaper, but that does not mean they don't go on tour. What's the point of having that requirement if it's impossible to prove? Digestion 13:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get "about 73,700" hits on Google for Behold... The Arctopus. This band isn't as obscure as some people here are making it out to be. If you don't believe me, look at this page I pulled out of nowhere of news about the band: they are recording a full-length album, recently finished a country-wide tour, and are associated with other notable, well-known bands (Kayo Dot being the major one I see here). I really wish people would stop AfD'ing articles that simply need improvement. I'd be happy to step in and work on this one if it's kept. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with the above-mentioned link, = ∫_t, is that the information provided is user-generated - meaning it's no more reliable than a blog or forum - from what I can tell. Also, Google hits are an ineffective argument for or against an article. What we need are verifiable sources, of which we have none that I have seen so far. Also, notability isn't inherited - they could have opened for Metallica, but unless that was covered significantly by a reliable source or two, it wouldn't matter. They look interesting, but there's no notability - and that's what counts the most. Sidatio 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay... like I said, that was the first one I found. How about news on Blabbermouth, a notably reliable source, which says pretty much the same thing? Or a small list of reviews I found online:

Understand that that is merely what I found in the last ten minutes... with a bit of looking I could certainly find more sources besides these. ... but anyway, can't we wait for the album to come out? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is just my opinion, but - in order:

The Blabbermouth article merely mentions B...tA playing at Maryland's Deathfest. Passing mentions aren't significant coverage.
The allmusic.com source looks valid as a biographical source, but there's not a whole lot there.
I seem to recall someone saying something to the effect that About.com isn't a valid source for some reason or another. (Can't imagine why you'd want to use this as a source, though - it's hardly flattering.) Same problem here with the Blabbermouth article - the band itself gets a passing mention, while the album is reviewed in depth. You have a good source for the album in question, though - provided I'm wrong in what I heard about About.com sources.
Same problem as above with the pitchforkmedia.com - it's mostly about the album.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sidatio 01:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete the first, prod the second. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mason[edit]

I can find little to nothing of this man on google: [18]. I tried speedy delete - was turned down. Appears to have WP:COI problems. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the article and his userpage because Wikipedia is not a personal web host. Mr. Mason has no other contributions, and the article, aside from WP:COI problems, is completely unverified. Shalom ^Hello 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both WP:COI & WP:AUTOBIO; even if the article claims enough notability to be rejected for speedy, it does not appear to be verifiable notability.--Old Hoss 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I think the user page must go through WP:MFD if an admin declines to speedy it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, but keep the user page per Dhartung. Bearian 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Day[edit]

Nonnotable student invented celebration. google search for "Monkey Day" + december 14 shows no reputable references `'Míkka 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references all look legit, cover different years and different countries and even US states. It's a serious thing done in a silly and somewhat immature fashion, but noteworthy. It it more widely published than many other articles. Author would do good to add more content, though. Pharmboy 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has some good third party refs and some not-so-good ones. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Bigdaddy1981 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was made up one day several years ago, and several reliable sources have reported on it, in different years. I understand the test you are applying (and in general agree with the policy), but I think you are applying a bit harsh in this one particular case. I would ask those who choose delete to look at it closely and google it if they have not yet. Pharmboy 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age does not lend notability, and I find that this is not a venerable cultural institution of a particular university. It's a thing made-up by art students at a single college that has failed to draw the attention or participation of any significant coverage. Trivial mentions of one fringe subcultural activity do not equal notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. MikeWazowski 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus It is clear that all parties are thinking non-trivially about this article. It occurs to me that there are a number of other solutions than those that were expressed during this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by genre or type[edit]

This is a mere list of links without any criteria for inclusion, and is not useful for navigation. This would be much better served with a category than an article. Phirazo 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Phirazo on both counts: there are clear criteria for inclusion in the parent list (which is the one he nominated), namely that a list of books of a certain genre or type is linked within this article. Some of the child lists are poorly designed, but that's a separate problem. I also think that a good system of lists can help with navigation. One advantage of lists, evident in this collection, is that lists can include items which don't have Wikipedia articles, and can provide additional information not accessible in the category format. For an example of a good "meta" list, see List of mathematics lists. Shalom ^Hello 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is far too indiscriminate for a list, and would be better served as a category. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with VanTucky, this is much better suited to being a category. Impossible to maintain as a list. Irishjp 11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this duplicates the category. 132.205.44.5 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navigation aid, not intended to be enjoyable reading. Mandsford 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont know what can be meant by saying this is impossible to maintain--perhaps those saying that have not looked at the actual article--it does not contain all the books, it contains a short list of other articles. In practice, it supplements the category. The list system is an alternate means of navigation, and there has been no decision to abandon it in general; this remains necessary for organizing and navigating it. DGG (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needed for navigation, - Peregrine Fisher 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, has been transwikied. Content can be accessed at wiktionary:Transwiki:List of isms. -- Visviva 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. Can someone tell me why this is a Science and Technology AfD? Perhaps it is no surprise why no one understands the usefulness of this list?

I move that we go through the process appropriately. If there is a humanities and fine arts category, lets see how the AfD proceeds under it. Gregbard 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of isms[edit]

Transwiki. Nonencyclopedic: an arbitrary list of totally unrelated things. Its place is an appendix of wiktionary. `'Míkka 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment This is actually the second deletion discussion; the first was in relation to List of Isms which redirects to List of isms; the first AFD discussion, which ended in "no consensus" → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Isms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely-associated topics, related only verbally. --Eyrian 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Hmm, there appears to be no entry for deletionism. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and there is no "ism" at all for compulsive hoarding. `'Míkka 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or transwiki, per arguments below. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you serious? J-stan ^Talk 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T EVEN THINK OF IT I've been expanding this list for a while now. None of the reasons being given are serious reasons ('aw c'mon' doesn't cut it.) If you do not understand the value of such a compilation please just don't click on it. For people who are trying to study in philosophy, religion, and political science, this list is useful. Gregbard 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you failed to understand: it belongs to wiktionary, see wiktionary:Category:Appendices, in particular, see, e.g., wiktionary:Appendix:-ize_(derived_terms). Please proceed with this collection, but in a sister project. `'Míkka 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well we meet again?! You happen to be screwing up more of my efforts too? The proposal wasn't to move it, it was to delete it. Gregbard 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not write "delete". I wrote "Its place is an appendix of wiktionary." Anyway, I clarified my vote. `'Míkka 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well then, I appreciate that. Do you think you could be productive on our other issue too? Be well, Gregbard 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with revisions - As currently constituted, I agree that this is a dictionary-like article that could move to Wiktionary. However, an annotated list of "isms" as used in religion, philosophy, and political science, is a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. Remove the words that merely happen to end in "ism" (such as absenteeism, botulism, criticism, dwarfism, and journalism), but keep the article as a list of those isms that refer to ideas, belief systems, and related practices (such as absolutism, ageism, cronyism, heliocentrism, and imperialism) and add annotations to the list to briefly explain each ism. --orlady 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an exceedingly loose association, which is prohibited under WP:NOT#DIR. --Eyrian 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as loose list and Collection of internal links, although I think I'm going to make a copy of it. Useight 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes absolutely no sense. No one else should have it on Wikipedia, but as long as I have my copy that's all that matters. Way to go. Gregbard 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a navigational aid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. per nom - its place is wiktionary. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, not sure how or why ending in 'ism' links concepts together past a lexical distinction. CaveatLector^Talk 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki as WP is not a dictionnary nor a list of loosely-associated topics.--JForget 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. A list of words ending in a particular suffix (and in this case, a hugely prolific one) is great for a dictionary or thesaurus, not an encyclopedia. -ism has too wide a range of meanings to be of any use when linking concepts. Similarly, a list of -tions, -ities, etc. would belong in a dictionary, not here. --Targeman 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable-ism and Wiki-spam-ism --PEAR (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very useful page within the context of pages like Wikipedia:List of glossaries. "Isms" is often a distinct subject in history class. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N (specifically WP:CORP), WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSER[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:CORP notability guidelines. Also, article was created by a member of the OpenSER development group which also is against WP:COI (conflict of interest) guideline. Calltech 13:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Article does not establish notability, and doesn't read completely neutral. Also, the sources provided are either first-party or unreliable, thus making verification of any notability very difficult or impossible. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Although the article is written by someone directly involved in the OpenSER project and I agree with Wikipedia policy that primary sources are exposed to impartial opinions, I strongly believe that OpenSER is a relevant project in the VoIP world today. The article should be neutral and it was tried as much as possible to keep it so, any remark that conducts to opposite feelings should be removed.

To prove the notability of the project I list few links and articles about OpenSER, from neutral sources:

- Evaluating SIP server performance - Paper conducted by IBM to evaluate the performances of OpenSER v1.1, resulting in new development and increase of performances in OpenSER 1.2 Link to Article PDF
- IMS In A Bottle: Initial Experiences from an OpenSER-based Prototype Implementation of the 3GPP IP Multimedia Subsystem - Technical University of Vienna, Austria
- Telecom R&D announces inter-university RTC collaboration - IT Research Institute Consortium to use Asterisk and OpenSER for next generation real time communication: MIT VoIP Deployment, INRIA VoIP Deployment
- during the last year dedicated panels to Open Source at VoIP events included OpenSER (Voice on the Net: VoN Berlin 2006, VoN San Jose 2007, VoN Stockholm 2007, VoN Italy 2007, VoN Boston 2007; Cluecon 2007; LinuxTag 2007; eLiberatica 2007) - direct links can be provided if will help
- having the biggest network equipment vendor (CISCO) delivering OpenSER with one of their products proves the reliability and guarantees that it is not just a group of developers with some spare time Cisco Service Node for Linksys One. A list with big VoIP operators that uses OpenSER can be provided as well

The level of innovation brought by OpenSER in Open Source VoIP is another important criterion that should keep the article posted. Some unique values: Java SIP Servlet application server (WeSIP), VoIP Perl Application Server, Infrastructure Enum, many VoIP Presence extensions, SIP IM Conferencing.

I can assist further if you consider that more arguments are needed. I kept the content of the page quite minimalistic so far, to avoid the feeling of self promoting the project (cleanup and improvement in the content toward neutrality and usability of the page was done since its first version). There is a lot that can be included, in terms of innovations, capabilities and usage cases in area of communication technology. I hope that the chances to keep OpenSER page are higher now. Daniel-Constantin Mierla ^(talk/work) 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — Miconda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please check some of the above citations - some are showing as "dead links" and "Missing page". Also, please identify your relationship with this project. Thanks Calltech 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links should be fixed now, wrong wiki syntax used to separate web link and display words. I am one of co-founders of the project in 2005, working in Open Source and VoIP research since 2001. Miconda 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — Miconda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrative note: - Miconda and Daniel-Constantin Mierla are the same user Calltech 12:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the edited OpenSER entry.

OpenSER is an important open source project that is making a significant impact on the telecom industry. An OpenSER entry needs to stay in Wikipedia. However, I agree that the original OpenSER entry did not read as a neutral article. I have edited the OpenSER entry and I believe it is now acceptable for Wikipedia's guidelines.

Please sign your discussion entries using 4 tildes (~). Also, are you a member of this project? Thanks. Calltech 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance on how to leave a signature. I am not a member of the OpenSER project, but two developers who work for me at TransNexus have contributed to OpenSER. Our customers are VoIP service providers and they use TransNexus software with their OpenSER deployments. JPDaltonJr 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the edited OpenSER entry2.

OpenSER is a critical building piece of a Voice over IP infrastructure. Many companies using the software provided from this project to build services that are valuable for millions of customers. Wikipedia includes many articles over open source projects thats have a much smaller impact. Henning

Another vote to keep the OpenSER entry.

This project is one of the leading open source, completely free SIP server applications. It is a core component in many of the worlds largest IP telephony solutions, supporting millions of users across the world. Many companies openly acknowledge its use in their networks, including Truphone the UK-based Mobile VoIP provider, Truphone. I am a VoIP engineer who works with OpenSER and other related applications on a daily basis to provide IP telephony solutions. Adam — 80.169.36.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a speedy because essentially just an ad. Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not associated with OpenSER at all - just browsing AfD. While the article needs work, with over 150k hits on Google (after removing wikipedia, openser.org, and sourceforge.net), and especially when combined with the links mentioned above, it seems to me to satisfy notability. WP:COI and WP:CORP are editing guidelines - not a reason to delete an article. —Mrand ^T-C 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write and give your thoughts here. I wanted to point out, however, that WP appears to be getting much tougher on articles written by users with WP:COI. Without sounding too WP lawyerish, here's what WP states right up front when creating a new article:

"Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend."

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies".

Also, WP:CORP is pretty much the standard for determining whether an article stays or goes. Calltech 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about WP:CORP. I had a different sentence in there, and then forgot to pull CORP out. My point was that the first paragraph of WP:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest states Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. Therefore, this AfD is about notability - the sentence mentioning COI has no real standing in the original request for deletion or any subsequent discussion.—Mrand ^T-C 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:COI alone does not justify deletion and should not have been included in the original request. I disagree that it shouldn't be included in "subsequent discussion". WP:COI#How to avoid COI edits makes that clear: ...if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. Calltech 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definately notable, and don't think it reads as an advert. The number of google hits for this means it is relevant enough to warrent an article. Irishjp 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article I cannot understand. What the fuck is it about? Honestly, if this is a notable concept someone other than the development team will someday come along and write an article in English. AndyJones 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps we should dumb it down and litter it with profanities, would that help you get a better understanding? Irishjp 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't make it any worse. AndyJones 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does the number of Google hits define notability? WP certainly doesn't state this, from what I've researched. In fact, that argument (several hundred thousand hits) was used (and disputed) in another AfD, yet that article was deleted for lack of notability. If a project, company, or product is included in wikis, forums, blogs, etc. (none of which are reliable sources), the Google hit count can be very high. Calltech 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet notability. [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Carlosguitar 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked some of these links and found they are contributed by project members, listed training info, press release info, trivial (in WP sense) references, etc which are outside Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Calltech 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, especially with oldskoolphreak.com source that I did not found "contribution by members". Also there is a lot of blogs sources and Miconda's links seems to be reliable. Carlosguitar 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS points out that random blogs are not valid sources. Unless the writer of the blog is notable himself, opinions on blogs are usually not notable. An argument could possibly be made about citing facts presented in blogs, but in reality, they could be opinions or inventions being presented as fact - so a strong effort should be made to verify those facts to find an additional independent sources.—Mrand ^T-C 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about WP:SPS, but I do not believe that some authors are not notable. [27] The problem is to know who is author of blog. Carlosguitar 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OpenSER is heavily documented, there are books about it for Christ Sake. Btw. this user Calltech he is known as a devoted Asterix fan and has requested deletion of YATE, CallWeaver, FreeSWITCH, OpenPBX.org, and probably several other VoIP projects. With this heavy bias on his part this AfD (and any other he suggests) should be discarded with prejudice. Carewolf 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carewolf, my only prejudice is against groups or users who insist upon using WP to promote a project, company or organization. This is totally against WP guidelines and the overall philosphy of this wiki. Your comment that I am a devoted Asterisk fan is a false accusation. 3 of the 4 projects listed above were DELETED through AfDs just like this one because of thoughtful and supported discussions (not emotional, unsupported accusations by a project advocate) because the projects lacked notability. There have been thoughtful arguments made on both sides here, up until your unsupported accusation above. Calltech 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calltech, why are you still insisting that this article is not notable? OpenSER is a widely-deployed and well-documented project that is beginning to have as much impact in the VoIP community as Asterisk has in the past few years. If your protest is because an OpenSER developer wrote the article, then I'll be one of the first to step up and begin rewriting it as a user of the software. Mblaze 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mblaze, please provide neutral, unbiased, reliable and verifiable citations that support your statements. Just saying how widely deployed and great a project OpenSER is doesn't cut it here on this discussion. Its really that simple. Many of the citations listed above don't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. And this discussion has nothing to do with Asterisk or how OpenSER stacks up against that project. The article should be written in a neutral fashion, which is sometimes very difficult if you are a project team member and you are listing advantages and features as if this were a marketing piece. Calltech 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the ACM and IEEE papers discussing OpenSER posted at the very top, as well as the MIT SIP.edu project. Mblaze 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote to keep the OpenSER entry.

OpenSER is part of the history of Internet Communications, a core part of how FWD works and a platform/technology that is enabling and empowering the world of open communications. There are undeniable truths. Signed, JeffPulver

((subst:ab))

The result was No Consensus.. CitiCat^♫ 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Abrams[edit]

Article does not assert subjects notability - no references, only external links to his official site, myspace page and an interview. Does not meet the requirements at WP:Notability. Ozgod 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep via spillover notability. Archaic is considerably notable, and the site and community are very much personalized around James and Brett. --XDanielx 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpret the intent of the coatrack article. The argument I give for spillover notability isn't that James Abrams once bumped shoulders with an affiliate of Archaic; it is that James Abrams is central to the creation and continued production of Archaic. I don't think Archaic is supremely notable to the extent that any moderately connected person or other subject would be sufficiently notable, but I think the connection in this case is fairly strong--hence the reasoning for my proposed weak keep. --XDanielx 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, doesn't seem to be all that notable outside Archaic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That wired magazine is one reliable source. Is there anything else to satisfy WP:N ? Corpx 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though, currently, it asserts no notability, it could become a good article. J-stan ^Talk 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. To the anon, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Kurykh 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-set[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy as spam. Reads like spam, but as it's a quasi-EU gov't program, it might be notable. Rather than speedy, I thought I'd seek a wider consensus. However, for my part, unless someone can come up with refs that demonstrate notability, I'm for deleting it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nonnotable unreferenced project with no traces online for googling "i-SeT" + eTEN +internet. `'Míkka 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project will soon have a website, eTEN is for sure an EU programme, and it will be very usefull for Tourism Industry in Europe, as it will provide e-services to SMEs.(81.188.78.115 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Notability unestablished. -- Whpq 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uys family[edit]

Not notable, contrary to false claims of being one of "South Africa's foremost families.". No verifiable sources. NPOV violations. Non-verifiable and uses original research. ProudlySA 09:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt all depends on you you define "foremost". A term like "foremost" is a relative term after all. I am not aware of any other white family that has contributed more consistently to South Africa's history. Certainly anyone who even visits South Africa briefly, knows the Uys family is one of the country's leading white families. They have been prominent both in the past as well as the 20th Century. For example, Jamie Uys, the film producer and Pieter Dirk Uys the left wing political activist are cousins, and they are related to the Uyses of history.

By the way, the article is too long, and a lot of the military stuff should be trimmed back. Some of it would be good in a book on South African military history, but it is information-overload for an encyclopedia. Also, I suspect some of it is incorrect. Certainly in the last hundred years Pieter-Dirk Uys and Jamie Uys have been a lot more significant than a lot of soldiers from centuries past.

There are other issues with the article too. For example describing the Uyses as Afrikaaners or Boers is often incorrect. Some are Afrikaaners, and some are English. Furthermore some regard themselves as Dutch rather than Afrikaans. The only thing you can say with certainty is that their ancestors originally lived in Leyden and Amsterdam and came to South Africa as Dutch colonists. Hence you can say they are of Dutch origin. All this may be confusing to an outsider, but it is all the result of the incredible and sometimes confusing diversity that is South Africa. South Africans have been marrying across ethnic group boundaries for centuries which contributes to the complexity.

While we are on the subject, the article misrepresents the Uyses. As a group they are known best for their conciliatory behaviour. The most prominent Uyses were consistently leaders in reconciling the Dutch and the English after the British takeover of the Cape Colony. Where they engaged in military activity, it was often to assist the British. For example the assistance they gave the British in the Anglo- Zulu wars. In the 20th century they have been leaders in reconciling white and black South Africans. For example, Pieter-Dirk Uys, was one of the leading opponents of racial discrimination, and Jamie Uys, whose most succesful film featured a black leading man. The military and bellicose emphasis of the article misrepresents South Africa and the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholmondeley-Smythe (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patently lacking any verification of notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we generally reserve Lastname family articles for those families which already have at least two (or better, three) notable members. Not just families that have a lot of members who are almost notable if you're generous. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not Genealogical entries.
Keep these are not genealogy; they are combination articles. Dhartung's proposed criterion makes no sense at all to me--we write these articles because the individuals do not yt have enough information for articles of their own . Every encyclopedia does that, Britanicca, Oxford DNB. DGG (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Pogacnik[edit]

This individual seems to be some author however upon googling him I can't find any sources that could be used for it due to lack of notability. The page exists on a few other languages of wikipedia however even they are uncited and seem to be tossed together haphazardly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be quite original in his ideas with a certain following and a high number of Google hits, but few good sources. However, he is also an artist and desigend the Coat of arms of Slovenia, which in my book counts as "significant monument" per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Tikiwont 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The name is misspelled - should be Marko Pogačnik (I moved it) and the article is very stubby and not even inerwiki'd to the Slovenian version. Pogačnik is widely known as the designer of the Coat of arms of Slovenia (such an event is extremely rare and thus noteworthy), and he's also a prominent sculptor. Keep the article and improve it. --Targeman 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tikiwont and Targeman. Bearian 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Targeman, plenty notable enough. --Beloved freak 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hall's of Syston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hall's of Syston

Article is about a market stall with no references provided to establish notability. --Uthbrian (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del nn. `'Míkka 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable market stall in non-notable markets that are only briefly mentioned in the article on Loughborough and not at all in the one on Shepshed. --Malcolmxl5 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to indicate notability and foundnone in searching. Presumably, a notable stall would at least garner some coverage in local papers. -- Whpq 22:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus ... split among Keep, Delete and Merge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RHINO (squat)[edit]

This page is about squatters in Geneva who just got evicted after occupying a building for 19 years. It is currently making headlines in local newspapers, but I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion, especially since there are 1000s of other buildings squatted around the world, and it is hard to see what would make this one different from others. More precisely, I think it could be added to a page about Squatting in Switzerland, or even Squatting in Geneva if there is enough to say on this particular topic, but it may not deserve an article for itself. Schutz 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are too many buildings like this in the world to count, and they are not inherently notable. A day in the news does not magically imbue notability; by next month it will all be forgotten again. Shalom ^Hello 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article Squatting. There is no article about RHINO; this one was created on fr.wikipedia.org only recently, and translated into English. True, there are thousands of buildings occupied by squatters, but a 19 year long occupation sets this one apart from most such incidents. Mandsford 17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular squat is quite well known, and in spite of what was written above, it will not be forgotten very soon. The Geneva police evicted the inhabitants on July 23rd, and there have been a few demonstrations and riots since then. Geneva has not seen such violence since the anti G8 summit demos in 2003. I suggest we wait a few more weeks to see how the situation develops. GastelEtzwane 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but while it is quite well known at the local level, that does not really make it notable — at least I have not found anything showing notability; do you have any link or reference that could help here ? Schutz 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of link or reference would it take ? GastelEtzwane 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a start; basically, anything that would show that an external (external = outside Geneva/Switzerland) observer would see a difference between Rhino and any of the 1000s squats in the world. Schutz 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:LOCAL. The target should be the town and not the squatting article. Vegaswikian 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete for now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent North American Gaeltacht[edit]

Much as I wish it was true, this appears to be a hoax: it claims "official" recognition yet there is no news report or government coverage, and there are no references except for a URL that doesn't go anywhere in a domain whose whois is hidden. Marnanel 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~At this point I'm going to have to assume it's a hoax.~~ The article is claiming it was founded "16 June, 2007" so one would think there would be any web news stories on it, but so far I can't find any. --Oakshade 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now. Would feel comfortable with more secondary sources on this, but the Radio Telefís Éireann story here does indicate it's real and of enough national interest to be covered by a national network. --Oakshade 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~apparent hoax~~, or at best so very much still "in planning" as to be deletable per WP:CRYSTAL. —Angr 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for present. Actually it exists, although I am not sure how "official" it is. Found a story on the RTÉ website from the evening news bulletin of 18 June 2007. Link to video of story is at the bottom of this page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it's not a hoax. Still, that report says nothing has yet been built on the land, and the organizers are hoping to start teaching Irish there soon. I stick with "delete per WP:CRYSTAL". —Angr 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even in its planning stages it's gotten some media interest. --Oakshade 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bigdaddy1981 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Despite the coverage, it does seem to fall foul of Crystal. And the title is a bit misleading, as Maranel pointed out - and it took a bit of lateral thinking in searching to find stories on the project - there isn't anything "permanent" there yet. Whatever about it being an officially recognized Gaeltacht or not, to be a Gaeltacht in the sense of an Irish-speaking area, it really would need permanent residents. However, the project itself might be a valid article in the future. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete siarach 07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy close, CSD G4. --Eyrian 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clockpunk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Neologism, with no reliable sources to document the significance of the term. Eyrian 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7. Jackaranga 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke-Evolution[edit]

Already deleted as ((db-a7)). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM, WP:VERIFY Jackaranga 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Fabri[edit]

Appears notable just for discovering one singer in Canada, Lavigne. I just did a bunch of searches for him, and all of them are apparently about that. Not sure its worth an article for some guy that found a girl that has had an average singing career. Delete... Freedomeagle 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really sure if you're calling Avril Lavigne's singing career average or not, but that's beside the point. Apparently, his only claim to fame is managing her career before she became famous, which is tenuous notability, at best.--Sethacus 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to malign the lady, she's ok. I meant that he's just known by name for having found someone. Bad wording, sorry. Freedomeagle 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, slim and incidental pickings on Google News Archive, even considering the split. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fink[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. Nearly everything stated is verifiable only with self-published sources (online from Fink's personal website, or in print published by Fink himself). He appears to have made some perhaps notable contributions to discussions about the bone found at the Divje Babe site (nothing published in peer-reviewed publications by himself, though), but this is mentioned at sufficient length in that article. EldKatt (Talk) 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be aware that there is another musicologist (who seems far more notable and verifiable) named Robert Fink. This might make Google tests and such a bit difficult. EldKatt (Talk) 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single use account editing makes this appear to be a vanity page. In any case, the subject is non-notable and the page lacks any content with non self-published sources. Bigdaddy1981 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think he's very notable. Within the scope of discussion on Divje Babe, his extraordinary claims about its origin make him notable there. I don't think this makes him a notable person on the whole though, and there are certainly more notable writers on that particular topic, and none of them have Wikipedia bios. Mr. Fink has one because he wrote it himself, basically. (Similarly he very heavily edited his theories into Divje Babe, which I still haven't taken the time to clean up.) - Rainwarrior 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly CMS[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, maybe WP:SPAM. I had used PROD but it was removed without any contributions addressing the issues. Jackaranga 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for procedural reasons. Ubernostrum 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since you tagged it with PROD, two other users have apparently tried to edit the article to address your concerns; you reverted one of them outright (and haven't, as far as I can see, answered that user's questions about the revert yet) and proceeded immediately to this AfD. Given that, this AfD is inappropriate and should be closed while you and those users who wish to improve the article come to a consensus on how to proceed. Ubernostrum 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one editor added to the article, the IP and the user are the same person, I did answer him, and you can't add copyrighted content to wikipedia. Jackaranga 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be users on the talk page now asking about how to improve the article; given what you've revealed about your motives in other AfDs you've opened, why don't you close this and let them get to work? Ubernostrum 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is under active development by at least two editors, and tagged as such. Does not raise WP:SPAM issues at all, any more than any other article on a piece of software. WP:V issues likely to be rectified by on-going editing, and that will satisfy WP:N. If the editors working on it stop working on it after AfD, AfD it again, noting that promise to fix the article was not met. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The article has been around for over 2 years now, and nobody has managed to assert notability, and nobody in this AfD has asserted it either. Jackaranga 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's really not relevant -- tagging with the "notability" template would have been the correct step, and would have offered the same impetus for interested users to come work on the article (which they might not have known about) without making them wonder whether it's going to be deleted out from under them. Ubernostrum 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Dinosaurs and Stegosaurus as it's acually sourced prose with few pure trivia, delete and move to a subpage of User:AndyJones on the rest. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete all - these are all directories of loosely associated topics, presented for the most part as bullet point lists but sometimes masking the bullet point "I spotted a dino!" references in prose. Yes, everybody loves dinosaurs and they show up in lots of movies and TV shows. Itemized lists of every appearance of dinosaurs or a specific species of dinosaur or something that looks like a dinosaur or may have been modeled on a dinosaur or named for a dinosaur tell us nothing about dinosaurs and nothing about the fiction from which these sightings of greater or lesser degrees of triviality are drawn. Oppose merging any of the material into any article about either dinosaurs in general or a specific species. Otto4711 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the few bits of analysis are OR. --Eyrian 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per Otto4711 ,emphasizing the "I spotted a dino" aspect. Tomj

I have left a comment to WikiProject Dinosaurs about this. Circeus 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Dinosaurs (as a friend of mine would say: "OMGWTFBBQ??"), neutral for the others. I'm leaning to merge the good information to Dinosaurs. Circeus 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should explain why you want something kept instead of just saying keep. Otto4711 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the main article is clearly encyclopedic in tone and content, duh. For the record, this is content that was, for the most part, spun off various Dinosaur FAs prior to their promotion. Circeus 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Encyclopedic articles cite sources. The only independently cited sentence in that article is "The popular preoccupation with dinosaurs also is reflected in a broad array of fictional and non-fictional works." --Eyrian 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Dinosaurs, perhaps Tyrannosaurus if it lost about three quarters of its size (as I have learned this week, people really like Tyrannosaurus if you ask them). "Dinosaurs" is the least "a dinosaur is present in X" of the submitted articles, and about the only one where interesting nontrivial things can be said (such as how the depiction of dinosaurs has changed in response to science and the prevailing culture). That such things have not been included, except in passing, is not the article's fault; perhaps a name change is in order? The rest are pretty meh, of the type of article to which an eager first-timer would add "X was in film or video game or tv show Y", although there has been a valiant effort to cite "Stegosaurus". J. Spencer 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all notable, relevant content in prose form into the main article andredirect. If this is not accomplished, then delete. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture, which features some analysis (for which sources can be found) and shows restraint in the citation of examples. Delete the others. (The summary pop culture sections in the articles about the beasties themselves seem generally sufficient. They might be expanded a bit, but without bulleted lists of individual appearances.) Deor 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture as a well-sourced article and not a trivia list. Delete the others as OR and in violation of WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Listing every mention of a dinosaur in music/film/literature ("oh look, there's this band that has Brontosaurus in their name!") is clearly an indiscriminate list of information. Dinosaurs in popular culture may not be formatted in dot points, but it's still a trivia section in disguise. Spellcast 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all and remerge. These articles began as small subsections within their respective articles, and they need to go back. Back in December, user:Jyril began moving large numbers of subsections into their own articles. While this was BOLD, it allowed these articles (several of which were well-cited articles) to fall off people's watchlists and become crufty lists. Here is Stegosaurus in popular culture being moved to its own article. This happened to a great number of dinosaur articles, including Triceratops and many others (check Jyril's deleted contributions for a full list). At that time, I was concerned that these articles would become candidates for deletion (because they would fall off people's watchlists and become cruft-filled lists). That has happened. However, several of these did not begin life as crufty lists: Stegosaurus in popular culture started out with citations. Breaking off these sections has been detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole and to these articles specifically because the information in these articles may be lost in deletion. Dinosaurs have certainly influenced popular culture, but the opposite is also true: popular culture has also influenced scientific culture: Genera such as Scipionyx would not have been discovered without pop culture film Jurassic Park.[28] Tying WP:DINO's hands by not allowing the re-merger of important content (important appearances in popular culture and pop culture events such as JP which shaped scientific understanding of these animals) back into the main article is, in my opinion, not a great idea. There is cruft here, but it can be cleaned up without the need for deletion, and I know six awesome editors who I can bet would be willing to help clean up this mess. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. The answer is simple. Carry out the merge and redirect now. Carcharoth 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, the only difference between Dinosaurs in popular culture and other In popular culture articles that have recently been deleted is that it isn't a list, although the loosely related trivia it contains is still as bad, possibly worse, as original research has been used to exclude many notable examples and include obscure ones like the song "We Can All Get Along With Dinosaurs". Saikokira 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture. The only objection to this article seems to be that it contains the words "in popular culture". The other articles should be -- very selectively -- merged. But this is a very valid encyclopedic topic, being perhaps the canonical example of a once-unknown category of knowledge that has permeated the popular mind -- and in ways very easily distinguished from scientific facts and theories about dinosaurs. If there were only one "in popular culture" article, it probably should be this one. RandomCritic 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are several articles nominated here. You might want to specify which one you want kept. And to respond to your assertion that the articles are nominated only because of the titles, the reasons for the nomination are laid out in the nomination. If the same content were titled something different it would still be nominated. Otto4711 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might say that, but -- I don't believe you. RandomCritic 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look over the various "in fiction" and "cultural references" articles currently on the block. I'd've nominated these, except Otto got there first. --Eyrian 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If, RC. I gave a good goddamn what you believe or don't believe, I might be upset at your abject failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a small number of people has freaked out over articles with certain words in their title -- for no better reason than the title -- and has gone on a crusade to purge WP of them, is not a refutation of my statement, but rather a confirmation of it. I believe this article was nominated solely for having the words "popular culture" in the title, and not for any solid exception that could be made to the content. RandomCritic 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe that angels flew out of Dick Cheney's ass and commanded me to nominate these articles for all I care. Your false beliefs have nothing to do with the reality of the nomination. Otto4711 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Triceratops in popular culture, no opinion on the others yet. Punkmorten 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dinosaurs in popular culture - this is not a fictional topic - it is a real world topic that is encyclopedic. Suggest renaming to Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, per the many other 'cultural depictions' articles. See here. See Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great and Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar for informative articles on these topics. Cultural studies is a serious topic, and Wikipedia deleting a lot of its cultural trivia articles shows that it cannot take the topic seriously. Carcharoth 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural studies are absolutely an important topic. And they should be addressed just like any other wikipedia article: with structured detail backed by cited analysis. Imagine if the article on Titanium was simply a list of products that contained it. --Eyrian 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the first version of Titanium? Similarly, have a look at the first revision of Dinosaurs in popular culture. It is a split from the original article - thus if the verdict here is delete, then it should be redirected back to dinosaur. In fact, all these "in popular culture" articles should be redirected if the verdict is delete, otherwise someone will recreate them and if a good article results, then the early history will reside only in the page logs showing that once an earlier deleted article existed. Carcharoth 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The titanium diff you provided was six years old. Things were different then. Don't worry about recreation or reaccumulation; it's a personal policy of mine to keep main articles clean of spun-off then deleted trivia, and I'll happily do it here. --Eyrian 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Tyrannosaurus in popular culture - and rewrite using Stegosaurus in popular culture as the model to follow. Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Brontosaurus in popular culture back to Brontosaurus - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dromaeosaurids in popular culture back to Dromaeosaurids - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Triceratops in popular culture back to Triceratops - Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stegosaurus in popular culture (the best example of how to handle this material) - well referenced and well-written. Carcharoth 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All but merge Dromaesaurids rather than keeping, as per Cartharothasaurus. Mandsford 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - just a few of many WP pages that could use some refs and TLC. - Peregrine Fisher
Merge Brontosaurus in p.c. -> Brontosaurus, delete the rest Aparently Bronotosaurus was a scientific mistake or misnomer that really only "lived" in popular culture, hence merge that one, despite the nom's misgivings because it isn't a species of dinosaur: delete the rest per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles run from trivia to useless. Very few references of value; I see kn reason to keep these as independent articles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dinosaurs in popular culture. Entire books have been written about this, eg [29] and [30], so it is an encyclopedic topic with reliable sources available. Merge the other articles into either Dinosaurs in popular culture or the article about the dinosaur itself. --Bláthnaid 08:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all why on earth...172.191.100.66 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most - I think we should keep all of the above apart from Brontosaurus in popular culture & Dromaeosaurids in popular culture, which should either be merged or deleted. The others are notable enough to stand on their own feet, but as with most pop culture articles, need a lot of work. However, AFD is not a punishment for poor articles - if they're notable enough then they are allowed by policy to stay. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most. Dinosaurs in Pop Culture is relavent, Stegosaurus is well written, and Tyrannosaurus is highly relavent due to its "superstar" status among dinosaurs. (Animal Planet even made a documentary about its pop culture appearences, I think.) I think Brontosaurus would best be merged with the Brontosaurus article, because as has been already said, it never really existed outside of pop culture. K00bine 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most, but merge brontosaurus amd dromaeosaurids. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Tour Bike Trek[edit]

Prod with reason: "Nonnotable bike race; no sources given." Google hits [31]. One source indicates that: "The Lake Tour Bike Trek has raised over 1.5 million dollars throughout its 22 year history with our organization," [32]. Listed here for wider debate. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stephen^1-800-STEVE 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEAKEST of weak keeps, and that's only with some major help. I was going to go with weakest of weak deletes, until I noticed that the ride has write-ups in the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, IL and the American Lung Association of Illinois. Still, I think this needs to be sourced and expanded badly in order to justify it. Sidatio 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I move from neutral to keep as it has been around for 22 years and makes a public claim to be the premier bike ride in the Midwest. SilkTork 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Ok, I'm an idiot, found some sources. Tawker 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse.cx[edit]

Concerns w/ WP:RS and WP:V, I don't see how we are going to source this one with independent sources. Tawker 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx Accurizer 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article was kept just a few weeks ago (with about 50 keep votes and 2 delete votes). --- RockMFR 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my nom. Really, we need to start looking at CZ's model on maintainability, there's no way we can maintain this. -- Tawker 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Not sure what that means, can you point me where to read? Thanks! Accurizer 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the most notable shock site, one of the most notable Internet memes, etc. Seems this was probably spurred by the recent GNAA deletion. However, I believe the chance of finding reliable sources on this one is extremely high. --- RockMFR 03:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so find one - if we can't, time to nuke it -- Tawker 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there are 1,510,000 hits for "goatse" on Google. This is a clear indicator there are reliable sources achievable. It's extremely unlikely that there are no reliable sources throughout 1.5 million pages. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR. This is one of the biggest Internet memes ever. It's not tasteful, but it's notable. --Aaron 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:SK. This was kept- with a very strong consensus- at AfD just one month ago. -- Kicking222 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vemma[edit]

There is no claim of notability. A brief websearch shows that it does not appear to meet criteria listed in WP:CORP. It has been speedily deleted before under criteria WP:CSD#A7. Deli nk 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomFoamParty 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enought WP:RS material independent of Vemma Nutrition Company to build a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Bearian 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 20:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Barnes Football[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jimmy Barnes Football

Procedural nomination. Article recreated after speedy deletion, but there is an assertion of notability, so CSD A7 doesn't apply here. (If kept, the article would certainly require a rename.) Caknuck 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable. --Finngall ^talk 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable college athlete playing for a 1-AA football program, has won no major awards and has no other claim to notability. Caknuck 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had this tagged for speedy, then they added more info that still doesn't satisfy wp:bio. Pharmboy 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think an otherwise unremarkable player on a division 1-AA college football team is inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Gupta[edit]

Bio without notability Joedoedoe 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and article mainly focuses on positions within the company (not a good enough reason to warrant an article). Lacks on references, presumably due to lack of notability. Bungle44 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. I note further that it was created by a single purpose account (vanity anyone?). Bigdaddy1981 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigdaddy, looks like vanity to me. Shalom ^Hello 04:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's Monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The first AfD for this article resulted in a "no consensus" closure. DRV overturned, citing a failure to address the issue of lack of sources and verifiability in the original debate. Delete, per WP:V concerns. Xoloz 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. ITAQALLAH 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Since there's no reviews from verifiable sources in the three years this book has been in print, it seems the chances of writing an informative, sourced, neutral article on this book are pretty slim. Sidatio 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book's author is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". It does not meet the other 4 criterias in WP:BK either. → AA ^(talk) — 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N (specifically WP:BIO). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Schrinner[edit]

This article was incorrectly listed at WP:MfD. Original reason: local government councillor does not qualify as person of note on wikipedia Eraserman22 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) -- kenb215 talk 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Eraserman22
No vote from me. -- kenb215 talk 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, city council member in major city (Brisbane). NawlinWiki 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem Morearty[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to have about 845 Google hits, but no source meets WP:V. Jauerback 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non-NPOV, no sourcing, and nothing from Google (perhaps- perhaps- the Hip Hop Canada article, but that would be it) to show any sort of notability, and even if the main claims in the article are verified, they still wouldn't be enough to pass WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Found a couple of sources in [33], and [34], but they are about gun violence with no reference to his music. It doesn't quite meet notability for me. -- Whpq 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the immortality of the crab[edit]

The result was KEEP. Closing-per WP:DPR#NAC Q ^{T C} 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this AfD Q ^{T C} 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a neologism. This idiom passes the google test. It is also the title of a recent movie by Paolo Agazzi. --evrik ^(talk) 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange . . when I Google it, I only get 190 results. Q ^{T C} 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try 1320 using your terms. --evrik ^(talk) 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You searched on "pensar en la inmortalidad del cangrejo." Because the verb think, pensar, is conjugated, depending on the usage it could be pensar, pensando, etc. Searching only on "la inmortalidad del cangrejo," gives more accurate resultes. --evrik ^(talk) 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Still delete as its not an English neologism, should belong on es not en. Q ^{T C} 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please cite the Wikipedia policy that says this should happen. There is none. --evrik ^(talk) 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There isn't one, but I"m saying introducing a topic on the English wikipedia that practically nobody has heard of was the wrong approach to take. Submitting it to the ES wikipedia where people more knowledgeable and able to apply the policies towards the content. Then, if it passed notability and other policies, bring it to en. I wouldn't goto the Russian Wikipedia to initially start an article on an old Wild West neologism. Q ^{T C} 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and current content doesn't look much like an encyclopedic article to me. That said, if there's a movie... maybe we should have an article on the movie, and there could be a sentence or two explaining the origin of the title as this idiom. Friday (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you suggesting that every entry in Category:English idioms be nominated for deletion? --evrik ^(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, that'd be a bit silly. I'm saying that this article doesn't have much in the way of encyclopedic content. It defines the term. If an encyclopedia article can be written on this topic, by all means, let's have it. Friday (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has as much encyclopedic content as some of the English idionms, such as Green ink or Hail fellow well met. This was listed as a stub. Perhaps if it had been given more than two minutes of existence before being tagged for deletion it would have had a chance to grow. --evrik ^(talk) 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, uncertainly, weakly, and provisionally. Notability exists independent of language; so if important idioms in the English language have encyclopedic articles written about them, so also should notable idioms in foreign languages. Just about all of them will have a literary or folkloric dimension, and can be expanded beyond "a mere dictionary definition." There doesn't seem to be much here yet, but there may be the possibility of more. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I seem to remember having a conversation about this phrase once. Of course, that doesn't make it notable, but as I understand, it comes from something. Can't seem to access the outside link, though - in order to make this a proper article, it will certainly need references. Let's see where this one goes. Sidatio 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deletion. This was weird. Joke-ish articles and vandalism sprees are no good people. If the subject merits an article, let a good one be written with no ulterior motivation. If I could roll my eyes in wikiscript... — Scientizzle 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Berhle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Berhle

I feel bad about this; this is mostly my fault (I encouraged creation of the article as a bit of a joke.) In any case the article subject does not meet notability requirements (qua author, e.g., he has had no book from a major publisher; qua "public figure" just a few interviews here and there.) The article subject himself is very opposed to this page [35], and I think we should also take that into account. Let me suggest to the closing admin that this discussion be courtesy blanked to respect Jim's wishes. Sdedeo (tips) 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) OK, the page has been deleted on its own it seems; move to close. Hopefully this will be the end of the drama. If anyone wants to recreate the page, please contact me first. Sdedeo (tips) 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question here is, is this subject so into the fringes of notability that he can ask for the article to be deleted and we could grant it? I don't know, considering the publications his work has appeared in and the interviews (one with NPR) he has done. I'm going to reserve my vote until other editors can weigh in on this.--Sethacus 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry Jim, but your anti-careerist careerism has caught up with you. It's high time you had a Wikipedia page, and isn't vandalism more interesting than deletion? Of course, it would be nice if they spelled your name right, but that in itself is kinda funny. Poetry cellar 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as violating WP:PLOT and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Hidden Missions[edit]

Delete - in addition to being plot summaries in violation of WP:PLOT, this article is about two missions that were formerly part of a game whose article was deleted in this AFD. It seems odd to have an article about missions deleted from the game when there's no article on the game itself. And of course there are no reliable sources establishing the notability of the deleted games. Otto4711 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the game to which StarCraft Episode I refers to would be StarCraft. What was deleted according to above AfD is only a very detailed storyline and accompanied articles and this article here wasn't properly updated accordingly. I'll do that now, so we can concentrate on the issue (as far as i see it) delete or (slight) merge. --Tikiwont 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into StarCraft: It would be a suitable subsection to the Storyline or Development sections - probably best fitting in Storyline. Sidatio 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a couple of articles were missed when the other SC storyline articles were deleted. A simple sentence or two mentioning them should be put into the StarCraft article, but otherwise delete - these are only notable as a footnote. Besides, nothing links here and it's a basic copy-and-paste from StarCraft Wiki. -- Sabre 09:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE (news, unsourced) - Nabla 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery money[edit]

This is likely a hoax, but I would not say a blatant hoax that can be CSD'd. I think that such dubious claims should require sourcing or should not be on Wikipedia. Until (1 == 2) 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would almost speedy delete it as pure vandalism or nonsense although that might be a bit of a stretch. In any case, has no business on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a hoax. Jauerback 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good thing I didn't CSD it as a blatant hoax. I still think an article with such bold claims needs to be fully sourced though, given the listings in the news that may just be possible. Until (1 == 2) 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems more suited to Wikinews, as it appears to be a solitary incident so far, although one that has caught the attention of Germany, India and New Zealand.--Sethacus 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my comment Actually, this now looks like more than one single instance. I'm torn between having this taken to Wikinews and keeping the article.--Sethacus 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is news and stale news at that. The second part - "Could it be life imitating art?" - is original research. --Malcolmxl5 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuusei Cartwright[edit]

Fictional character in an online game. Looks to likely be a player-character, but it's a bit hard to tell for certain. The article for the game itself makes no mention of the "Truth Saga" that is used to link to the game. No real assertion of notability, let alone verification of such. TexasAndroid 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be some meta game based out of web forums and icq. No reliable soruces and at the very least should be merged into some list of characters for whatever it is that this comes from. -- Whpq 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nachiket's Back[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nachiket's Back

This article talks about a disease, but repeatedly reports that it is "not confirmed".

The only reference it gives points to the landing page of a College, but does not link to any information about the disease. I think even if this is to be an article one day, this is not a good start. I suggest deletion without prejudice against proper recreation. This was originally marked as a speedy deletion, but I could not fit it into the criteria. Until (1 == 2) 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - no verification. I would have bent the criteria and speedied it anyway. Gordonofcartoon 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per Gordonofcartoon. I did csd it but the tag was removed. VTSPOWER 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a csd'able article. The nonsense tag is for gibberish, not for poor writing. Until (1 == 2) 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Although not gibberish, it's still total garbage. Gordonofcartoon 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can become an admin and be bold with CSD, but be ready to spend a lot of time at WP:DRV. "Garbage" is not a CSD reason. Until (1 == 2) 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins frequently speedy obvious hoaxes and other nonsense. Your bringing it to AFD is just time-wasting. Gordonofcartoon 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in popular culture

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Seeks to capture every reference to the film or a character or a line or something that may or may in the opinion of whoever spotted it resemble something related to the film. Tells us nothing about the film or the fiction from which the references are drawn. Otto4711 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia collection. --Eyrian 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. I need not say more. -- Kicking222 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOU DELETE YOU KEEP NOTHING. GOOD DAY SIR! Will ^(talk) 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content in a prose format with the main article and redirect. If this is not accomplished, then delete as listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I enjoyed Sceptre's comment. Yes, we all loved the movie. This type of IPC is a collection of lame references to three classic versions of a modern day fairy tale. Mandsford 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep by means of consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Fails WP:ORG by all information that was available to me. The very extensive article cites only one source (which I don't have access to unfortunately), and it is not clear whether this one is independent. The most detailed account I found on the Web is this, which is not quite enough for an encyclopedia article. (It's more or less a summary of their catalogue.) Expert review request to WikiProject Caribbean turned up nothing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a country's national archives and a major government agency - surely this is notable! Government agencies are almost always considered inherently notable, which I guess is why they are not mentioned in WP:ORG. The United Nations agency UNESCO considers the Eric Williams and Derek Walcott Collections at NAT&T to be of worldwide significance.[36]. The article is under referenced I agree, cut out the unreferenced parts, but I don't agree it needs deletion, and a lack of response from the Caribbean WikiProject is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Government organizations, just as any other organizations, would need independent sources to be considered notable. I think that should apply in particular if they're as large as 20-30 employees. Within the last half a year, nobody has found such sources. The collections you name are with the University of the West Indies, not with the National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago, for all I read from the linked texts? --B. Wolterding 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, the links on that page are broken. You're right about the Walcott Collection, but the Eric Williams Collection is partly held at the National Archives.[37] While the existing reference (written by a staff member of the archives) might not be considered independent according to the letter of the essay WP:INDY, I doubt that is the spirit of the essay's intention (use of promotional homepages as references). I believe this subject is inherently notable, and that the article history should at least be retained so that future verification of the information is possible. --Canley 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a nation's national archives not be notable? Nick mallory 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. I find it impossible to believe that Wikipedia would delete an article about the most central repository of primary documents for an entire nation. That said, a few more references (preferably line-item citations) are certainly called for. Only one reference is extremely poor form. -Markeer 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a country's national archives are by default notable. Corvus cornix 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national government entities are presumably notable. For smaller nations and non-English speaking nations we should also consider that online sources will be necessarily slim; see WP:CSB. Given time such articles are sourceable, because the country (and its institutions) aren't going anywhere. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. --Targeman 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The article is pretty useless, even as a disambig. Also see previous discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/June_2006#12:00_.E2.86.92_hour and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12:00 (disambiguation). Sr13 is almost Singu larity 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12:00[edit]

This particular time of day isn't notable (per ((PROD)), not mine, removed by principle author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in this article not already covered in / or could not be covered by Noon and / or Midnight. Pedro | Chat 13:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete Per above. 12:00 is a duplicate entry. Tomj 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to noon or midnight. You can't redirect it to both, now can you. 4.235.135.125 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig "12:00 may refer to: Noon or Midnight."--Old Hoss 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment or to a time interval of 12 minutes or 12 hours. But the time is not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed this page to a disambig per Old hoss' suggestion. If someone wants to close this AfD, they may. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. We've gained a whole lot of articles on numbers recently, and they serve no purpose. --

HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Does anyone have to look at an encyclopedia to find out what 12:00 means? Mandsford 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian martial arts in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another laundry list trivia dump directory of random examples of Indian martial arts or weaponry or things that look like they might be based in some fashion on some aspect of same. Tells us nothing about Indian martial arts, the fiction from which the examples are drawn, the topic of "Indian martial arts in popular culture" or the real world. Oppose merging any of this trivia into any other article. Otto4711 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "In popular culture" article of lesser importance that violates WP:NOT#DIR. Tomj 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia collection. --Eyrian 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robonad[edit]

The result was Article was Speeedy Deleted - non admin closure of debate. Pedro | Chat 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to page author this person is notable, yet receives only 19 hits in Google, and in all of the references cites, the name Robonad is not found in any of the Indexes. Q ^{T C} 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy-delete. Obvious hoax by a vandal. I've speedied it a few times myself. Haukur 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I think I'll just go and speedy it again. No need to have this picked up by the mirrors. Haukur 13:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, discussion irrelevant now that game has been announced. Thue | talk 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrath of the Lich King[edit]

Complete Speculation, not a single reference Q ^{T C} 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cited by a reliable source. If the authors are confused, "A gaming site said they were told by someone anonymous" is not a reliable source. -Markeer 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added link to recently filed USPTO trademark applications for use of the name in conjunction with a Blizzard Video Game and other property. Also will locate link to USK showing application for game rating, assuming it has not been removed for confidentiality reasons pending the announcement tomorrow. --Shinji008 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I know, a trademark application can't be used as proof of anything, particularly of a future brand. Large companies regularly apply for dozens of trademarks simply to guarantee they will be available if they decide to use them. However, that's neither here nor there, the problem with this sort of article is why wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's entirely possible that Blizzard Entertainment intends to release this expansion with this name, but between now and then a great many things can happen that will change. Vivendi (Blizzard's parent company) can sell Blizzard to someone else that will want to change directions. Blizzard itself will undoubtedly do market research for the next 6 months and may decide a simpler name will sell better (e.g. "World of Warcraft: Northend" or what have you). Nothing is set in stone. ~~and from the weak citations in this article it appears that nothing official has been reported by either Blizzard or a reputable secondary source.~~ -Markeer 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point outt hat it would appear that effort is being made, by the removal of tags, to conceal this AfD on the article's page, thereby heavily weighting "voting" towards the deletionist cause. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
- Said tags have been readded. It seems to have been a mistake. -- Jelly Soup 09:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The tags are likely being removed because the expansion was officially announced today. The German information was correct.
Keep release was just announced today at blizzcon
Keep Release was just announced at Blizzcon, so reputable sources should be available within a day. Jpers36 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I'll wait on sources, but can I ask how this addresses the underlying problem of crystal balling? As I mentioned above, an announcement is not a release. Beyond that, my next concern would be why a separate article is needed for this announcement? Couldn't a line simply be added to the main World of Warcraft article? After all, until at least open beta (i.e. when any NDA's end), no real information would be possible beyond announced statements-of-intent. Just trying to prevent yet one more article fueled more by enthusiasm than encyclopedic value. -Markeer 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it mostly depends on how much is divulged by Blizzard. If the company states, "The upcoming expansion will be Wrath of the Lich King, but we don't have a release date or any further details yet," insertion into World of Warcraft is probably the way to go. On the other hand, if Blizzard provides significant details, such as release date, level cap, races, jobs, storylines, or dungeons, I think that would justify a separate article. Jpers36 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Full info :- [38] and here [39]. --SkyWalker 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep [40] Tyro 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Completely confirmed, the Blizzard website should be updated to confirm this very soon. The article also deserves to exist because many things are known about the game that would not do well in the main page. Things such as the new hero class were announced that would be better suited in an article that is separate from the main one. Thylacine222 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep announced today i'm sure full infomation will be out and citeable later today and over the weekend. They have already confirmed the level cap increase, new craft trade, and a new class. harlock_jds 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If you're going to have a page for the Burning Crusade, there's no reason to not have a page for Wrath of the Lich King. Blizzard already has a full webpage up: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/wrath/ - 76.182.47.9
Speedy Keep Reference now given, see links above. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been announced. --Pcj 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE (POV[?] fork of an existing article) - I'll keep a copy of it at Talk:Tyne-Wear derby/History of the Tyne-Wear Derby for a week or so, so that merging anything usefull is possible. - Nabla 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Tyne-Wear Derby[edit]

To start with, there's no article called "Tyne-Wear Derby", nor does the article define what this might be (it appears to mean the football rivalry between Newcastle United F.C. and Sunderland A.F.C.). The sources quoted mention a generic rivalry between the cities in passing, and from this weak basis a "derby" between the two neighbouring cities is hypothesized. It thus violates WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Note that I have also proposed the deletion of the similar Tyne-Wear rivalry. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article Tyne-Wear derby does exist (it's a real term used in UK media football coverage [41]). But this is not its history, and appears to be OR using sources to bolster an original analysis of the origins of Tyne-Wear rivalry. Gordonofcartoon 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Games in Ultimate Nintendo DS Cheats Codes & Secrets[edit]

Listcruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of.... -- Jelly Soup 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline spam, too Will ^(talk) 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Online_leaks_and_early_delivery Already adequately covered there. May be notable in future, if offender is tracked down. ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet Book[edit]

Pottercruft - even the first line shoots itself in the foot. Will ^(talk) 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The leak of the biggest book release in recent history is relevant. This is sure to develop as the investigation continues. -cruft is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Nominator does not cite a valid policy reason to delete. Vodak 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete has no notability, yet. If Canon does manage to track down the person that did this, it will probably have enough notability to be merged to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. --Longing.... 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into spoilers section in HP7 article or Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series -- Jelly Soup 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not sure how copyfree that picture is either WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Gscshoyru 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge. The topic is already amply covered in the article for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
Keep. Legitimate news. Doovinator 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its legitimacy isn't the issue. The issue is whether this story—one of many connected with the book—merits its own article. The Deathly Hallows article already covers this story, along with many others connected with the release. Marc Shepherd 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any content here Recurring dreams 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. If this issue can be broadened to fit the topic in the article (i.e. give more examples of how there were leaks of the book, etc.), then this page is worth keeping (possibly with a different title. If this is not done within a reasonable amount of time, then just merge it with the main article. Jared (t) 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This article has hardly info that the Deathly Hallows article doesn't cover and this situation isn't notable to have it's own article either. Almost every book has early accidental releases, apperently the Harry Potter series is no exception. There is no reason to keep this article. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to the Deathly Hallow article. Or not. --Tony Sidaway 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. –sebi 09:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarthy (director)[edit]

Delete: Thoroughly non-notable. UncleAlfred 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 7 Emmy noms and 1 win per IMDB[42], appears in Alex Trebek's book[43] and accompanying DVD[44]. Wl219 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nominated for an Emmy EVERY YEAR since 1999! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BIO/WP:N. Place on cleanup. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs cleanup and expansion badly, and the article needs to assert notability such as the Emmy awards. I'll do some work on it now, but please remember AfD is not cleanup, and it takes a few minutes to check notability on Google. --Canley 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above contra nom/UncleAlfred, and per WP:HEY can be expanded. It asserts obvious notability, see W1219. Bearian 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete Acalamari 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday brunch club[edit]

Not a notable club. Tagged for speedy deletion but creator keeps deleting the speedy tag. So I'm taking it here instead TexMurphy 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete classic A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Targeman 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, clearly. Andrew, aren't you an admin? Can't you just take care of this one? -- Kicking222 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, I've tagged it. Hut 8.5 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Ukrainians[edit]

Non notable pseudoscientific theory. The article attempts to prop up with questionable sources unscientific and blatantly anti-Ukrainian theory. Most of the sources used to support this invention are either from known Russian nationalists with anti-Ukrainian tendencies, like Nikolay Ulyanov or from fringe Ukrainian writers, who have never been taken seriously. This theory is actively used by Russian nationalists in an attempt to negate the very existence of Ukrainians as a separate people and has never been used by any serious scholars. This rabidly anti-Ukrainian and xenophobic article should not be in Wikipedia. --Hillock65 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable nonsense. Nick mallory 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subtly worded racism perhaps. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 12:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nasty pseudoscience. On second thought, I'll withdraw this comment. It's true that one hears this stuff from some strange quarters, but it might be possible to write about this phenomenon within the article, and the phenomenon itself might be notable, if not exactly scientifically rigorous. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the theory of "Proto-Ukrainians" is a Ukrainian concept, not Russian, so it is a disservice done by Ukrainians to themselves and not an expression of Russian racism toward them. It is in fact no different from Japanese Nihonjinron, Nazi Aryanism, Jewish Chosenness, etc., etc., ad nauseam - junk-science inventions by nationalists seeking any kind of "proof" of their people's superiority. The question remains whether the "Proto-Ukrainian" concept has ever been (or is still) a staple of right-wing rhetoric in the Ukraine. I don't know, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss the theory as not notable. I suggest inviting editors familiar with the region to express their opinion. --Targeman 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a maveric theory of a couple of obscure and absolutely unimportant Ukrainian writers. The mere fact that it appeared in the form of an article is that it is blown out of proportion as something that has ever been considered seriously. It never has. Unlike Aryanism or Chosenness, which were accepted by substantial number of people in those respective societies, this one remained on the fringes forever. Should every maverick and outlandish theiory of German or English writers be given such prominence? I am sure there are plenty of those. This fringe theory has been very actively adopted by Russian nationalists instead. The mere name of nationalist-Ukrainophobe Ulyanov at the top of the references list speaks volumes. Let me illustrate: Google gives only 6 hits of this Ukrainian word[45](one of which is this article) and 7,760 (!) hits of its Russian equivalent[46]. If it was notable, and not used to put down Ukrainians should it be the other way around? You be the judge. The only place for theories like these in Ukrainophobia or Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, none of which exist at this time. --Hillock65 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may very well be right. However, I'm not that sure Google is helpful here - most of these nationalist theories were en vogue in the 19th century. They may have been forgotten for a hundred years and totally obscure for the average Russian or Ukrainian nowadays, but if they were notable in the 19th century, they still should have an article. Again, I have no idea, I'm just throwing in my two cents from a researcher's point of view. --Targeman 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important, albeit weird, issue in Russian-Ukrainian relations. Maybe it can be merged into Ukrainization and maybe sources should be better checked, but this certainly should not be deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles should present neutral view.Ans-mo 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Hillock65 and others --AS ^sa 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the strangeness, inaccuracy or offensiveness of a theory are not criteria for deletion (although there may be others for this particular weird fringe theory). Bigdaddy1981 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a typical attack page. The neologism Proto-Ukr (протоукри) has been introduced in marginal Russian nationalist circles and is used almost exclusively only in blogs, chatrooms as another derogative word in relation to Ukrainians. If ofther ethnic slurs, like Khokhol is wide spread in Russia, Proto-Ukr is used far less by some bloggers. There are no theories of "Ukrainian Romantic Nationalism" where this termin has ever been used. See serch in Google in Ukrainian [47] - 2 in Wikipedia and 3 blogs. In Russian 152 link exclusively only in blogs and forums. See Протоукры снова отжигают Протоукры переводят интернет на протоукрский: (please translate)

Протоукры переводят интернет на протоукрский. Есть такой искусственный язык, украинский. В википедийной статье много написано, а по простому он - искусственного происхождения (холопы были вынуждены говорить с панами, вот и общались на причудливой смеси польского и русского, т.е. это - язык рабов), и никто толком (кроме какой-нибудь Леси Украинки и Тараса Шевченко) на нем ничего не писал. К счастью, это язык потихоньку исчезал после освобождения от пользского владычества, но со времени возникновения СССР, и особенно после его, СССР, гибели, вновь поднял свою голову.

Proto-Ukainians translate Internet into Proto-Ukrainian. There is such an artificial language as Ukrainian. There is a lot written in the Wikipedia article, but simply put - it is of artificial origin (serfs had to talk with masters, so they spoke this strange mixture of Russian and Polish, so this is the language of slaves) and no one (apart from Lesia Ukrainka and Taras Shevchenko) wrote anything in it. Fortunately, this language was gradually disappearing after the liberation from Poland, but as the USSR stoop up and especially when it broke up, it again raised its head. Translated by me --Hillock65 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I believe this article should be deleted as an unimportant neologism, Wikipedia:original research and attack page. --Yakudza 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also request to remove the obvious vote-staking by the attitudes of Ukrainian wikipedia. The same one that lists EU and NATO as part of the Ukrainian history, despite that Ukraine is neither a member of those organisation and has never been (talk about Historical knowledge there...sigh) --Kuban Cossack 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does NATO and EU have to do with the topic of this AfD? --Hillock65 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, author of the article did some fabrications. Namely, the term "Proto-Ukrs" ("прото-укри" or "протоукри" in Ukrainian) is absent in the biggest cited source which is "П.Кононенко. Українознавство" (I had used automatic search in all parts). More over, author of the cited work did not use the term "Proto-Ukrainian Theory" in any case; so the placement of this source in correspondent part of discussed article is again a pure fabrication. Secondly, the concept itself was introduced by purely non-scientific community and is hardly used now by opinionated anti-ukranian nationalists (mainly in Russia), but it's not in usage in Ukraine: examples provided above by Yakudza. And the most important point: there are a lot of weird hoaxes in the Russian or any other public culture; but their publication contradicts WP:SOAPS and WP:Not Original Thought --Shao 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles for Flat Earth and Hollow moon. This theory can be listed. --TAG 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like some of the Ukrainain nationalists are way too sensitive. It is bullshit, but it is sources bullshit. :) Odessaukrain 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neutral sourced description of a fringe theory Alex Bakharev 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex. Possibly move and merge into some larger related fringe theory. The word appears in Western academic prints, ex. here (alongside 'proto-Russians'). PS. If there are modern academic views this term is pseudoscientific or anti-Ukrainian, please reference them in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes it's a fringe theory, but it's clearly presented as such. Since the term itself is notable, it should be kept. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

This article is named Proto-Ukrainians. That means the article should be about those who lived before (proto) the Ukrainians on the territory of the modern Ukraine. It should include the information about all ethnic groups from the ancient times to the middle of the 16-17 century when the Ukranians, a new European nation, was formed. But the present Proto-Ukrainians article lacks that kind of information and is focused only on pseudo-scientific Ukr-hoax. (the term proto-ukranians can be used and is used in academia as well as other terms of that kinds like proto-Japanese, proto-European, Proto-German, proto-Armenian ect. Such terms have no "national" sence.) So in the article Proto-Ukrainians we have just speculations about the term, but not the article about the term.
This article speculates on intentional mix of two terms: scientific Proto-Ukranians and pseoudo-scientific Proto-Ukrs. The first one is used by archeologist and ethnologists. The latter one is a idea of numsmatist Chacki (not ethnologist). The article is written on the basis of the later, so I doulbt whether it should be in Wikipedia (Should be write articles about what do the hockey players thinks about the origin of aikido phylosophy or what do the reserchers in physics think about the paining technique?..)
The article deals not with a theory but hypothesis (assumptions, suggestions). It has no theoretical base no evidence. I think, wikipedia is not a proper place for such stuff. The links and sources that are indicated in the artilce are not academic and has no revalance for Wikipedia. Such hoaxfull formation can can be merge with "Ukranian nationalism" article, but the existence of a separete topic seems to be an original research...

--Alex Kov 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the mastermind behind Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard I don't dispute that the idea of proto-Ukrainianism is a fringe theory, but the article explicitly qualifies it as such. It does not involve any fringecruft-pushing. This bad-faith nomination of an elaborately referenced text was engineered from Ukrainian Wikipedia after they failed to have the equivalent Russian Wikipedia page deleted. The nationalist comments above fail to impress me, as does incivil campaigning in English Wikipedia. As per WP:CANVAS, I expect more votes from accounts based in Ukrainian Wikipedia, but I also expect the closing admin to reflect that this is not a vote and that only the arguments do matter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Off-wiki canvassing demonstrated above is dissapointing but that aside, the article is about a notable theory, not about the origin of Ukrainians. The article clearly states that the theory is a fringe one but the theory is notable enough for the article if there is anyone interested to write it. Far earlier than this article I read some work signed by some Doctor of Science from some Lviv institution pushing this theory as a serious one. I laughed a lot from the claim that Sanskrit, according to the author, originated from the Ukrainian language (not the other way around.) I would not object to renaming it to "Proto-Ukrainian theory" but I think it is good as is, since it clearly states that this is an article about the theory only. --Irpen 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reasonably covered fringe theory. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: national origin stories whether characterized as "myth" or "romantic nationalism" or "fringe" or "theory" where sourced as to its existence, as it is here they are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming analogies[edit]

Non-notable and POV fork. Consists of a collection of analogies used by some global warming skeptics. This material was taken [48] from Global warming controversy, where it was recently shortened [49] to a single sentence due to non-notability, as discussed on that article's talk (see discussion near bottom of this section). Nethgirb 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concept is clearly notable. A google search for "global warming" and "religion" alone gets 5.5m hits. There's no reason why we can't include analogies made by supporters of the theory as well. Iceage77 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. In response to Iceage77, a search for "global warming" and "religion" does not demonstrate notability of this much more specific topic. --Nethgirb 11:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this topic is more general not more specific. It permits inclusion of other analogies in addition to religion. Iceage77 11:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV-fork, redundant material, just a collection of arbitrary information.-Wafulz 12:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Delete per above or merge into a related Global Warming article if material is considered desirable. Personally it seems arbitrary info to me. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is far more relevant to the subject of global warming than the section in the Global Warming Controversy article about passive smoking. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that it is notable? The section on passive smoking is more notable because there are concrete connections in terms of involved persons, funding, and organizations. --Nethgirb 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This type of argument is specifically listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions -- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Raymond Arritt 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (i) Textbook example of a WP:POVFORK. (ii) Per Wafulz, disparate information is collected under a neologism. A search for "global warming analogies" returns precisely two (2) hits, one referring to "Changing Climates for Microsoft and Google" and the other having something to do with hiking. Raymond Arritt 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POVFORK. What next?... Global warming apartheid? --Victor falk 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is really interesting: it's essentially a list of slurs directed at a scientific theory, and presented as though they were valid in the encyclopedical sense. If you pardon the ~~pun~~analogy, I would liken it to an article titled Scientific description of the savage race and filled with quote mine material such as "Doctor This andThis of Foobarfton University has determined that the members of the savage race can be compared to dogs, as both have hearts and are unpleasant to a civilised human's eye."

Why do I call them slurs? Because that's how the title frames them. All the bulletpoints must be comparisons to nasty things, without substance. If a proposed entry wouldn't be a comparison, the title would prohibit its exclusion. If it's not a nasty thing, nobody would be interested in including it. If substance would be available, it would go to a criticism page, such as Global warming controversy.

An entry such as "Michael Crichton has compared the theory to eugenics" would be unthinkable in a criticism page or a section, yet it feels itself right at home at this "analogies" page.

This is a great propaganda work and I'll be saving it for my personal collection, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Digwuren 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork bilge. Bigdaddy1981 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. A good collection of analogies, but hardly an article worthy of Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork JQ 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Global warming controversy (or should I say re-merge, as it was wrongly deleted there after the pro-global warming side lost their case about keeping the evolution stuff in this article). --Childhood's End 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I think you'll find that sort of pigeonholing of the editors is inaccurate and irrelevant.) Can you support your implication that this material is notable? --Nethgirb 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Childhood's End's comment about "re-merging" with Global warming controversy on the grounds that "it was wrongly deleted from that article" speaks volumes: this article is a POV-Fork. I would suggest that Iceage go back to the Global warming controversy page and edit that page. The analogies that have been made by Lindzen et al. can be mentioned in that article, as it is not off-topic for that article provided you stick to the usual wiki rules. Count Iblis 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Scientific consensus" This article appears to be a list of criticisms of using scientific consensus for policymaking. It's quite similar to the discussion at Scientific consensus#Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making, which already discusses global warming. This is essentially a list of cases in which an one scientific consensus was later replaced by a new scientific consensus and could be usefully incorporated into the scientific consensus article. -Fagles 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have currently two climate change articles on AfD: Climate change denial and Global warming analogies. Several days into the discussions, five editors have commented on both. Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other – what they didn't agree on is which article is a hopeless POV fork and which one provides valuable information on a clearly notable concept. Not that amazing maybe, but still quite remarkable. – I found both articles interesting and mostly well sourced. Documenting various aspects and details of one of the defining controversies of the early 21st century is not POV pushing; trying to exclude well documented, notable POVs from Wikipedia just because we happen to disagree with them, on the other hand, is. Unfortunately, global warming controversy weighs in at over 100 KB already and it's bound to grow, so rather than bickering about alleged POV forks, maybe we should think about a sensible way to split that article instead. Rl 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other". This claim is incorrect. I voted to delete this, and to merge Climate change denial into global warming controversy. I wasn't alone.JQ 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IIRC my tally didn't include you (sorry, oversight), but your comment is of course correct. What I should have said is that "each and every one wanted to keep the content of one and delete the other". That doesn't change the fact that these two supposedly NPOV AfD !votes look suspiciously like voting along party lines. Rl 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's happening on other articles is not really relevant. Why is this material notable enough for a full article? --Nethgirb 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It becomes relevant if two related AfDs show a pattern of serious WP:IDONTLIKEIT – quite frankly, I didn't care much for either article until I had seen both AfDs. I don't think this material is notable enough for a full article, but those bits that are well sourced seem notable enough to be documented, and global warming controversy is too long already. That's the dilemma, and I don't purport to have solved it. Rl 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the antidote to a pattern of bias is to look at the arguments, rather than how the editors are voting. See also WP:ALLORNOTHING. But actually, FYI, the material was not completely removed from global warming controversy—it was reduced down to a single sentence with the sources cited so people can read more if they wish (see the end of this section). Perhaps that's a solution to the dilemma. --Nethgirb 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Bias is a potential issue; you might try excluding the votes from editors who are involved in GW articles. By my (possibly imperfect) tally that leaves for this article 5 votes for delete, 1 for delete or merge, 1 for merge, and 0 for keep. --Nethgirb 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research as sources cited don't refer to any of the other analogies; if this were allowed we could have a multitude of Soccer analogies, Wine analogies, etc. Also, it's a POV fork. ←Ben^B4 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as nom sez, it was cut from GWC for good reasons and shouldn't be recreated here William M. Connolley 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Bros. Dojo[edit]

Seems to be new non-notable website that doesn't quite meet CSD criteria but none the less doesn't meet the criteria of a wikipedia article either. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. As written, this meets CSD A7, as it fails to assert the notability of its subject. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((db-web)). --Evb-wiki 11:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7/web content. No objection to linking to it from the main SSBB article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable outside of releasing information about a single game. DurinsBane87 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom & all above. --Targeman 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD G11 obvious advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Wide Investigation Services[edit]

Article seems to be nothing more than an advertisment. It seems to be copied from some sort of official website of the company in question and even at the end of the page it provides contact info. Not salvagable as an article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising, so tagged now. --Targeman 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-hardcore gamer[edit]

Article seems to be a made up term, combination of two prefixes to make some sort of neologism, possibily not even notable enough to be a neologism, poosibly a made up term. Google turns up little-nothing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardcore gamer and casual gamer are actual marketing segments recognized by the industry (and the articles fail to reflect this as well as they should). This is just something made up at a clan meet for people who took the division in the market too seriously. These were not terms that gamers initially used to separate themselves, they were made up by people trying to figure out how to sell games, then popularized when the gaming press wrote about them. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-hardcore gamer really is a category of gamer. They can't be hardcore because they're casual session wise. They can't be causal because they have too many games and high end hardware. Why is this being deleted? My IGN Collection is proof this type of gamer does exist. Plus I cant' be hardcore, because my blog entries on gaming aren't popular and I can't communicate well with true hardcore gamers. Renegadeviking 4:59 AM August 1st, 2007

If you're being serious, Then the article doesn't meet several guidelines and has several problems.

1.Not notable.

2.Original research.

3.Neologism.

4.No reliable sources.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relayable source Do you see any reply comments on my [blog? How about you look up RenegadevikingPS3 on PS3forums.com and see how many actual replies he gets? renegadeviking

Blogs and forums are not classed as reliable sources (see WP:SPS). Magazine articles, news stories, marketing reports and the like are reliable, and if we had several of these showing the term is used to describe a distinct demographic of gamer there wouldn't be a problem, but chitter-chatter on UGC sites is not proof of anything. Delete per nom - unverifiable neologism, and the article as it stands reads like WP:NFT material. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right... this smells a lot like vanity for starters as it's written by, referencing and untimately supported by a single user. But crucially, as per nom, it is a non-notable term referencing defined marketing terms... whether or not the term "hardcore" can be measured (which is another discussion entirely). So that would be a Delete from myself. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my game collection. I have 580 - 600 games I'm the one who typed this up. I know this sounds brizzare, but they hate me because I'm American. All the british people are popular. I've played the five most popular games for every platform. This happens to only me as far as I konw! It's crazy. renegadeviking

Yep, and that's a problem, for the reasons the nominator has posted. If you have issues about other people on another website, this isn't the place for them. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree also to delete this. It's clearly just a made-up term, not very important. Just about everything can be semi, why make an article especially for semi-hardcore gamer? Inks002 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. I do not have issues with this site. People don't comment on my blog! WTF. I don't get it? I'm not in control! WTF. How do you expect me to be in control of replies? People for some reason (perhaps beyond my comprehension) will not reply to me on forums or my blog. And it's really hard to find people who'll give a shit about my opinion in the gaming industry! Maybe a better catagory would be unpopular hardcore gamer. Renegadevikings

Wikipedia is not the place to bring your grievances about activities in other online communities. This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a myspace user. I am trying to be a part of a community and it makes me mad that hardcore gamer is a very strange term for me to be categorized in, because I can't afford to not work and play games all the time. My living style prevents me from being a genius at cutting edge videogame knowledge even if i have a most brilliant game selection by reviewer score at home. I have the highest IGN reviewer score with the amount I have. It's a 8.7, but was 8.8 only 5 games eariler. Renegadevikings

I mean that in the sense that you are using Wikipedia like MySpace to write about yourself. You have provided nothing to suggest this term is anything other than a group you invented to put yourself in. Do professional journalists use the term? Do marketers use the term? Can you provide proof they do? If not, the article cannot be kept. Your blog and game collection is only proof that you use the term, not the games industry, its marketers or its press. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google semi-hardcore gamer and you'll come up with 3 pgs to prove I didn't invent the term and that I'm not the only one with these issues. Renegadeviking

Almost all of them blogs and forums, and those that aren't merely use it in passing as a self-description. That doesn't make it an identified demographic, nor does it make the usage of the term widespread, notable or verifiable. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nonsensical unsourced neologism Will ^(talk) 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator seems not to have a stable grasp on most wikipolicies. this along with several other articles he's created fail most of those policys and guidelines miserably. DurinsBane87 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. -- Jelly Soup 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's end this. ~~Speedy~~ delete ~~under A7~~ WP:OR, WP:V. It's not vain anymore, but there's still little hope for an encyclopedic article with no reliable sources on a dubious term. Sidatio 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (edited by Sidatio 15:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per Sidatio. --Targeman 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as vanity article, neologism. Possibly someone could take Renegadevikings aside and explain that this isn't Myspace and works under a slightly different set of rules and customs. RGTraynor 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a encyclopedia. It will NEVER MATCH THE QUALITY OF Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's a public domain mess stating European biased shit. It's a good information site for videogames though. No American institution will use wikipedia as a source because it's so low quality. It will never have that sort of quality as long as it's open so why talk like it is one. renegadeviking

Comment: All right, renegadeviking - settle down. You're taking this FAR too personally. Wikipedia has guidelines in regards to its articles, and this one simply doesn't add up. Is Wikipedia the most factual reference in all of existence? Of course not. Is it of "so low quality" that "no American institution will use Wikipedia as a source"? Ask the Daily Illini. Just because one of your articles fails to measure up to standards doesn't mean you should go on a rant against the joint. It certainly doesn't help you here!

Read the five pillars, check out the guidelines, and silence your critics by creating great articles. It's the best possible advice I can give to you. Best of luck! Sidatio 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a rant! You're comparing my article with myspace! The only reason why my friends are on myspace is their friends are on myspace and they don't talk to me...get it? Plus, I was going to build it up through-out the day, but I got a delete message in five minutes after I summited it so now I'm fighting to keep it here. Now if you back off for a day and let me improve it...i will. I want it because I know there is a middle category. I hear "semi-hardcore gamer" at Game Stop. PS3forums are a bunch of wusses and won't come on here, because they hate me. Actually, PS3forums members think their too elite/smart to come on here. They wouldn't dare chance their stupid little credibility on here. I would.

Rasmussen College of Lake Elmo, MN will not use it as a source and neither would Renessiance Academy of River Falls, Wisconsin so I guess "American Institution" means "Instution of Learning" which is what a encyclopedia is used for these days Renegadeviking.

Wow, this is getting a little too contentious for my taste. The Daily Illini is the newspaper of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You may also want to see the school and university project page here. Of course, this is so far off topic that we might as well be discussing politics. Why not put your energies into article creation instead of defending what is little more than a vanity page and doing your best to alienate yourself from people who are trying to help you out here? Sidatio 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Beyond that, a Google search for this alleged widely spread neologism returns a paltry 38 unique hits [50], each and every one of them from a blog or a forum post. Unfortunately, while I sympathize with the creator's professed unpopularity, that doesn't excuse the need for reliable sources. None have yet been supplied. RGTraynor 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Starts off badly ("A Semi-hardcore gamer is the unofficial name...", A neologism then) then continues with original research, plugs an unimportant user page on IGN (not exactly a reliable source), uses inappropriate tone (WP:TONE) and provides no other sources (WP:V). Marasmusine 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Questionable resources in intro and rest seems to be made up. Seems like a vanity article. --DanielCD 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Shalom ^Hello 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Kazmi[edit]

Was tagged for speedy. Whilst the appearance on Tonight Show with Jay Leno is possibly trivial, the claim that the subject played for "England Cricket National team" is some kind of assertion of importance. Reading the paragraph, it is possibly only in the context of some kind of internet game. However, these statements on his sporting career are unreferenced. Marasmusine 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can assure you that nobody called Imran Kazmi has ever appeared for the England test team alongside K.P. and Monty as claimed in this article. He was not bowled first ball by Murali on his test debut or 'sacked by England the next day'. It's a video game joke. This is all a load of nonsense. Nick mallory 10:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as WP:Complete bollocks. He has never played cricket for England, one of the references describes Imran Khan, another doesn't refer to the subject in any way. The whole article (or at least the parts which claim notability) is a hoax. Iain99 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Iain99. Clicketyclack 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Iain99 Cornell Rockey 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as the original speedy-tagger. Unsourced fictional vanity article. --Finngall ^talk 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax/nonsense. No such person has played for England (though if he had, his notability would not be in doubt). Casperonline 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin care products[edit]

Article is in bad shape. Seems to be hodgepodge of various info without much of a context. No sources, no references... Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say weak keep, but I'm not seeing anything salvageable in the article as it is. Iotha 09:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you must be kidding "Only (brand removed) skincare is clinically proven to", "ingredients are then delivered deep within the skin using a patented Time-Release Microsphere Delivery System", "The result is healthy, radiant and glowing skin—for life.". Speedy delete blatant spam -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 as blatant marketing guff (it may also be a copyright violation, as it reads like copy-paste from promotional material), though personally I can see no harm in turning it into a redirect to Category:Skin care per the similar redirect at skin care. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 Will ^(talk) 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted as unencylopedic and soapbox material ~ Riana ⁂ 09:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEMOCRACY AND MOB RULE[edit]

Article seems to be some sort of essay. Impossible to turn into any article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edugamement[edit]

Non notable neologism. The article traces a few uses but there are few Ghits and no secondary sources which would justify an inclusion per Articles on neologisms. Tikiwont 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable. Iotha 08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a non-notable neologism. --Haemo 08:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Only 33 Ghits in English, mostly wikis. Bearian 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [51] for my data. Bearian 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grid Computing in Kathmandu University[edit]

Article is mainly a syllabus of a project that is currently non-notable. Majority of article's content should be incorporated into grid computing and computer cluster. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete large portions of this article seem to consist of copy-and-paste from the university website (Google cache) and this page, making this a copyright violation. Given that the university website links to the Wikipedia article I think students are using this page as part of the course. Hut 8.5 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio contents could be removed without speedy, but the article is not of any value. DGG (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenardo Da Vinci 1452[edit]

As far as I can see, this article is a hoax - aside from the poor spelling in the title, I can find no reference to this television programme elsewhere on the internet. User who created article is known to have faked content in the past. _TheIslander 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A google search shows up no hits for this article. As far as I am concerned, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. It could very well be a hoax as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of this show on the UTV website, which the article purports the show was broadcast on. Iotha 09:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((db-nocontext)). --Evb-wiki 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Point Hairpin Turn[edit]

Place does not appear to be notable and is unreferenced. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a pointless entry. Anarchia 08:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article fails notability test. A google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable. I find myself amused by the statement "It is notorious for wearing brakes out," as its claim to notability. Iotha 09:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article doesn't make a case for its notability, or for the road's notability in general. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar uz Zaman Khan[edit]

Unsourced article about a living person from Pakistan; violates WP:BLP and fails WP:BIO. Expert review request to WikiProject Pakistan did not yield any results. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The PTUDC (misspelled in article) fails to list him on their website. (A site search verifies he's in the party.) No real hits on either of the two English-language dailies in Pakistan that are online, Dawn and the Daily Times. --Dhartung | Talk 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. "they are going to be a large band very soon"? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Kurykh 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late of the Pier[edit]

No assertion of notability; would appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music). Oli Filth 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article seems promotional in intent. They don't seem very notable, but looking them up on last.fm reveals that they do seem to have a small following. Iotha 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom do not appear notable Harlowraman 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted at all. they are going to be a large band very soon. just you wait.

Also another reason for not deleting this; They have succsesfully got number one positions in unsigned myspace english music charts for the genre Latin, Glam and Thrash. thats right. they are number one three times. they do have a fanbase. this should not be deleted.

The result was Paradigmatically delete. NawlinWiki 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing paradigms[edit]

This article seems to contain all Original Research, and the article goes off topic and does not explain what a marketing paradigm except for the definition at the very beginning of the article Gorkymalorki 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because no sources. Oli Filth 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marketing, if any content can be salvaged. Iotha 09:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. As original research, there is no real content to salvage here:
Starting in the 1980s, there was a group of theorists that felt this gradual evolution was unsatisfactory. They saw marketing, not as a continuously evolving discipline, but as an established discipline ripe for a paradigm shift. They felt that a radical new perspective was required. These theorists are typically associated with either relationship marketing, customer experience management, or network marketing.
Wow! A paradigm shift! And let me guess, these theorists all have consultancies or management fad books to sell? - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otahuhu Intermediate[edit]

Not notable; 862 google hits, no references. -Icewedge 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it not notable but it violates WP:NPOV, which is obvious because the auther refers to it as "Our School..." Gorkymalorki 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other New Zealand Intermediate, Primary and Secondary schools with articles in Wikipedia. Including Otahuhu Intermediate seems in keeping with this. There seems to be someone with a project of including all New Zealand Schools on Wikipedia. It could be edited to remove NPOV problems. Anarchia 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I may be the person referred to by Anarchia above. I am not creating articles on New Zealand schools, but I am policing them and cleaning them up as necessary. I created the lists linked to from List of schools in New Zealand. In general, I believe that secondary schools are worthy of articles, but primary and intermediate schools are not generally sufficiently notable unless a case is made otherwise. I have removed the material with inappropriate tone from this article, and there really isn't anything else left that the appropriate list article List of schools in Auckland, New Zealand doesn't have. I'd be happy to change my vote if material is added to the article explaining why this school is unusual in any way. The MOE link I added to the infobox is a non-primary reference, and a link to the latest Education Review Office report could be added if the article is kept.-gadfium 09:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 09:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchia. Iotha 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gorkymalorki. Bearian 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because other articles on intermediate schools exist, does not mean this one should; that is an unacceptable argument as supported by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless there is something unique about a school, they should all be deleted as supported by WP:WIN. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a couple of external references as I was passing by.... I'm sure more could be added if more time was spent than my minimal effort. The article has been improved since listing for AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll assume that the references added by Mathmo were the best s/he could find that include the school's request for money from its local government and winning a local environmental award from same (perhaps in lieu of the money?) Any way, I cannot doubt that virtually every school has at least those two pieces of claims to notability in common: asking government for money and winning some minor local award for something. So, in short, nothing distinguishes this school from a million others. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no they are not the best I can find. There are merely what first pops in front of me after a completely minimal search, because to often I see no attempt at looking for sources before voting. I at least make an attempt, and that is the result of exactly that. Mathmo ^Talk 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attempt, there's still no notability there. Carlossuarez46 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was part of a project by students from the school. I'll refer them to the NPOV policy, but in the meantime, school management have requested our entry be deleted.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Mall[edit]

Failed notability guideline. I have prod'ed the article, but the author removed the tag and no improvement made since then. Searching on google did not get independent and non-trivial reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 07:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability and lack of appropriate references. - Shudde ^talk 07:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia of Malls of the world? I don't think so! Anarchia 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shudde. Iotha 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Mall is home to the first Subway in the city, but I can't find very many good references to back any claim beyond that. However, the mall is in India, so I would expect English-language hits to be fairly low. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Shafer (baseball player)[edit]

Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason.
Delete per nom. Iotha 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could nom, or anyone else, point to the exact guideline in WP:BASEBALL proclaiming that a minor-league on Shafer's level is not notable? Especially since the various Wikiproject notability guidelines do not trump WP:BIO, it would be nice to see something slightly more rigorous.

Something like this, for instance ... Ravenswing 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Quoting from WP:BASEBALL (emphasis added): "Any player who plays in the top professional league in their country is notable. This includes Major League Baseball in North America and Nippon Professional Baseball in Japan, among others. Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO"--Truest blue 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Yes, I saw that. Now what exact criteria are you citing? "Most ... are not considered notable?" Which are? Upon what basis is a player non-notable? You are citing as your sole reason for deletion a rationale that is nowhere defined. Ravenswing 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: Recently, editors on this page have considered minor leagues notable when they are highly awarded, higly touted, first round picks. This player is far from that.--Truest blue 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In which case you're not citing any criteria; you're citing your personal preference. Correct? Ravenswing 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Incorrect. It is the consensus of the editors that frequent these AFD's. My personal preference is to delete all minor leagues. But since the consensus is to the contrary, I do not nominate or vote to delete any highly notable minor leagues. --Truest blue 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be headed to the majors sometime soon. He was a minor league all-star last year, and is currently in AAA. Nowhere in WP:BASEBALL does it mention that minor league players are non-notable. Pats Sox Princess 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my reply to Ravenswing just above. Besides, do you really want a WP article on everyone that is "heading" to the majors?--Truest blue 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And what would be wrong with that? Spanneraol 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he either reaches the majors, sets some minor league record, becomes a hot prospect (or flame-out) or achieves some notability outside of baseball; non-encyclopedic at the moment. I do not see the benefit from featuring run-of-the-mill minor leagers of any sport; we are not a prospectus and the editor who created the article before the subject was a "big name" shall receive no profit from it - this could lead to frivolous chest-thumping in the topic's circle. How do you tell if a player is a notable "hot prospect" or not, well, AfD is a good start, and this guy ain't got it.--Old Hoss 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional minor league players meet the notability criteria for sportspeople. The baseball guidelines are invalid as they are not in line with the wider policy. Casperonline 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Minor League Players meet the WP:BIO requirements for notability.. The WP:BASEBALL rules need to be rewritten. Spanneraol 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many minor league players are not notable, but Shafer was a Southern League All-Star, which makes him significantly more notable than the average minor league player. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor-league players are assuredly NOT at the top levels of their sport, pretty much by definition. If and when he gets to the The Show, then we can talk. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BIO does not specifically require an athlete to be at the "top level" of his or her sport. Having played in a "fully professional league" qualifies. Ravenswing 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hiskey[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article, or encyclopediac. Not enough sources from Google searching for him or on Google news. Freedomeagle 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Truest blue 06:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to marginal notability -- 96 Ghits [52] and verifiable, independent sources. Bearian 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An associate professor with a PhD in 1999 and around 10 peer-reviewed publications would have to have some special achievement to meet WP:PROF, and there is no evidence of this from his CV or Google search at this time. Espresso Addict 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sheehan[edit]

Unsourced non-notable minor league player per WP:BASEBALL. (Unsourced army history is also non-notable. Unfortunately, many US soldiers give up their life for the USA). Truest blue 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason.
Delete per nom. Iotha 09:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was a sourced article, it could be an interesting story; aside from the one family tree, we can't prove much of this.Ravenmasterq 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even defend this one.. No sources.. the player bio seemingly lists his high school team.. I don't know if this guy even played in any professional ball. Spanneraol 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting and praiseworthy, but not notable or sourced. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardo Sierra[edit]

Non-notable minor league player per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason.
Delete per nom. Iotha 09:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor League All-Star Spanneraol 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no major league experience, no wikipedia.Ravenmasterq 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Spanneraol. Making a minor-league All-Star team is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor-league player. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was garbage. DS 15:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullo and Llamaar[edit]

Article about a phrase that supposedly is a common greeting in European languages. A Google search of the phrase (with no hits from anything that could be considered a reliable source) and the fact that the provided references make no mention (much less discussion) of such a phrase makes me doubt this claim. All in all, it just looks like complete bollocks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A load of bullo. The references do not refer to the phrase. Has got to be a hoax surely. --Malcolmxl5 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 08:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Iotha 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoe-axe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLarenJAB (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charise Cheney[edit]

Non-notable college professor. Google brings us 536 hits, with the top results belonging to the university's domain name. Most of the links are simple bios or faculty pages. Nothing to see here. Consequentially 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'd say her book - which seems to be her claim to notability - may merit an article of its own. Iotha 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability (she was a mistaken figure in a campus incident of passing unimportance). Book does not seem notable from Google News Archive search results (if it were, she would be, and I always argue for making the author the preferred subject of an article, because an author can write another book, but a book can't get another author. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. Bigdaddy1981 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Cruiser[edit]

Non-notable campus organization at University of Southern California. A Google test for '"Campus Cruiser" USC'" yields 1,100 results, most of which come from USC domains or other trivial/not-reliable sources. Noble-hearted organization, but not notable. Consequentially 05:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a general article on campus escorts. Topic is notable even if this particular org isn't. Wl219 08:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge largely vanity/adversiting article imo, fails WP:Noteability by a long stretch. Do we really even want to keep and merge this? WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morph it into an article about public safety at USC in general. Remove non-notable details and add sections about campus police, physical plant, etc. Squidfryerchef 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would still require the deletion of this article, and the creation of a new article. Even then, a discussion of campus safety at USC belongs in an article on student life at USC, broken off from the main USC article. You start big and work your way into more specific topics, not the other way around. Consequentially 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on doing a general campus escort article? Lots of schools have student organizations that drive or walk people home at night (Columbia for another one). Wl219 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the territory to get involved, but I don't see why it wouldn't make a good article. Be bold and see what happens? Consequentially 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. As Goal line is now a dab page with a link to Football pitch, I edited the dab page to include a reference to byline, and inserted a paragraph into Football pitch to explain the term. Hopefully this is a good solution. ELIMINATORJR 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byline (soccer)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Especially not a dictionary of lesser-known sports terms. Consequentially 05:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Football is overwhelmingly the most popular sport in most parts of the world so this is hardly a 'lesser known sports term', even if it's not widely known in California. This is an explanation of an entity, rather than an abstract word, so I fail to see how it should be relegated to a mere dictionary definition - unless words like "bridge' are to follow. The article explains the importance of the byline in the tactics of the sport, in regard to wingers crossing the ball, and doesn't merely record the particulars of the pitch marking. Lastly I don't see any nomination for 'End zone' for a sport played by a far smaller number of people which would be a logical next step if this were to go. Nick mallory 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there, cowboy. You can make your arguments without insinuating that I'm uncultured American swine who doesn't believe in that "devil sport" they play in the rest of the world. I know what football is. I know that it's popular. And I also know that any discussion of a particular painted line on a soccer pitch belongs in an article on the soccer pitch, and not on its own. Your comparison to "bridge" is hardly appropriate. Bridges come in a number of types and sizes, have an entire specialty of engineering devoted to them, and, most importantly, have a long and storied history of examples (reported in reliable third party sources) of famous bridges to draw upon. The same can not be said for the byline. Consequentially 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goal line, the newer term for the same thing as per the current laws of the game. - fchd 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Goal line article refers to American football. Nick mallory 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it needs to be amended to cover all sports in which the term is used, the term is certainly not exclusive to American football ChrisTheDude 09:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 'byline' is commonly used, which it is. The same name is used in different sports to mean different things, just as a pitch in cricket is very different from a pitch in baseball. This is a problem being created out of nothing. Are you saying there should be a redirect from 'byline' to 'goal line (football)? Then there's the whole never ending football/soccer debate. I don't see the point. If Byline should be deleted then so should the current article on the goal line in American football. The AfD nominator wasn't saying this was the wrong word for the concept, but that the concept itself is not notable. Nick mallory 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if if you stopped misrepresenting my argument. This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. End. Consequentially 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying (or at least attempting to say <g>) with my last comment was that the goal line article needs to be expanded to cover other sports that use the term, as currently a casual reader would get the impression it's a term exclusive to American football..... ChrisTheDude 10:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair enough point well made. Nick mallory 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goal line is now a dab page. There are almost certainly more entries that could be added to it. Cheers --Pak21 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Football pitch as I don't see how it can merit a whole article alone. Number 5 7 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Football pitch. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Angelo 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the point about deleting or merging the aforementioned articles (and for that matter the touch-line article also) is a valid one, and needs addressing whatever the outcome of this AfD. On that basis, Keep until there is guidance on what to do about all "field boundary" related articles. This is a can of worms. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The solution is simple enough. This information better serves the encyclopedia by being included within the article about each individual sport's playing field. Having information in a centralized location allows easy access, and a person looking for basic information on a soccer pitch or rugby pitch or baseball diamond or football field or basketball court is probably going to look for "soccer field" before they look for "byline." Content in Wikipedia should fork into new articles only if there isn't an existing article that it can be incorporated into. It isn't difficult in terms of labor to move the content, and it saves us from the hundreds of stubs that will exist if our precedent is that every line on every field gets an article. An article on the soccer pitch will not be overburdened by a section explaining what the lines are and what they do, especially considering just how little text can be put down explaining what it is. Consequentially 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the encyclopedic content currently here to football pitch: there isn't enough here for its own article, but it's certainly a notable term within the game. There are issues to do with what we want in the way of articles/dabs/redirects we want at goal line, byline, byline (soccer) and wherever else, but we don't need to worry about that here. --Pak21 08:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/redirect, whatever takes your fancy. Mathmo ^Talk 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was transwiki, then delete (as per normal transwiki procedure). This result is made by reading the comments, not just the bolded term (in case it confuses people). —Kurykh 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agathology[edit]

'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', virtually orphaned article, unnecessary Anarchia 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason stated above. Perhaps information could be moved to Wiktionary, which currently doesn't have a definition for this word? kateshortforbob 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Transwikify. Bearian 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The a polsky co[edit]

A serious notability issue. A Google test for "A Polsky Co" yields four results, a similar test for "Polsky Company" yields 19 results, most of which are trivial mentions in the biographies of other people. The article mentions that the company was of local note only. It's connection to the university is insufficient for notability, as well. Consequentially 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NN. --Targeman 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently a former local business whose chief facility is now part of the Univ. of Akron campus. The "Part 2" suggests that this is a cut and paste from somewhere, so it is possibly speedily deleteous as a copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Change the title of the article to the "Polsky Building" and possibly merge with the Akron University. Poorly written article, but seems notable as the primary source plus this as secondary one and many more like these. Doesn't seem like a prank to me. greg park avenue 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. greg park avenue 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references mess (I am not even sure if it's about person, company or building) w/out claims for notability, etc.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge with sword making. I have redirected it there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sword sharpening[edit]

This article survived deletion once before under the circumstances that it would be fixed up. That was in 2004. This article is really the same thing as the sharpening article, except that this is completely unsourced and appears to be OR, as well as containing information not pertaining to the actual subject DurinsBane87 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and original research. Gorkymalorki 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems like a very general and supercilious extrapolation on what any Boy Scout learns about sharpening knives. --Haemo 08:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not everybody was a Boy Scout, and may be informative to a fair audience. Iotha 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't informative, though. It's also completely unsourced, and the sharpening article covers the same exact topic in far greater detail. DurinsBane87 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:INTERESTING --Longing.... 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem that this article can be sharpened enough to be anything but a HOWTO. --Tikiwont 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with sword making, an article that also needs serious help. But the manufacture of swords and the history of the techniques used to make them strikes me as an entirely valid subject. Quaere, do we have an article on Damascus steel? - Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Usefulness is not a standard of keeping an article. Wikipedia is not a repository of manuals --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What this article needs is a brief but trenchant treatise on the role of the sword-sharpener in Celtic and similar cultures, as exemplified by the references in the Celtic-Arthurian legends, with discussion of whetting stones, dark and light side sharpening, and so forth.

Without this the article is pointless (rather like the ill-kept sword) -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Keep, or maybe merge with sword making. Mathmo ^Talk 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with sword making per Mathmo and Smerdis. Bearian 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The leveller[edit]

Fails to meet burdens established by WP:FICTION by a mile. What information is relevant to the plot of FernGully: The Last Rainforest is already included there, so a merge is unnecessary. Consequentially 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iotha 09:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Please take any discussions of problems with the format or content of the article to Talk:Wedding of the Weddings. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of the Weddings[edit]

Very few hits on Google for "Wedding of the Weddings", seems to be a non-notable event. Brianga 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish language is here a barrier - if you want to find some 1,000 or so hits to the event series, search Polish Google for event's Polish name "Wesele Wesel" http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22wesele+wesel%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:pl-PL:official

Comment Google hits is not a means for deletion as per WP:GHITS, The problem I have with this article though is all the sources are not in English making it impossible for me to verify the content of the article. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability The sources should be in English, but do not have to. Also one of the sources is from the Polish Government and that would qualify it as a reliable source. Gorkymalorki 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Setting aside the search of English Google (I assume), there are two issues. First is that the event -- Wedding of the Weddings -- is just one aspect of this whole "movement". It's almost like having no article on Mothers Against Drunk Driving but having one on the M.A.D.D. annual convention. Second is that half the article -- more than half, really -- is not about the event at all, but about the problem of alcoholism in Poland and the trend toward combatting it with alcohol-free wedding receptions. I'm unconvinced this is the way to frame this topic; it feels like a WP:COATRACK. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it does not say that there is a source organization for this, all it says is that the Reverend put various individual Weddings into one big celebration. So your analogy to M.A.D.D. is a little off for this (As I said before if someone could read the websites it would probably clear this up). As for half the article being about alcoholism in Poland, I disagree, it seems to illustrate more the use of alcohol in polish weddings, and their alternative to it. I think the article just needs to be tagged for cleanup(preferably by someone who can read what the websites say). Gorkymalorki 06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did create the article in question, but it was as a proxy for an IP user at Articles for Creation. At the time, I felt that the sources were sufficient, despite being in Polish -- especially since the Polish and German Wikipedias have articles on it. This still seems like a notable topic to me, and though I wish we had some English-language sources, they aren't required. Powers ^T 11:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the author of the article, User:62.233.166.136 has not been notified of this discussion. Powers ^T 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GHITS is not grounds for deletion. The problems with this article can be addressed by normal editing. If necessary, the problem sections can be moved to the talk page, leaving a stub. Dhaluza 01:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Times Crew[edit]

Non-notable social group. Article does not provide any references. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It seems a pity, because the article is kind of fun - but definitely non-notable, not encyclopedia material, and completely unreferenced. Anarchia 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn group of friends (the article doesn't really make clear what sort of group and what--if anything--they do together). Can you believe this lasted since 2006?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Assyrians[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Copied from talk page

This article is written from an Assyrianist point-of-view. Based on a few sources, it states that all Syriacs are Assyrians, while labelling those Syriacs who consider themselves Aramaeans as being ignorant of their own heritage. It should therefore, in my opinion, be deleted. Information can be merged with either the Syriacs page or the Assyrian people page. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No stance - repairing malformed nomination -- saberwyn 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I do agree that the Syriac Orthodox situation is alot more complicated then the Chaldean Catholic one. Chaldean 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is it more complicated? The name of their Church, in Swedish, is Syrisk Ortodoxa Kyrkan. It might as well have been called Assyrisk Ortodoxa Kyrkan. It's even more clear, that they are Assyrians, than the Chaldean Catholics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:19 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the views expressed in the article belong only to a portion of Syriacs, and have become quite controversial. The Assyrian people article should mention that some Syriacs choose this identity while other reject it. There is no point keeping this as a redirect as no one will search for this term exactly and it is difficult to know to which article it should point. — Gareth Hughes 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Afd is not a ((cleanup)) tag. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. It's a stub right now and it's part of WikiProject Assyria. It will expand, and cover the false "Aramaean" identity, as well as statistics and everything. Also, you have to understand, though you may not like it, there are many Syriac Orthodox members in Sweden, who consider themselves Assyrians. I'm not making this up. Who do you think founded the soccer team Assyriska? It sure wasn't Chaldeans or Nestorians. If you have any issues with the article, try to expand it with credible sources, don't delete it right away. I have cited my sources, confirming my point. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:55 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Also worth mentioning, is that many Syriac Assyrians in Sweden, and also to some extent, in Germany, are split into two political divisions, of which one dislikes its Assyrian ancestry, and consider themselves to be Aramaeans, or Neo-Aramaean. — You are welcome to expand on that. By the way, in Sweden, we are called Assyrier/Syrianer. Technically, the title of this page, is not incorrect, with that in mind. And why do you think Esna.se has the Aramaean flag merged with the Assyrian flag? Wikipedia shouldn't delete articles because of political correctness. This article is meant to conform to ethnic Assyrian groups, just like there are article of ethnic Jewish groups (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera). — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:58 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
merge to Syriac Orthodox Church. "Syriac Assyrians" is not a current term. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This article is not about the Syriac Orthodox Church. It's about an ethnic group of members from the Syriac Orthodox Church (and Syriac Catholic Church), that identify themselves as Assyrians. It's meant to expand, include statistics, parts of their history, etcetera. The current term being used for the title is not even an issue, unless of course, you want to make it an issue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  - Further comment — Only a minority of Syriacs call themselves Assyrian. The identity is incredibly divisive. This article is designed to give the point of view of those who choose to call themselves Assyrian. Elias has previously called those who stand against the Assyrian identity 'traitors' and 'liers'. The article is designed to promote one faction over another. We have articles on the Assyrian people and Syriac Christianity that can deal with these issues in a neutral way. The existence of this article is non-neutral: there is no room for clean up here. — Gareth Hughes 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If you feel that this article isn't neutral, how about helping out, and editing it to NPOV, instead of complaining and engaging in personal attacks on my character? You are obviously trying to sully my credibility as an editor here, and on that basis, you want this article deleted. Sorry, but if you have issues with me, that's not a reason to delete articles. POV issues (if this can be called POV), is not a reason to delete articles, and you of all people, should know that, since you're an administrator. The Syriacs who don't identify as Assyrians, call us traitors and liars too. Difference is, they never called themselves Aramaeans until recently. Also, can you prove that it's a minority of Syriacs who identify as Assyrians? Are you trying to be some kind of protector to these revisionists? You haven't made one single edit on this article, why should your voice even count, if you are not trying to edit it, into a more "NPOV" version? Do you seriously believe that those Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans, are unbiased, and objective? Believe me, they are not the least, unbiased. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:57 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment - Personally Elias I don't think these new pages such as Chaldean Assyrians, etc are helping much. These articles are way to POV and should be merged with other articles that have neutral titles. Chaldean 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - What neutral titles? So it's better called "Chaldean community"? It's not a community any longer. Many Chaldean Catholics are fleeing Iraq, over half the Assyrian Democratic Movement's members are Chaldean Catholics. You want "neutral titles" because of political correctness. Me personally, I believe that an indigenous ethnic group is the same indigenous ethnic group, no matter what it calls itself. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:03 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if this article was merged with Assyrian culture, where the title of the paragraph is "Chaldean Community". Its the title (Chaldena Assyrian, Syriac Assyrian) that are just not right. Chaldean 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a culture topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Some of it does belong in the culture page and some of it can go in the History of the Assyrian people page. Chaldean 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- the problem with these Assyrian topics is not that they are invalid, but that they are WP:OWNed by resilient Assyrian nationalists. Somebody needs to do the thankless task of cleaning them up vigorously and cut all the crap, so that if finally becomes clear at least what these people keep bickering about. This doesn't belong here, Afd isn't part of the dispute resolution process. It is evident that as long as these article remain in the hands of such "patriots", the situation will never improve. The true problem is that nobody else cares enough to adopt the topic. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good point. Dbachmann, you are welcome to clean these articles up, whenever you like. It's just that, when you have enough knowledge of this topic, you'll realise, that what I've written is not the least POV, but actually NPOV. It's just that I'm not being politically correct, and I don't care if I'm offending Aramaeanist wannabe nationalists; the truth must prevail on Wikipedia; revisionism is not for Wikipedia. Their own Church, is named Syrian Orthodox Church. Where do you think Syrian comes from? The Assyrian Church of the East, has also been called Syrian Church; all these Churches have a common history from the same people. You have to understand, dab, they never called themselves Aramaeans, until recently. It's a new Aramaeanism movement, and far from all Syriacs, say they are Aramaeans It's mainly in northern Europe, where some Syriacs have been indoctrinated to believe this bullshit. But you're right, this isn't AFD material. Deleting this is basically censorship. Garzo and Benne don't like the content, so they immediately want it deleted. I'm sticking to historical facts, Garzo, and Benne, don't want to be honest about this; they just want to delete whatever they disagree with. What's that, if not censorship? So anyway, are you going to vote keep or what? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:40 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Elias is selling a bunch of Assyrianist propagandist nonsense. There are plenty of references to the Aramaean heritage of the people who have for centuries been called Syrians, whereas the name Assyrian is only a quite recent invention. Flavius Josephus, for instance, in his Jewish Antiquities, states that "Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians" (book I, chapter 6, paragraph 4). The German Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke, in his Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1880), p. XXIX states that: "Mit dem Namen 'Syrer' bezeichneten die Griechen, seit sie Asien näher hatten kennen lernen, die Nation, welche sich selbst 'Aramäer' nannte." Also Syriac church fathers as Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serugh, and Bar-Hebraeus made reference to the Aramean heritage of the Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- while I wouldn't call Flavius Josephus a "quite recent" source, you are right that the name change from Aramaean to (As)Syrian is due to Greek influence, and thus associated with Christianization ("Syriac Christianity"). The Assyrian ethnicity really harks back to the 1st century and the establishment of the Syriac church, but it is still true that it has its roots in the "Aramaisation" of the late Assyrian Empire in the 8th to 6th centuries BC. I am not opposed to linking the Assyrians to events in the Neo-Assyrian period, but referring to Sargon of Akkad as a founding figure is really too silly to stand. The various inner-Assyrian feuds Elias is constantly referring to are a modern (post 16th century AD) thing and should not affect our coverage of earlier history. Our Assyrian editors are quite obviously incapable of giving a satisfactory treatment of these modern strifes, and we'll need some neutral editor biting the bullet and covering this. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Greeks called the Assyrians, Syrians. The Assyrians just happened to speak Aramaic at the time. It doesn't mean you are some ancient Aramaean people. The Assyrians had conquered most of the Levant and settled there, speaking Aramaic. They didn't call Aramaeans, Syrians. They called Assyrians, Syrians. If they were Aramaeans, they would have called them Aramaeans. It's not "Assyrianist" propaganda. This is Aramaeanist propaganda, or revisionism. Anyway, there are Syriacs today who call themselves Assyrians. Based on that, this article is notable. You may not agree with them, but that's the case. I hope you don't believe you're some kind of racially pure Aramaean, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    - By the way Benne, watch this Who do you think is most accurate? Herodotus, or Flavius Josephus? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:08 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Arameans eventually just became part of the Assyrian nation. If the Arameans ruled the Assyrians, then I can see it being the other way around and today calling ourselfs Aramean. But since the opposite occurred, the Assyrian nation survived wit the Aramaic language. Chaldean 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why the language today is called Syriac, or Syrian, not Aramaean. If the Aramaeans had ruled the Middle East and Mesopotamia, of course, naturally, things would've been different. Suryoyo doesn't sound like Aramaean to me. It sounds more like Ashuraya. This is so logical. I can't believe some Syriacs are deliberately ignoring this. Why would the ancient Aramaeans call their language a derivative of Assyrian, if they weren't Assyrians? — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:39 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete all. —Kurykh 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siempre serás mía[edit]

Film with no evidence of notability. The award cannot be sourced and there are no references to the film from WP:RS. I have also nominated the article on the personnel associated with the movie, as they seem to lack the WP:RS to meet WP:BIO, have no evidence of notability outside of this unsourceable film project, and ultimately are only propping up the film article in question. Delete all as indicated. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find any reference that would connect it to the award it allegedly won and I could not. But even with the award, the film would not be notable. MookieZ 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a "National Short-Films Contest of Astorga" "Certamen Nacional de Cortometrajes Astorga" [53] but I am struggling to find this film or award. Even if it can be found it is likely not notable enough for inclusion. crandles 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as hoaxes by a known vandal. Don't feed him. Bearian 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objected I have seen the movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alhaurino (talk • contribs). — Alhaurino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Objected I have seen the movie and I think this need expanding. --Federic 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) — Federic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hm... WP:SOCK seems to be at play here, due to the impossible coincidences in the creation of and edits by these user accounts, as indicated on their respective talk pages. I have blocked these accounts indefinitely as suspected sockpuppets, per the [d]isruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits indicating that no WP:RFCU is needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn film and nn people associated with it. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Snowball delete. Acalamari 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor living space[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Captain panda 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to WikitionaryGorkymalorki 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marketing-speak to incorporate patio, yard, etc. Reads like a brochure from Home Depot. "Tiki lights on sale this week!" --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, same thing as patio, deck, yard, porch, etc. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Iotha 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. --Targeman 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy, reads like advertising and contains patches of patent nonsense:
In today's time, it is all about bringing the inside out, from living rooms to complete outdoor kitchens.
But I do need to pick up some tiki lights, thanks for the reminder. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavada Clan[edit]

Non notable. Little context given. Sounds slightly like advertising. Captain panda 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12 (copyright infringement) and CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). — TKD::Talk 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough! Coalition[edit]

Fails notability for Non-commercial organizations; "background" section is lifted from org's mission statement [54], as is the "mission statement" section; no notable accomplishments listed; Yahoo! search returns their website and the Wikipedia page; appears to be a non-notable organization. --Old Hoss 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copy vio for a start and a non notable organisation. Nick mallory 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, has two cites in the text, but not enough information is given per WP:HOLE. Bearian 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automoblog[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Captain panda 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Gorkymalorki 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 06:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. Xtreme racer 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G1 by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Views[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Not NPOV. Captain panda 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator due to overwhelming keep votes. Non-admin closure --Longing.... 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)[edit]

Original AFD

The page has made little improvement in quality since its original nomination, and after a month of tagging it, no one has made an attempt to improve it. Any significant aspects of the character are already noted on the Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report pages. The article reads like a list of gags and off-hand remarks about Colbert's supposed past on the show with little in the way of actual sources or organization. The article could be re-written to be an actual biography, but it would not be notable due to the fact that most of the info Colbert has reveal about the character is just made for a joke, ie, the backpacking around Europe, etc.

Before giving your support, please read this policy. Keep in mind that little improvements have been made since the original nomination and I don't see anyone making an effort to clean-up the article. Also observe that the two above articles already discuss the important aspects of the character. Unless someone is willing to do a total re-write of the article, due to the fact that it is a fictional character, I don't see any reason to keep it.

Also, I apologize if I used the improper protocol for a page's 2nd nomination, but this is the first time I've done it and I had difficulty understanding the policy page's advice for such. The Clawed One 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on protocol only. An admin needs to do the moves, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (the page I'm editing) needs to move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (2nd nomination) (which you've apparently created as a redirect. Then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 1 should be moved back here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character). Finally the AFD log and page need to point to the (2nd nomination) address. There are some wonky AFD pages out there but doing it this way makes it easier to find them when there are multiples -- which I expect will be the case. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a separate article for Jerry Seinfeld and his character, and for the most part, they're fairly similar people. The Stephen Colbert character is so completely and totally different than the actual Stephen Colbert that it certainly warrants its own article (probably even more than the article on Jerry Seinfeld). ShadowMan1od 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the character page in question is also in-universe and poorly sourced, bad example. Also, see this policy before you make such a comparison. The Clawed One 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: The Pokémon test is not a policy, and not even a guideline. Punkmorten 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a gag character so of course its sources are in-universe and content will include a list of gags. Wl219 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that doesn't mean it's alright. The Clawed One 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as I said in the last AFD, the obsessive level of detail is completely unnecessary and can be adequately covered in Colbert's own article. Otto4711 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- well referenced article. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jerry Seinfeld character has his own article. Plus, this one is sourced. And to the clawed one, all of these so-called policies you mention are actually essays. Pats Sox Princess 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays, policies, same difference. And the Seinfeld comparison is a poor example, as it too is poorly sourced and in-universe. Now, the style and structure of the article is what would be preferred for the Colbert one, but no one has made any attempt to make that happen. The Clawed One 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, essays aren't the same thing as policies or guidelines. An essay is simply an opinion piece written by one or several users. Referring to an essay as a policy is quite disingenuous. Pats Sox Princess 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, referring to an essay as a policy is somewhat like referring to a a police officer's morals as a law --Longing.... 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a particularly good article? Absolutely not. However, it is an article about the main character on a popular, Emmy-nominated, hundreds-of-episodes-deep television series; the character is distinctly different from the person who plays him; and there have been many third-prty mentions of the character himself. I suggest strong trimming and clean-up, but I have no doubt of the validity of an article about the character as a whole, and there's enough salvageable content that starting over from scratch is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed to an extent, the article could be salvaged, but no one has made even the slightest attempt to do so in two or three months. Thus, I have reason to believe that no one will, hence the nomination. If the article is cleaned up I would gladly withdraw my AFD, but that doesn't seem likely. The Clawed One 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last I checked, "Nobody wants to clean it up" isn't a deletion criteria...
Keep, because oddly enough the character is probably more notable than the actor. If he had named it "the Smith John Review", and used Smith John, his own name would be far less notable than it is nowadays. The character is significantly different from the person, putting the article for his character on his page would be like putting the article for Peter Griffin on Seth MacFarlane's page, it would be highly out of place. Just because they share a name does not make them the same person. There have been no actual reasons for deletion brought up, and the subject clearly passes WP:N and WP:V --Longing.... 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason? It's poorly written, poorly sourced, in-universe, unstructured, and no one has made any attempt to fix it after several months. The Clawed One 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, everyone wants the article to stay, no one wants to fix the problems or even acknowledge they exist. I withdraw the AFD. The Clawed One 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus (roller coaster)[edit]

Non-notable roller coaster. Article fails to mention its notability. Article appears identical to other articles about roller coasters at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are from the same theme park, also fail to assert notability, and are written in the same form as Pegasus:

--TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, Cyclops, and Zeus (if they are listed for deletion too). There are no guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability for roller coasters, but it is common practice for us to keep articles for all roller coasters at most amusement parks. For our coverage of Six Flags and Cedar Fair parks, we have articles on even most of the kiddie coasters. Mt. Olympus's wooden coasters are known mainly for the airtime they produce and are renowned by coaster enthusiasts for this (particularly Cyclops (roller coaster)); the park has also received more attention recently for its partially underground coaster, Hades, and its wave pool with 9-foot waves, Poseidon's Rage. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like you are getting into the invalid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument when you note that there are articles for "kiddie" rides. Please show that this ride has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N or that it satisfies WP:ORG or other guidelines. I question "common practice" being to keep such articles in previous AFDs, but maybe I just missed them. Edison 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an overused essay and your use of it in this argument is dubious at best. WP:BASH is just as applicable for your own arguments. Here and here are two previous keep AfDs on roller coaster articles that were in worse shape at the time. IronGargoyle 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Idont Havaname. There is no notability guideline for roller coasters and for very good reason. Nearly any roller coaster is notable, being a multi-million dollar piece of engineering and artwork that becomes a permanent part of the surrounding landscape. Yes, there are a lot of stub-length roller coaster articles, but nearly all rely on reliable sources (www.rcdb.com, at the very least). These can be expanded. IronGargoyle 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. No notability guidelines for roller coasters, possible creation for theme park rides maybe? T Rex | talk 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, IronGargoyle said exactly what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above -- there's no notability guideline for roller coasters, but IronGargoyle's rationale for keeping all roller coaster articles is good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article for the park. The unsubstantiated claim that it costs millions is great, but sources would be better. Many things that cost millions of dollars get their articles routinely deleted, such as minor shopping malls, libraries, or college dorms. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes I can't find any note that all amusement park rides have been found to ne notable enough for articles in previous AFDs. In the meantime, merge all such stub articles into the article for the amusement park which contains them. If the section on the ride becomes too large (with refs satisfying WP:A) for the article on the park, then and only then split it off. As for it being "permanent" tell that to the rides at Opryland USA or Riverview Park. Even at parks which are still in operation, rides are regularly replaced. There is no guideline I can find which says all amusement park rides are inherently notable. To have an article, it should meet WP:N or perhaps WP:ORG. The sole source for these rides so far is www.rcdb.com, which appears to be a fan site, and one might question whether it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. It has undated, unsigned notes about the ride, although it does list names of the site creator and editors. It is still not "multiple." Edison 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RCDB is not a "fan site". There is consensus at the Roller Coaster wikiproject that it is a reliable source. WP:N advises multiple reliable sources, but does not demand them. WP:N is also a guideline and not policy. Using WP:ORG for roller coaster articles makes very little sense. IronGargoyle 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The roller coaster project's judgment is not a guideline for inclusion that mandates inherent notability for every roller coaster in eveery park. Their judgment about the reliability of an apparently fan-created database of roller coasters is informative and helpful but by no means binding. If WP:ORG is inappropriate, then judge it by WP:N, and it fails. Merging the stubs into an article about a given park makes lots of sense. Having a spew of nearly unsourced one or two sentence stubs makes no sense. Edison 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Mets501 just as AfD was opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carter's Fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaron Carter's Fifth studio album

Article about an unreleased album (see CRYSTAL). No references cited to indicate significant discussion interest, or notability prior to release -- indeed no independent references or links cited at all. Articles about future albums by this artist have been deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Carter (AKA War Wounds). While this article is not identical or substantially similar to the one deleted (and thus is should not be speedy deleted as a repost of deleted content, many of the arguments at that afd seem to apply here. DES ^(talk) 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom, unless independent reliable sources are cited that establish the current notability of this. DES ^(talk) 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPS in popular culture[edit]

Like many "...in popular culture" entries, this articles fails to meet both Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. Should some of the popular culture references be notable enough, they should be included in the main article. Tomj 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the important parts are covered in the single paragraph already in the article. Unanalyzed lists of parodies are not useful. --Eyrian 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ ~~per nom and general unacceptability of most "popular culture" lists. Pharmboy 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral Changed after considering Mansford's arguement. It has been on a long time and has actually been influential. Still don't like the fact that it is written similar to a trivia list, but these kind of articles almost have to be this way. I still don't like (which isn't a reason to delete) but this is tough one to call, so will withdraw delete and stay neutral. Pharmboy 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A pop culture list that actually shows an influence on popular culture. "COPS", like "Wikipedia", has inspired a host of imitations. The Haley/Barbour show was a groundbreaker in reality television, and has created an entire genre of videotaped, cheap to produce, reality shows, as the article indicates. I agree with Eyrian that the list of parodies weakens a good article. Mandsford 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because a paragraph (and not a list) about the impact of COPS belongs in it's own article. A list of imitations or inspirations isn't notable. CaveatLector^Talk 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the list of shows inspired by this doesn't even belong here, the rest of it is WP:NOT a directory of non-notable references. Crazysuit 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the "creator" of this article, though I don't particularly have any atachment to it. The entirety of the contents were spun off from the COPS (TV series) article several days ago, where the content was overwhelming the article. There is sufficient material to warrant its own article, I believe, it falls in line with Wikipedia:Summary style, and is really necessary to the overall quality of the main article and further expansion of the subject of this one, as COPS has had significant cultural impact, especially in the United States. --Edward Morgan Blake 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what isn't loosely associated trivia is original research. The article assumes that every show that follows a similar format must by definition be inspired by COPS despite no one's bothering to offer up any sort of reliable sourcing to that effect. Any TV show that's been around for a while is going to accumulate a parody or two and some mentions on other TV shows. That does not make a "popular culture" article warranted. Wanting the article kept to keep the information out of other articles is not a valid argument. Otto4711 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Otto all the way. I would have no problem re-merging a small amount of the content- that is, any show that is verifiably derivative and/or a parody of COPS (e.g. Reno 911! and Blotter!) should be mentioned- with citation- in the COPS article, and nothing else. Simply mentioning that a single episode of a TV series or a certain scene in a movie satirizes or references the show is not, in and of itself, notable, and thus, a collection of these is still non-notable; therefore, this information need not be placed in the COPS article or anywhere else in WP. -- Kicking222 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response If you look at the closed deletion logs, you will see that such (most of the time trivial)lists are in the process of being deleted. Tomj 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good thing™. Burntsauce 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel this comment should be added to Martha Stewart in popular culture. --Eyrian 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Careful what you ask for, you might get it. Pharmboy 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with parent article and drastically pare down.--Old Hoss 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has the feel of fancruft and it is original research. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote attacks the nominator rather than adressing the concerns raised. This is an alarming trend I have seen in AfD votes, and I'd rather see the article deleted than have to tolerate such shocking bad faith or attribution of views not expressed by the nominator or those who expressed a desire to delete. --Edward Morgan Blake 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's too much encyclopedic information here to merge to the COPS article. --Oakshade 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Oakshade. --10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AndyJones. Mathmo ^Talk 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven;t commented before, because I must admit that I've never seen the show and knew nothing about it. But on reading thisdiscussion and the article i've learned a little, and this shows the value of these articles in an encyclopedia. This isn't an exercise to see what we can do with a wiki, but a practical use of a wiki to build something that will be used. Useful alone isn't enough, but it should be one of the factors--else why are we doing this--to exercise our skills in writing, or in argument? DGG (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect. It seems like there's nothing useful to merge, that no one particularly wants the history of problematic edits, and (from what I can tell by inspecting the history) that there was never a direct merge from this article in the past (which would pose GFDL edit history issues). Still, leaving a redirect behind is a good idea to discourage article re-creation. — TKD::Talk 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomeregan[edit]

This article presents a two-fold problem. First, goes head-long against the guidelines expressed in WP:FICTION, covering in great-detail a fictional topic without reference to its real-world value. It doesn't even pay lip service to the notion of real-world perspective, mentioning only that "it's an instanced dungeon in WoW" before taking off into fictional detail. Second, it trips over WP:NOT#GUIDE. Half of the text is spent telling us what monsters live there, and how Horde and Alliance players can activate and access the instance. What information is actually encyclopedia-worthy is already covered in Locations in the Warcraft Universe, and the rest is covered in the existing WoW wiki. There's no reason for this. Consequentially 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged, so delete. --Eyrian 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
strong Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Locations in the Warcraft Universe would be the simple solution. FrozenPurpleCube 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already covered by other articles. A merge is unnecessary. Consequentially 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, all one would need to do is hit the #R button and make a redirect to the appropriate location. FrozenPurpleCube 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Jay Wienbarg[edit]

Many claims of association with notable people, but I don't see anything that establishes the notability of the subject itself. WP:BIO, WP:COI. Vanity page. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Two totally nonnoteworthy movies, the kinship to Buffalo Bill (though probably a good story at parties ;-) ) is quite remote. jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, while the editor above seems to think that my relationship to William F. Cody is remote, there are only 10 living relatives of him. And, two, though many movies are non noteworthy, it was mentioned that one 35 mm, full-length dramatic motion picture produced by the Puerto Rican government (citations are in the article) it was being edited so it can't be either noteworthy or nonnoteworthy. Finally, I was the first (and only, so far as I know) individual to have ever trademarked the Hollywood Sign--that after having sold it and achieved over 500 million advertising impressions-twice! I have a very thick book with my picture in US Magazine, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles times among about a dozon world wide. I just need to work with an editor to get this material submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewienbarg (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2007

You trademarked the Hollywood Sign and sold it? Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the article correctly, he cut it up, sold it, and later trademarked its shape and used that in selling some of the left-over pieces. But perhaps i have not got that quite correct. DES ^(talk) 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to marginally pass WP:RS. And to the above user -- please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per TenPoundHammer DES ^(talk) 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete (see below) on the basis of the Hollywood sign story. I notice Mr. Wienbarg has also written an article on Hank Berger, who I believe was also involved in the trademarking of the sign, per this [55]. I'd be willing to keep if more sources are found.--Sethacus 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note deletion of previous iteration, also autobiography. Robertissimo 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm - lots of speculation, little fact. It is unclear if being a descendant of Buffalo Bill is notable in and of itself - the author claims there are only 10 living relatives of him, but thats an unsubstantiated fact and its difficult to take out of context without knowing how many descendants there are, living or dead. I was unable to find any reliable sources to confirm that yearling riding was an regular event at the Cheyenne Frontier Days, let alone that Mr. Wienbarg participated in such events. The events discussed in the same section either involve notable things happening around him (such as the NAB award) or minimal participation in events, some notable and some not. According to [56] linked from Hollywood Sign, the sign was indeed sold to one Hank Berger, but he then turned around and sold it to Dan Bliss who listed it ~~(presumably intact)~~ on eBay in 2005. ~~There are no indications that it was ever cut up and sold piecemeal~~, and google search for 'weinbarg hollywood sign berger" turns up 0 hits. Trademark #74229042 was indeed assigned to Wienbarg Enterprises, Inc, but it was a logo for "Hollywood Clothing" with the word Hollywood arranged similar to the famous sign. It is unclear how notable the clothing line was, but the USPTO notes that the trademark was applied for in November, 1991 and abandoned in July, 1993. Most of the sources in the article are vague: "Unknown Author, Ogden Standard Examiner", or just a listing of publications with no specifics (e.g. "Time", "People"). I looked for sources of my own, but Weinbarg is popular enough to muddy the waters, and modifiers such as "buffalo bill" didn't help. Delete for nearly complete failure of WP:V and WP:N, with a dash of WP:COI for good luck. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself - As per The link above from Sethacus, it does appear that Berger did sell some of the sign when he had it. Weinbarg's involvement remains unsubstantiated, however. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, notability is not transitive. Being related to someone famous is not notability. Second, this is the pattern of the entire article -- notability asserted through connection. Worked at a station that won an award. OK, but that does not make you notable. Worked on a special that included celebrities. OK, but same answer. And so forth. Notability for the subject is not asserted. Finally we get to a real claim -- being famous for selling a famous sign. If the coverage is there, there's a shot, so let's look at it. He and clothing designer Viola Park were featured in articles in Time ... guess what, all of TIME magazine is online now. Nothing for Wienbarg, nothing for Viola Park. Not all of the other publications are freely searchable, but Google News Archive allows searching the archives of WaPo, the LAT and the WSJ, at least, and there are no stories about the subject. This appears to be a false claim. Wienbarg registerd a U.S. Tradmark for the famous sign is another false claim, as the trademark is owned by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.[57] We can also search the US PTO database, and it turns up a trademark owned by Wienbarg Enterprises for Hollywood Clothing partially using the image of the sign. Since Hollywood Video among others uses similar imagery this is not itself notable. What we need are not just assertions of notability and importance, but assertions from independent third parties who as secondary sources we can attribute these assertions, e.g. "Clothing Magnate Magazine once named Wienbarg Retailer of the Year." We don't have any of that, we just have a person with a reasonably accomplished career in more than one profession who has failed to achieve Wikipedia-article-deserving notability in any of them. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone ahead and changed my vote on this. It's clear, through copious evidence, that Hank Berger was, at one time, the owner of the old Hollywood sign. After 25 years of keeping it in storage, he sold it to Dan Bliss, who auctioned it on EBay 2 years later. What is unclear is Mr. Wienbarg's role in any of this, outside of the claims he's made on his own website. There are no substantial links to any known articles and all the articles on the Hollywood sign that I did find (as I said, plenty), don't mention Mr. Wienbarg at all. Searching "Wienbarg Hollywood sign" only turns up Wikipedia and Mr. Wienbarg's website. And, as per Dhartung, being the relative of someone famous, few that there may be, doesn't grant notability, either.--Sethacus 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete. Appears to fail WP:V on many of the claims in the article. Notability would be weak even if all claims were suported by reliable sources. No supported claim seems to comne clsoe to establishing notability. If additional sources are added, and checked and they support claims of notability, my view might change again, but I rather doubt thsi will occur. I agree with Sethacus and Dhartung's comments just above. DES ^(talk) 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wienbarg -- it appears that an earlier version of this article was previously deleted after a full AfD. DES ^(talk) 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. This debate has raised some very interesting points, all of which are valid. Essentially, it comes down to whether or not this article constitutes original research and a particular point of view, both of which are policies which we hold in the highest regard, and that we always fall back to, when dealing with articles that may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Reading this discussion has lead me to believe consensus agrees that the article in and of itself is not neutral and thus should be removed from Wikipedia. However, there has been mention that this article contains valuable information that could be used elsewhere (primarily, Hukou). Thus, I am closing this debate as delete, but I will restore to user space on request, so relevant information can be merged if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I realize that this is one of those AfDs that will undoubtedly be sent to DRV within the hour, no matter which way it is closed. Furthermore, despite the incivil tone by both sides throughout this discussion, there have been a number of good points brought up by the two sides.

I would like to address comments related to specific editors first. The accusation has been brought forth by multiple editors of a POV on behalf of contributors from WikiProject Israel, stating that their creation of this article is an WP:POINT disruption. This is not relevant. This is a debate about the article, not the editors. Furthermore, as Jayjg has stated, WP:POINT is not a basis for deletion, as it relates to user behavior. As such, if you wish to take action against said editors, an RfC is a more appropriate outlet, since AfD can't block, reprimand or ban.

Now, the actual article. It is true, as many editors have pointed out, that it is well-sourced and well-written. However, this does not automatically excuse an article; WP:SYNTH's existence logically infers that even the best of articles can advance a viewpoint. The NPOV/POV of this article is what is at the heart of the matter, but even so, few arguments have been made that can effectively dispute the synthesis. This leads me to the technical aspects. Sure, as I've said, it's well-sourced and well-written, but this article is not well planned. There is little to no cohesion between the subjects discussed in the article. There is no flow between the sections. In other words, there's a lack of the big picture. As such, the concerns about WP:SYNTH are vaild.

But is this even the best way to present this information? With the synthesis established, it would make more sense to merge the information to the relevant articles. Lothair of the Hill People's assessment of where to merge the material is accurate; the main article for hukou is a far better place for that heading's information. The other appropriate information should be merged to Human rights in China, Allegations of apartheid and Tibet Autonomous Region.

Therefore, Merge and delete. (Note: ^demon beat me in an edit conflict, hence my endorsement) Hemlock Martinis 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This issue has been brought before ArbCom. --Ideogram 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the arbcom request will be rejected, however, please see:

Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid for a discussion on how to deal with this and other similar articles. <<-armon->> 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this and this you will see that we already know how to deal with this and similar articles, but Israel-focused editors refuse to accept it because it would result in the Israeli article being kept and the rest deleted. Ask them point-blank if they are willing to accept such a result. --Ideogram 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Armon's suggestion above, the "centralized discussion" provides a bartering forum wherein the creators and defenders of this article as an example of "Wikipedia's best work" offer to delete it and four other bargaining chips they've created in exchange for the deep-sixing of an article they'd tried and failed to delete through ordinary means.--G-Dett 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions, remembering to assume good faith on the part of others. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))

Allegations of Chinese apartheid[edit]

Perhaps the worst of a now-infamous and metastasizing series of original-research WP:POINT essays. It slaloms around clumsily between five unrelated issues – migrant workers, the Tibetan occupation, African and Taiwanese populations within China, religious minorities within China, and civil liberties more generally among the Chinese. Why this particular grab-bag of disparate topics? Because, using the latest in data-mining technology, a Wikipedian discovered that a certain class of verbal act – an “allegation of apartheid,” if you will, meaning a sentence with the word “apartheid” in it – could be find in one, two, sometimes three (and in one case six!) primary-source documents within each of the five topics above. There are no secondary sources at all; no one discussing these primary-source “allegations”; no sources even calling them “allegations,” in fact, since this particular species of verbal act was discovered, described, and classified by Wikipedians; no sources linking these diverse topics in this or any other way. Different writers writing about different things, with no thought to one another or to the hobby-horses of future Wikipedians, used the word “apartheid”; that is all.

Remember the old Far Side cartoon [“What We Say to Dogs”/”What They Hear”]? That's what we're dealing with. “What Various Sources Say about Various Unrelated Issues in China”/”What Users X and Y Hear.”

blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah...

Each block quote houses one iteration of the word “apartheid.” The blah-blah-blah portions between the block quotes consist of pure original research:

"According to Anita Chan and Robert A. Senser, writing in Foreign Affairs, 'China's apartheid-like household registration system, introduced in the 1950s, still divides the population into two distinct groups, urban and rural'."
The Foreign Affairs article in fact never mentions apartheid.
"The analogies to South African apartheid go even further."
Wikipedian's thesis.
"A report by the Heritage Foundation discussed some of the reasons for the use of this term."
No it doesn't. It just mentions some depressing facts about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and later on uses the word apartheid.
"Desmond Tutu has also drawn comparisons between the fight to end South African apartheid and the Tibetan struggle for independence from the People's Republic of China."
Tutu told his host, the Dali Lama, that he and his people were on "the winning side."
"These tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry."
Wikipedian's thesis.

The article ends on a wonderfully ludicrous note. We are told that our own Jimbo Wales "compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." But here we are offered no block quote to go with our blah-blah, nor even given the rhetorical details of the comparison. Why? Because the AP reporter we've relied on for this gem didn't find it notable enough to report. So in the absence of our master's voice saying "apartheid, apartheid," we console ourselves with what appears to be his driver's-licence photo.

Delete this dreck.

WP:N and WP:NOR require secondary sources for a reason – to prevent hobby-horse essay-articles about issues not recognized as issues anywhere in the actual world. G-Dett 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more objections - the article doesn't address whether China is/could be guilty of the crime of apartheid. (If we're going to use legal or semi-legal terms, lets be precise, keep our eye on the ball). And badly referenced, the first link goes to The Economist, no mention of apartheid or even of China! PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The first link references an article from The Economist, which does indeed compare the Chinese hukou system to apartheid. These kinds of fact-free claims are rather depressing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, point-pushing original research surrounding a forced neologism. --Eyrian 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This is trying to solve an editing dispute by AfD. Article has quality issues, but it is well sourced and notable (I mean, it quotes Jimbo Wales, fer god's sake...). Quality issues should be resolved by other means, not AfDs. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cerejota. Please note that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the objection; violation of WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, and total lack of secondary sources establishing the topic qua topic, is the objection. And no, it doesn't quote Jimbo Wales, fer G-d's sake. Because there is no Wales quote on record, because the AP reporter didn't report it, because he didn't find it notable, because this is not a topic.--G-Dett 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It quotes Jimbo Wales.--Urthogie 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the topic of the article.--G-Dett 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he says apartheid in reference to China if you read the article.--Urthogie 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Urthogie, he says something the reporter never bothered to transcribe, but summarized as a comparison to apartheid. You added the unrelated quote about how China has "damaged the brand image of 'Don't be evil,'" for filler.--G-Dett 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cerejota. G-Dett's valid complaints can be addressed by editing the article, something G-Dett has refused to do.--Urthogie 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As clarified below, improving the article doesn't work when the concept is flawed at its most basic level. This article is either 1.) an entirely original synthesis discussion of "allegations" that no other reliable secondary source has discussed as such, or 2.) a POV fork of substantive issues in China, which curtails any neutral or encyclopedic discussion by limiting it solely to those who use the word "apartheid" (while simultaneously combining several issues that no reliable sources has combined). If the article is about something else, this hasn't been explained, which is what makes it unclear how the article can be brought in compliance with these policies. Mackan79 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allegations of [controversial entity] [universally abhorred phenomenon] tend to be a random collection of quotes from political activists, and this is no exception. In the unlikely event that someone does serious academic work comparing the two systems, we could possibly write a decent article, but until then this article can be nothing other than utter crap. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These WP:POINT violations getting sillier with each day. (Incidentally, would anyone care to place bets now on the number of participants to this discussion with a background in Chinese issues, in relation to the number with a background in Middle East issues?) CJCurrie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyI am saddened by your narrow and incurious demeanor, and hope this is just a quick jab in the heat of debate... Knowledge should look outward, not inward. I have said it before this is why I defend the Allegations of apartheid articles: I have learned a lot more than if we focused on the middle-east alone. And I am a wikipedia because I want to learn.Thanks!--Cerejota 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not about suppression of information, it's about editors forcing the facts to comply with a term they've largely synthesized in order to balance a perceived injustice. What have you learned that couldn't be found in discrimination in China or racism in China? --Eyrian 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links weaken your argument.--Urthogie 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They indicate directions that this material could move if it wasn't being shoehorned into the apartheid label to fit the designs of tendentious editors. --Eyrian 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Predictable reply. This page exists to discuss rhetoric, not actual segregation.--Urthogie 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary condescension. How many people need to scream it to create Allegations of alien influence in the UN? --Eyrian 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion, where the point has been raised that allegations articles should maybe not exist. Singling out China's article for deletion is not in following with NPOV. Comprehensive solution is needed.--Urthogie 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not happening. I've watched it from afar, and I know a train wreck when I see it. As in the real world, this conflict is bitterly divided, ruled by emotion, and will ultimately go nowhere. I believe that articles need to stand on their own. That is enough. --Eyrian 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This, like the others, is an OR essay with no encyclopedic value, created in obvious response to the Israeli apartheid article, by the same group of editors who created all the others. This needs to stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - CommentCare to show me exactly what are unsourced (thus OR?). Please back up your claims with proper facts. Please also feel free to show me how there can be over 20 reference and 25 notes with every claim backed with a citation be called OR ? I find it hard to understand this concept. Thanks Watchdogb 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that I'm tired of articles that are entitled "Allegations of ______ese apartheid", but if they're sourced, then they should stay. The idea that this is "dreck" to be deleted is an extreme solution. If it's dreck, then edit it, dispute it in the discussion, etc. Apartheid is a dumb title to use because (a) it's as unique to South Africa, as "Jim Crow" is to the USA; (b) apartheid and Jim Crow referred to laws on the books directing segregation, not policies that had that effect; and, last and least, (c) hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and as loaded a term as can be. Mandsford 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I completely agree with your views, without reservations. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Hi Mandsford, the point is it's not sourced to any secondary sources, as required by WP:N and WP:NOR to establish notability. The article is "about rhetoric," as Urthogie says above, but not one source here discusses rhetoric. That is Urthogie's thesis, which he advances through a constellation of primary sources. Hope this clarifies.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properly sourced, notable, and entirely consistent with the other articles in the "series". I agree with Mandsford, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and this nom itself appears to be the violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction Not IDONTLIKEIT, as you must have noticed, but WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT, per above.--G-Dett 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but has it does easily meet WP:N and it's clearly not OR, they were obviously just a pretext for IDONTLIKEIT. That's how it looks anyway. <<-armon->> 02:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, of course. Well sourced, well written, relevant information, presented in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The practices of both China's hukou system and that of China in Tibet have well-documented parallels with the situation in apartheid South Africa, and I'm surprised that User:G-Dett dismisses the Dalai Lama's and Desmond Tutu's views on this so cavalierly, considering how strongly she has supported Desmond Tutu's similar statements on other very similar articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deleting an article, nor are various nonsensical claims about "primary" and "secondary" sources: Of course primary and secondary sources do exist, and are different, but the argument used regarding them in these articles is spurious. These constant AfDs are quite disruptive; what percentage of other Wikipedia articles do people imagine have even 10 sources, much less 37 citations sourced to 25 different sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Jay manufactures baloney faster than any mere mortal can eat or otherwise dispose of it, but here goes. This article has no sources, as in zero sources, discussing its topic, "allegations of Chinese apartheid." "Well-documented parallels" are a red herring; what we need, in an article on allegations of Chinese apartheid, is well-documented allegations of Chinese apartheid. Again, zilch, zero, nada. I haven't dismissed and wouldn't dismiss Tutu's views; I dismiss Jay's willful and repeated manipulation and distortion of same. No IDONTLIKEIT arguments have been introduced, only notability and original-research problems and WP:POINT-violations Jay is unable to address and so hopes to distract editors from. The distinction between primary sources and secondary ones is central to both WP:N and WP:NOR, and was well understood by Jay himself as recently as May 1; that he affects now not to understand it is as predictable as it is trivial. AfD's aren't disruptive; the ceaseless production of hoax-articles like this one, for the purposes of leveraging deletion of an article one doesn't like, is disruptive.--G-Dett 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - G-Dett, I know I ask you this at least three times a day, but here goes another fruitless try; could you please comment solely on article content and policy, rather than lacing your remarks with multiple derogatory personal attacks? It really detracts from the discussion when you do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and not that it matters, but I'm a she, as Jay knows as well as everything else he misrepresented in that last post.--G-Dett 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I've modified my comment to refer to you as a "she". Now, could you possibly stop making uncivil attacks on other editors in almost every single comment you make? I think it would really help the tenor of this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hukou system does use a pass system, but that's the only real parallel. Chinese actions in Tibet are deplorable, but are being carried out in a completely different manner than oppression and control of nonwhites in apartheid-era South Africa. The term apartheid as used in this context is simply a term of opprobrium, not a serious comparison. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It goes much farther than just the pass system, as the article brings out. The exploitation of cheap labor, forced to live in dormitories in places where they are not allowed to be real "residents", the raids and expulsions, etc. are all strikingly similar to the South African situation. As for Tibet, there's a good quote in the article outlining all sorts of parallels. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all extremely shallow or apply to many exploitative systems other than apartheid: the American treatment of the native population, the Normans in 11th and 12th Century England, the Japanese in Korea, the English in Scotland, the English in Ireland, the English in India, ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid was a specific legal and political structure. Its overuse to make facile analogies clouds its meaning. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might not agree that the analogy is a good one, but that's not particularly relevant in the context of this AfD. The fact is that multiple reliable sources have explicitly made these allegations/analogies, comparing Chinese practices directly to those of Apartheid South Africa. By the way, there's a more detailed article about this here, making very specific comparisons (and also stating where they break down). I'll have to incorporate it into the article as well, as there's lots of good stuff there, but haven't had the time yet. In any event, if you are making the larger point that "apartheid" outside South Africa is really just an epithet, and shouldn't be used as a topic/title for encyclopedic articles, then I hear you, but then you're going to have to look at a systemic solution, not just this article in isolation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the paper you link to makes clear that he does not equate the two systems (I doubt any serious scholar would), but is using a comparison as a device to explain the Chinese system to his readers. Thus, saying that the paper is advancing an allegation of apartheid in China does not seem accurate. I'm opposed to most "Allegations/Criticism of" articles as irredeemable POV problems and would be receptive to a systemic solution that would discourage them. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree with you; in my view, the author sees similarities and differences between the two systems, but insists the similarities are quite real. Regarding systemic solutions, here's a page built for discussing exactly that: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. However, it's only fair to warn you that the rhetoric often gets quite personal, and some editors are mightily resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the article isn't Similarities and differences between the apartheid and hukou, it's Allegations of Chinese apartheid and the author never alleges that China practices apartheid and says that he's comparing the two (quoting from memory) "not because the analogy is perfect but because it is revealing." You could compare any two legal and political systems and find similarities and differences. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to translate for those who might be getting lost in this discussion of "systemic solutions" and "centralized discussions." Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which superficially resembles this and the other "allegations of apartheid" articles, has survived six AfD's. The reason is simple: the article has 115+ sources, and most of them are secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and hence establishing that topic's notability. This article and its sister articles (all written by opponents of the Israel article), by contrast, have zero secondary sources and provide no evidence of notability. At any rate, editors who oppose the Israel article on ideological or nationalist grounds have despaired of trying to have it deleted in the proper fashion, and came up with the brainstorm of creating seven or eight very badly sourced articles built around data-mining (of which the China article is a good example), and making them superficially resemble the Israel article so that they could be presented as a "family" of articles, the fate of which they could then insist be decided together. The idea was that while it's difficult to sink a sturdily built ship (the Israel article), if you chain it to a chunk of worthless concrete eight times its size it will sink. This article is part of that chunk of concrete. This is what the editor above means by the euphemism "systemic solution"; he means chaining the fate of a well-sourced article to that of unsourced or poorly sourced and eminently sink-worthy articles engineered to superficially resemble it. Those who think the articles should be evaluated for their compliance with Wikipedia policy on a case by case basis he says are "resisting any sort of systemic solutions or compromises." Hope this helps.--G-Dett 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't "translate" for me, especially when your "translations" have little to do with my comments, but instead are just another re-iteration of POV and inaccurate arguments you've made many times before. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm well aware of the history here. Overall, I agree with the point that Jayjg is making: the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article is horrible. Its only distinction from the other articles is that it also quotes people who have either repeated or disagreed with the term. No serious scholar has alleged the two systems are the same and if you're apprised of the basic facts any equation of the two breaks down pretty fast. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chinese regime has been brutal,Tibetians,Chinese with different political views in particular pro democracy students etc have been targeted there has been specific targeting of certain sections of the society based on there views. 193.61.107.151 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. The article is an eye-opener and certainly not "dreck." If it has shortcomings, edit it. If apartheid doesn't fit China, than it does not fit any other non-South African article.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then it does not fit any other non-South African article. Bingo. The existence of one ridiculous article does not mean that numerous other silly articles need to be created. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing silly about this article. It is well-researched and quite an asset to the project. It seems to be opposed for reasons unrelated to its merits.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only sense in which the article is "well-researched" is that the authors have managed to find some quotes making analogies between various Chinese practices and apartheid. You could write a similar article called Allegations that George W. Bush is a Nazi. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, how many times do we have to go over this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It seems to be sourced an does not seem to have the problems suggested by the nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayig's comments above. I found this article realy interesting. The nomination to delete seems like it may be politically motivated. Bigglove 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's a loaded name, and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per WP:NPOV#POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"? Is this the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way? The answer to each seems quite clearly "no." It is in fact entirely original synthesis, tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article, which would be excluded since 99.9% of commentators are not going to discuss these issues in terms of apartheid. That is not improvable, which is why the article should be deleted. Mackan79 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you're making these claims; the topic of the article is allegations of apartheid in China, and this article discusses exactly that, and allows for all views on the subject. True, there are other good sources that could be incorporated into the article to round it out; I have two in particular that are thoughtful and extensive, and others exist. However, that kind of work takes a great deal of time. I do plan to get to it, though, and deleting an article because it's not yet complete does not make sense to me. Regarding "the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way", it seems that this argument would apply to all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles - and indeed, many have said just that. However, others have insisted that this does not apply to one specific article in the series, using various arguments I personally find quite dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are related problems. 1.) If this article is merely about the "allegations" of apartheid -- that is, about the allegations and their significance as such -- then the topic is clearly not notable, as nobody has discussed these allegations. These are entirely primary sources, meaning editors have data mined the internet for a phrase, and then synthesized an article about its use. This is, per the nom, original research until you find somebody who actually discusses the allegation as such. 2.) There is however some confusion, as some people seem to think the article is valid as a discussion of the underlying issues themselves. That is, not as a topic discussing the significance of the allegations, but as an article on apartheid conditions in China. In this sense, the problem is not notability, since the sources do discuss these conditions in China as secondary sources, specifically by referring to the conditions as "apartheid." It is thus the problem with this notion that I also want to point out, which is not notability but that it violates WP:NPOV#POV_forks in limiting a substantive discussion solely to "allegations of apartheid." In terms of other articles, I wish this did not keep being raised, but I think you know that the analysis is different. In some countries, the allegations are indeed highly notable as such, and discussed extensively by secondary sources who talk about the allegations, which means the topic passes under point one. I didn't choose this, but it is the reality of the situation that we have. In no country is "Allegations of Apartheid" a neutral discussion of the underlying issues, as all have agreed for some time. Mackan79 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Human Rights in China. "Chinese apartheid" is an obscure term. There are only around 200 hits on google proper and one hit on google scholar. The second reference is on the hukou system and it says it's been called "Chinese apartheid" or a "Chinese caste system" so there's no reason to think "Chinese apartheid" is a definitive term. Merge the information on houku to hukou with links from Allegations of apartheid and caste. As for the material on Tibet, 1) Desmond Tutu does NOT compare the situation of Tibetans under Chinese rules to the apartheid system in South Africa. What he does is compare the struggle to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship with the struggle to free Tibet from China - two very different ideas. He could just as well have been talking about any struggle against a dictatorship - it certainly doesn't mean he was comparing social, political or legal systems. The other references to Tibet are fleeting and not very deep. I can find no books or scholarly articles that make a detailed comparison between Tibet and Apartheid South Africa. Move the quotations to Tibet Autonomous Region and/or Allegations of apartheid. Move the other references as well since they also are rather fleeting. Until and unless there is some more serious scholarship on "Chinese apartheid" this article does not belong here. Lothar of the Hill People 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said a few minutes ago on the AfD about Saudi Arabia, and per the comments here by Mantanmoreland, Urthogie and Jayjg. 6SJ7 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the last DRV (U.S. apartheid, I think) I noted that the word apartheid itself is POV and divisive and these articles, which discuss allegations from reliable sources, often fail to have sources which actually use the word "apartheid". (If they did they would be much shorter.) I do not believe that this word is helping the case of any of htese articles to appear as anything but attack pages. The first page to come up with a viable alternative gets a cookie. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are serious problems with this article, as tabulated by G-Dett (I've added two more to that list above). There are no proper "allegations" as such, but if Jimbo had made them (except he didn't) it would be notable. However, I found the subject "valuable", the article readable and the topic acceptably encyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - despite my enjoyment of this particular article, I've discovered that all of the "Allegations of apartheid" articles (other than those for Israel and perhaps Cuba) were apparently created very recently in a collaborative effort to do? what? be attack articles? I don't think these are allegations atall, except as neologisms on these very pages. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. PalestineRemembered 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content of the article is sourced, but the fact that those sources are slapped together to try to create this article is definitely WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The simple litmus test here is that while the sources talks about discrimination and uses the word "apartheid" to individually and seperately describe the situations of the Tibetans, rural workers, etc, they do not collectively refer to all these groups that the article mentions. The fact that the article tries to link these together is what makes it WP:Original research and a violation of WP:Point. The content of this article should be on articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Tibet instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is sourced ad nauseam and there is no reason to delete it unless it's some policy issue to remove all allegations of apartheid articles. If it's not, there really should be an article of allegations of apartheid for every country and this will probably top the list. Amoruso 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a laundry list based on a keyword search. While the quotes individually are kind of interesting, lumping them together doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not Google. --Ideogram 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Let me expand. Articles like this can be written by a robot that searches Google for a keyword and simply lists all the quotes found. There is no secondary source writing about "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" as a unifying concept. There is no thought involved in cobbling together a list of quotes. The same process could be used to create a series of articles "Allegations of Chinese/French/American thoughtlessness" or any other pejorative term, as can be evidenced by the fact we are facing a group of people creating a whole genre of articles on "Allegations of Apartheid". --Ideogram 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was well known that consistency with other articles is not a valid justification for keeping an article. This is obviously a POINTy argument aimed at attacking the Israeli article. In any case, that is up to the closing admin to decide. --Ideogram 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the American article got deleted, and the French article got kept. There is no such thing as consistency on Wikipedia. --Ideogram 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The article shows the whole problem of all the political allegation articles.
They show two levels. Level one is the alleged fact and level two is the allegation itself. Each of these levels should be treated different.
If the facts are notable, there should be an article about these facts themselves. In this case, there should be an article about apartheid in China, which will not happen, because there is no apartheid in China (Don´t misunderstand me, China is a repressive system, constantly violating human rights, but not every repressing political system is apartheid, a special system of racial separation. For excample the case of Tibet is no case of apartheid, because there the chinese do not try to separate the Chinese and Tibetians, far from it they try to absorb the Tibetians)
The human right violations in China should be discribed in neutral articles of their own or added to the existing articles about human right violations. This article deals with the allegation itself. These can only reach notability, if they are more than the usual political blabla, because they cause special interrest independent of the content of the allegtion (level one). The claims of the dalai lama about apartheid in Tibet is one of many similar statements, showin no new facts and causing no reaction in addition to the other millions of statements of the dalay lama about the situation in Tibet.It´s the same about the other statements, discribed in the article. Someone made a statement and the only result was an article at wikipedia. We have an unimportant allegation about a not existing correlation. No reason to keep.--Thw1309 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of these "Allegations of Apartheid" articles are worthless, particularily the one on France. The one on Saudi is decidedly poor, proving only racism (against foreigners) and a divided society, not apartheid. However, I found this article on China interesting and significant. China may does not operate classic "racist" apartheid, but the pass-laws (according to what I've learnt here) get perilously close. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to read about pass-laws, it belongs in Hukou. There is a bunch of other unrelated stuff in this article. --Ideogram 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Most of the repressive systems use the same methods (because they work so well) but this is not the central meaning of apartheid. Apartheid is a racist system of separtation, the result of a special historical situation and a special racist concept. The chinese system is not better but it is something else. That´s not the point. This article is not about apartheid in China. It´s about allegations of apartheid in China. --Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about allegations of apartheid. It's a list of allegations of apartheid. It doesn't say anything sourced about the allegations. --Ideogram 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The same pro/con arguments should be applied across all "Allegations of apartheid" series. Consistency please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely right, but this can not mean that,because one bad article was not proposed for deletion the others should not be deleted too. Delete them all!--Thw1309 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support your sentiment but unfortunately this is a wrong place to deal with the series. I invite you to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand, it's also frustrating when editors continually point out differences between the various articles only for these differences to be ignored for purely WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. Mackan79 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, this is not "purely WP:ALLORNOTHING". The article Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was among those that did not hold water and was deleted. WP has a problem when certain unscrupulous editors and admins pick and choose a target to attack according to their POV. All I am asking is consistency. If an argument works in one case, it should works in others as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Humus, several articles have been deleted, but a number of editors have continued to argue that if "allegations" articles can exist, then they should all exist. See IronDuke, Jossi, Shrike and others. As far as consistency, if you think there is a difference between the Jordanian article and this, can I ask what it is? This article combines four issues that no reliable source has discussed together, and lacks any secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves. I do not see how that holds water. Mackan79 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was much weaker. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note for closing admin: Please note that Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is behavioral guideline and is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is inherently POV. There is no need to cover the underlying issues in this way, and it is invalid to do so. No article should begin with the word "Allegations" unless it is the title of a published work. Casperonline 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Strong delete It cannot be denied that the article has plenty of references (the quality of referencing is another issue altogether), but many users appear to ignore the fact that we cannot simplistically clump a whole lot of references together and conjour a wikipedia article with a thesis based on the collective information drawn from those references. This is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is outright original research.--Huaiwei 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I beg to differ. Previously I'd thought there'd only ever been two apartheid nations (ie government issued IDs dividing people into "communities" within a single non-occupied nation). These series of articles have nuanced my understanding a great deal. And this article on China is second only to the article on Israel in providing "good" information. PalestineRemembered 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Indonesia~~ Malaysia requires citizens to indicate their religion on their id cards, and a woman recently was not allowed to change her id card even though she had converted to another religion. Apartheid, like genocide, is far more common than most people realize. In fact, maybe these people would be better occupied describing all the genocides in world history, since Hitler tends to get all the credit. Oh, BEANS. And Godwin's Law. --Ideogram 10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ID incident is in Malaysia actually, which incidently also routinely classifies its population by race. Heck, so does Singapore, which insists that all children are to study their respective mother tongue, and public housing flats are allocated by race. God, its Apartheid in my own backyard too, so anyone keen to write Allegations of Singaporean apartheid next?--Huaiwei 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the ID issue in Malaysia is more about religion than race. Check out Status of religious freedom in Malaysia for further details. Now read that along with Ketuanan Melayu on the constitutionalised affirmative action practised in that country for decades now. The Chinese allegations would probably pale in comparison, so Allegations of Malaysian apartheid too?--Huaiwei 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you need to know something, you should look at Wikiedia. There is an article History of South Africa in the apartheid era which says: "Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of ethnic separation in South Africa from 1948, and was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in democratic elections in 1994.The rules of Apartheid meant that people were legally classified into a racial group — the main ones being Black, White, Coloured and Indian — and were separated from each other on the basis of the legal classification." This is apardheit and nothing else. Because this is globally detested, every political idiot claims the system, he fights, to be apartheid.--Thw1309 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am fully aware that there are "sources ad nauseum" but the only purpose of the sources is to support the author's POV, which is basically WP:OR. And as Ideogram said, although both sides seem to be addressed, this is a simple compilation of quotes that makes the article seem valid. Pandacomics 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - ObiterDicta took the words out of my mouth. Will ^(talk) 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per what has been said above. The author uses selective quotes and deliberate mis-interpretation of sources to support an essentially WP:OR argument. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Another google search for "apartheid + [country of your choice]" that seeks to create a thoroughly artificial and unencyclopedic equivalence between things as different as the hukou system, race in Brazil, sex segregation in Saudi Arabia, and the social situation in the French suburbs, in order to have bargaining chips to secure the deletion of another article--Victor falk 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanupCholga^talK! 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the same ol' garbage from the same ol' article author who is engaging in frequent point-making with this synthesized original research. Tarc 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "no sources even calling them 'allegations'". Well, if that's the case, then the article should be Chinese apartheid. We're bending over backwards towards NPOV to call it Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ironies rich and meaty. Yes, no sources calling them "allegations," no sources discussing them as allegations, no sources discussing these utterances period. Kinda what I was getting at when I said the article was unsourced and should be deleted. Now yes, if you changed the subject to Chinese apartheid, you'd take care of the serious notability and original-research violations, as well as solve the fatal sourcing issues in one fell swoop. Trouble is, that fell swoop would take you out of the furnace and into the fire, as the article would by definition become a massive, five-pronged, red-hot and radioactive POV-fork. At any rate, in their use of the word "allegations" the authors of this article are not bending over backwards to make this article comply with NPOV; they're bending over backwards to make the article (and its bastard brother articles) superficially resemble the Israel one (with parallel structure, stock phrases, etc.) so that the collective deadweight of the former may help to sink the latter. It's deletion by other means, as anyone who's read their euphemistic ultimatums and endless strawman arguments about "consistency" can see. The question for Wikipedians in general is whether we want to keep bending over frontwards in submission to these serial WP:POINT-violations, or are ready to confront the aggressive disruption and put an end to it.--G-Dett 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Bending over frontwards?” My my. Anyway, I agree that there are problems with the allegations of apartheid articles—all of them. Any arguments about OR, POV, and notability can oh-so-easily be applied to the Israel article (and have been, many times). I liken this to the one time I ill-advisedly hit the random article button and came across some utterly non-notable middle school, or similar. I put it up for AfD, and was sternly informed that basically all schools everywhere are notable, so I should really pipe down. And… I piped down. Now, I could go back and start putting out AfD’s for all articles on middle and grammar schools that aren’t in some obvious way notable (which is virtually all of them) but what would be the point? I might win some, I might lose some, but the solution is really to take them all out at once, or leave them all in. No point in keeping Marquette Catholic School but deleting Hanshew Middle School, or viceversa. IronDuke 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that the Israel article lacks secondary sources and hence runs afoul of WP:N and WP:NOR. There is prominent, widespread discussion of and controversy about allegations of Israeli apartheid, that is, the allegations themselves. There is apparently no discussion or controversy whatsoever about allegations of Chinese apartheid. Going by the evidence of the article on the topic, the only source that's ever discussed allegations of Chinese apartheid is Wikipedia. That's a fundamental difference you can't get around through obfuscation and verbal shell-games. Incidentally, it's not particularly surprising that allegations of Chinese apartheid have never been noticed or discussed before. China is not exactly synonymous with human rights. In terms of public image, China and China's apologists have bigger things to worry about than comparisons with South Africa. It's a fundamentally different equation with a country like Israel, which is one of the reasons the comparison has become a subject unto itself in the Israeli case, but not the Chinese case.--G-Dett 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have said time and again that IA runs afoul of NOR (and again, in the last complete AfD, a majority of folks wanted it gone). A secondary source noting that some people have made an analogy does not make that analogy worth an encyclopedia article. Oh, if you have a sec, can you point me to what you believe are the secondary sources which discuss the controversy? I would aprpeciate it. IronDuke 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Buruma, "Do not treat Israel like apartheid South Africa", The Guardian, July 23, 2002; "Oxford holds 'Apartheid Israel' week," Jerusalem Post by Jonny Paul; Heribert Adam, Kogila Moodley, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians; Alex Safian, "Guardian Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 20, 2006; Joel Pollack, "The trouble with the apartheid analogy," Business Day, 2 March 2007; "Israel Is Not An Apartheid State," Jewish Virtual Library; Benjamin Pogrund, "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote"; "Carter explains 'apartheid' reference in letter to U.S. Jews," International Herald Tribune; "Archbishop Tutu, please be fair," Jerusalem Post Dec. 5, 2006; Norman Finkelstein, "The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter's Book," CounterPunch December 28, 2006; Gerald M. Steinberg, "Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause," Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004...How many is that and how many do you need? How about we make a deal, Ironduke. If I can produce twenty-five (25) more secondary sources on the Israel-South Africa comparison – that is, 25 more sources that discuss the allegation itself, as a notable subject – will you concede the point that this article and the Israel article are categorically different in their sourcing? That one has a rich vein of secondary sources, while the other has none, and that the difference has fundamental implications for notability? And will you then stop pegging the legitimacy of this article to the legitimacy of the Israel one? You can still vote keep on this, but you'd have to evaluate it on its own merits. Deal?--G-Dett 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, while I admire your intelligence and tenacity on this issue, that you have cobbled together secondary sources that address the allegations (and mostly seem to refute them, aside from fringe-y, non-legit sources like Counterpunch) does not win me to your side. I believe all the articles are equally dumb. That one smear (Israel= apartheid state) is somewhat more widespread than other, nascent smears does not lead me to believe it should be an encyclopedia article; indeed, as has been pointed out before, no reputable encyclopedia would ever consider a piece of excrement like the AoIa article. Not for five seconds. If we are to have a class of idiotic articles, let them live or die as a class. The only thing worse than having them is to choose, piecemeal, which ones are somehow “true”, which seems to be what a lot of contributors to the page want. IronDuke 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) We have already provided a systematic solution to the question you raise. That is that there is a difference between sources making an allegation and sources discussing an allegation. The sources G-Dett gave discuss the allegations. The sources in all the other articles in the series make the allegations. You refuse to accept this systematic solution because it results in the Israeli article being kept and the rest deleted. In fact you will not accept any solution that has this result; you will say or do or think anything you can to avoid that result. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, the majority of the sources in the AoIa article simply make allegations, in a delightful quote farm hodge-podge. Some of them “discuss” the allegations in passing, mostly to say that they’re bullshit, it seems. Perhaps we could retitle the article, “Bullshit allegations of Israeli apartheid.” At any rate, I am unimpressed by the distinction without a difference proffered by those who are desperate to demonize Israel. We could eliminate some of the objections, I’m assuming, be dropping they word “Allegations” from the Chinese Apartheid article, since no one seems to refute the idea that the Chinese practice this (which was the reason that IA became AoIA).

Your gloss on my motivations is, by the way, impressive. You appear to know me very well. I do admit I have pushed my point of view through abusing other editors with foul-mouthed tirades on this issue [58], and I do apol- oh wait, I’m thinking of someone else! ;) IronDuke 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer volume of your attempted distraction is impressive. The fact remains that there is an obvious distinction between sources making allegations of apartheid and sources discussing allegations of apartheid. You have my full support for removing any sources from the Israeli article that simply make allegations of apartheid, but as G-Dett proved, there are a large number of sources discussing allegations of Israeli apartheid left. If you have any sources discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, speak up now. --Ideogram 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS if you are going to criticize another editor for being "foul-mouthed" perhaps you should not use the word "bullshit". --Ideogram 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. My use of the word “bullshit” had nothing whatever to do with any editor, and even had it, it would have fallen far short of your “Shut the f*** up” comment to another editor. I do not know why you would want to belabor this point; it certainly cannot help you.

As to this difference that people seem to want to insist on, between primary and secondary sources, it is largely factitious. The majority of the AoIa article is/has been primary sources. If you want to remove all these, I shall applaud you from the sidelines (it has been tried before and reverted by those who believe the allegations are true). IronDuke 03:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you use many words but say very little. Nowhere did I use the terms primary and secondary sources; the distinction between sources making allegations of apartheid and those discussing allegations of apartheid is quite clear without resorting to jargon. Also, you seem to be operating under the illusion that I actually want to help you clean up Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In fact we are here to discuss the Chinese article, and, since you cannot produce a source discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, everything you say is irrelevant. --Ideogram 04:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I desire no “help” with AoIA other than to make it disappear. If you wished to improve it by removing that which you were fully supportive of removing, you should again feel free to do so. I never suggested that it be done—that was your idea alone, though I see you backpedal rather quickly when put to the test—not that I can blame you there.

As for “primary” versus “secondary” contra “making” versus “discussing,” well, that appears to me to be a recapitulation of the initial distinction without a difference. The simple question is this: do we want articles in which some ethnic/national/religious group is slagged off by some other group (however meticulously sourced) or do we not want such articles? I say we do not want them. Perhaps we could the new policy WP:BLPs (Biography of Living Peoples). IronDuke 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is not the place to make new policy. You cannot produce a source discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, so you cannot answer my objection. Everything else you say is irrelevant. --Ideogram 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. an argument built upon the sensational is one designed to appeal to emotion; it undermines real issues. Real issues are significant enough to present in a straight forward manner as stated above; call it racism. We do not need to manipulate readers to have a visceral reaction to a country or people. To me this title is POV; and these article with "Allegations" need to be deleted or the titles changed; they are too easily used to use primary sources to develop one's soapbox du jour. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I have !voted before, keep all or delete all articles on this subject. This article has plenty of sources and, per Gzuckier, we could meet some objections by renaming it to Chinese Apartheid. IronDuke 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. If we delete this article because it has no secondary sources and hence a) cannot offer objective evidence of its subject's notability, and b) must rely on its own original synthesis of primary-source material in order to thread together a narrative, then we must also delete another article that has copious secondary sources and hence neither of these policy/guideline problems? On the grounds that both articles have the word "apartheid" in their titles? This is sophistry, Ironduke.--G-Dett 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the IA article is a quote farm hodge-podge. I see few secondary sources, and am not impressed enough by the few that there are to say that it makes a good WP article. As you’ll recall, in discussion on another page, I pointed out to you the many secondary sources that could be had discussing “Israeli as Nazi.” You did not respond to this, and I’m going to assume it was because of the nature of my sharp—even eviscerating—logic. “Sophistry?” Socratic, I say! IronDuke 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of response is more likely to do with the fallaciousness of your argument, really. The Israeli apartheid article has reliable and verifiable sources to support the noteworthiness of the apartheid allegations. For Chinese apartheid, the article creator and the usual gang have cherry-picked a few phrases here and there, tossed them in the pot, and called it a day. Soapboxery at its finest. Tarc 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc thanks for your comment, though you did not address my point at all. If you’d like to, I’d be happy to respond. IronDuke 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't respond because I didn't think your list of secondary sources establishing the notability of "Israelis as Nazis" for a Wikipedia article merited a response. Your secondary sources consisted of: a link to an op-ed in The Iranian (an online newsletter); a link to an unlabeled pdf photocopy of an alphabetical index to an unspecified book (if I were to guess, by Alan Dershowitz); a link to an article on "New Trends and Old Hatreds," accompanied by your bizarre advice that I "look for the Google blurb"; and an article about new antisemitism in England. I concluded that Socrates was fumbling around with Google to no meaningful effect, and I let it go. If you really require a response, I'll say this: your experiment proved how essential the secondary-source/notability requirement is. Editors exasperated with these "allegations" articles often rightly ask, what next? Allegations that George Bush is an idiot? Allegations that Paris Hilton is a ho-bag? Requiring secondary sources that comment on and establish the notability of an allegation is what prevents such nonsense. If you play the game the authors of this article play, where any collection of primary-source utterances can become the subject of a "sourced" article, then anything – including the Paris Hilton article and the Israelis-as-Nazis article – becomes permissible. What was salvageable from the sorry clutch of links you sent me would go very nicely into New antisemitism and Zionism and racism allegations; those are notable topics.--G-Dett 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, G-Dett, first off I have to say your line about Socrates fumbling with Google made it my turn to laugh out loud. There’s plenty more, though, as I'm sure you know, eg, [59] or [60]. More could be gotten if I but had more time. The (antisemitic) comparison to Nazi Germany is often made, and refuted often in secondary sources (just like IA). If my life depended on it, and it weren’t to a violation of WP:POINT and several other policies, I could make a rather nifty article out of it. (If I did, and sent it to you secretly, would you promise to drop your support for AoIA?) But I think you know all this. For you, I’m guessing, that Israel practices apartheid is close enough to the truth that you think it merits an article. Respectfully, I disagree on both counts. IronDuke 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, now it's my turn to laugh out loud at your latest sophis– just kidding, Ironduke. I'll make this last blast less hot and halitotic than usual (don't think I'm going soft). The legitimacy of a Wikipedia article about a concept hinges on the prominence and notability of the concept, not on its proximity to truth – in my eyes or anyone else's. Jewish lobby, Zionism is racism, Pallywood, and New antisemitism are to my mind all pretty bankrupt ideas (each in its different way), but they're all notable and I'm glad there are articles on each of them. I do not think Allegations that Israelis are Nazis is notable; I do not think there's a foundation of serious reliable-source material on the idea qua idea. If you can convince me otherwise, which on the basis of the "secondary sources" you've sent me I think is highly unlikely, then no that wouldn't mean changing my mind about AoIA; it would mean changing my mind about the Israelis-as-Nazis article. See? A WP article about an idea is not an endorsement of that idea. "Allegations of apartheid" articles should not be treated as badges of dishonor that smug Wikipedians serve like subpoenas to countries based on their human-rights transgressions. This attitude, which appears to be prevalent among the creators of these articles, is absurd. This is insiderish logic, Wikipedia-as-a-battleground logic. We should be thinking of readers. The many-faceted controversy over persistent Israel-South Africa comparisons (it isn't just a guilty/not guilty debate, you know) is something many people will have heard about and will want to know more about. "Tourist apartheid" in Cuba is a little less ubiquitous a controversy; nevertheless, it is a phrase used by many Cubans and familiar to many outsiders who travel there, so there's an article in that (though the "allegations of" format for it is idiotic, merely reflecting the article's origins in WP:POINT-making). "Allegations of Chinese apartheid," by contrast, is not a topic. It isn't a controversy, it isn't a concept, it isn't anything. It began its life as a phrase in a searchbar, and instantly blossomed into a bloated quote farm; but along the way it was never once a stable, recognized subject of discussion for reliable sources in the real world. Jay and Urthogie, not any real-world reliable source, discovered, classified, and named this thing, "allegations of Chinese apartheid," and put it into a taxonomy of their own devising. No reader will ever come to this article except by way of a legitimate article on some other topic to do with apartheid. Whereas an ordinary person will have seen a news segment about the controversy created by Carter's book, or by a speech given by Desmond Tutu at a Sabeel event, or he will have attended a university debate about the legitimacy of the "Israeli apartheid" comparison, and will then want to look up the issue on Wikipedia; no person ever will finish China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy, put it down and say, "Gosh, I couldn't help but notice that Ms. Chan used the word 'apartheid' once on page nine; there's nothing else in the book about it, and nothing in the index, but I wonder if other people have ever used this word about hokou – or indeed anything else in China." To say that "allegations of Chinese apartheid" is an invented topic is not an attempt to defend China's deplorable human-rights record. It's an attempt to defend Wikipedia from those who would turn it into a farce.--G-Dett 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree with your assessment, G-Dett. I did substantial research in the last couple of days and found that there is a vigorous debate out there (albeit less known that other similar ones) about the subject. The article in its current state is not more of a quote farm than other articles on the same "series". Dismissing the content as a "farce", only because it is less known, is illogical and against system-wide NPOV. Having said that, I continue to argue that all these articles need to be merged into other related articles to avoid the de facto forfeit of NPOV carried by their title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "system-wide NPOV," and invoking it to vote "keep" on an article that by your own admission involves a "de facto forfeit of NPOV" is a textbook violation of WP:POINT. I am as little impressed with the "substantial research" you've done in the last two days as I am with your ability to distinguish primary sources from secondary ones, or actual sourced topics from the clustering illusions that inevitably result from data-mining. That you've stuffed in now a third separate reference to the single brief passage on p.9 of Anita Chan's book suggests to me that you're padding this article in an attempt to trick editors passing through it on their way to "vote" here; I would be willing to attribute this to mere incompetence if it weren't for the grotesque "Further Reading" decoy ducks you've lined up in a row, which consist of books you haven't read or consulted, some of which talk about China, some of which talk about apartheid, and none of which talk about both.--G-Dett 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is a perfect example of the depths to which this pro-Israeli clique will sink to get their way. We have explained to you in simple language, multiple times, what the systemic solution is and you have made no reply. You yourself admit the sources G-Dett found above all argued against the allegation, yet here you are trying to insinuate that G-Dett believes Israel practices apartheid. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per lack of any ANALOGY to South African style apartheid, which was based on race and ethnicity segregation ONLY. I cite The World Book Encyclopedia (1974): "Apartheid not only segregates whites and nonwhites, but it also has led to efforts to segregate South Africa's nonwhite groups from one another. For example, certain residential areas are reserved for persons of a particular racial group.". China is one nation, one race, only two languages Mandarin and Cantonese, which differ slightly, so the allegations of apartheid are just silly and invalid. These could apply only to the Kashmir region but the word "Kashmir" doesn't show up even once in this article. For French "allegations" article I voted "weak keep", because those allegations were valid, it concerned race segregation, not rural/urban segregation allegations. Also, there is another reason for speedy deletion. As per the same World Book, apartheid means the government's policy. As far as I know, China's government as bad as it is, has never installed this policy; they even claim Taiwan as "us". greg park avenue 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg, are you sure you've read the article? Most of the sources make very explicit analogies and comparisons to South African apartheid, and list government policies enforcing the conditions described. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure he's read it. Despite some misguided facts (i.e. "only two languages"), he's spot on in saying that China, if anything, is pro-assimilation, as in they'd much rather have people be absorbed into their culture, and in the case of the ROC, be absorbed within political boundaries as well. Pandacomics 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I read it, and I think it's an insult to Wikipedia too, to have here such a piece a garbage on display for so long. The official GOVERNTMENT'S POLICY (and this is a keyword to the term apartheid) strictly enforced in China is: THERE ARE NOT TWO CHINAS! (which is exactly the opposite to apartheid meaning), and everybody knows that. Once a US president did that mistake reffering to Taiwan calling it just like that and must apologize later for insult, however it was not meant to. I don't think you have to apologize for your mistake, because you're not a politician, only a wikipedian, but better get this piece a bullshit out of here ASAP, if only for sake of Jimbo's reputation. I think he's not Billy Gates who keeps money in the crates. And don't sell me that bullshit of yours that all articles including the term "allegations of apartheid" should be deleted as well (your comment below). Each country is different. Britannica would never used it, but they have also the print version. Just imagine Wikipedia in print. You would need a tractor trailer to make delivery from Wal-Mart to your house, but some wikipedians often use this as an argument for deletion of all "allegations" series. Just smile. greg park avenue 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article has considered all Wikipedia policies and stays on topic. --82.81.224.249 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to anon You'd better sign in if this is to be counted.--G-Dett 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an entry that deals specifically with the "apartheid analogy". Whatever problems editors say exists with the titling is the same one that exists throughout the "series" and should be dealt with comprehensively, and not piecemeal. Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced extremely informative and necessary article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. While not perfect, it seems to be fairly well-sourced and appears to be mostly neutral. However, I have some concerns over the name, and wonder whether there may be a little too much focus on the word 'apartheid' rather than the underlying concept. I can't help but wonder whether the article might be improved, and perhaps some concerns might be partially resolved, if a move is considered at a later date. Jakew 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment You hit it spot on... there are people here who are trying to make a point with use of the word, the underlying concept is not all that relevant AFAICT. The use of the word apartheid is conveniently borrowed because there is nothing else conceptually close to it in China, by definition. All but one or two of the source articles (at least for the hukou section) uses "apartheid" in single quotes, or "apartheid-like". Ohconfucius 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. It's an unecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. AfD's are not about "systemic solutions"; they're about individual articles. At this point, it's a reasonable interpretation to say that both the editors who keep creating these content forks, and those who use the AfD's to accuse them of a broad range of malfeasance, are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The amount of potentially constructive energy being wasted on this issue is disheartening. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonably well-written, NPOV, and referenced article. Beit Or 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article inherits notability etc. from the parent, Allegations of apartheid, article, for which it serves as a convenient repository of content. Of course China does not practice apartheid. Neither does France, Cuba, etc. Or Israel. Only ZA practiced apartheid. The decision has been made, repeatedly and ad nauseum, that Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet. The fact that that article has grown into a whole family of "articles" and that Wikipedia doesn't have a good mechanism for recognizing or presenting multi-"article" articles doesn't justify the kind of guerrilla warfare this AfD represents. The encyclopedia will not be improved by merging this content into Allegations of apartheid, and the time spent on doing so (and on this discussion) is simply a waste. Andyvphil 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not inherited. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow your own cite: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation..." I would argue that accepting a sub-article for "ease of formatting and navigation" is "inherited notability", but the point is that this "article" is an article fragment, and it makes no sense to use the AfD process to force a formatting change. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Every major authoritative dictionary of the English language from the OED to M-W to Webster's New International defines "apartheid" both as the proper name for South Africa's former system and as a generic political term for systemic segregation. The articles in this pseudo-series are merely gathering instances of the regular use of a word and building narratives to thread the instances together. Wikipedians never decided – not repeatedly, not ad nauseum, not even once – that "Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet." What was decided, rather, was that if use of the word or concept (or "epithet" if you will) provoked enough discussion, commentary, controversy, scholarship, and international debate, then that debate could be considered encyclopedic. A very different thing. Creating a series of unsourced hoax articles in order to leverage deletion of an article that's survived six AfDs is "guerrilla warfare"; addressing the disruption head-on and through the usual channels is not.--G-Dett 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries are a very poor source for semantics, and the vogue for descriptive rather than prescriptive definitions can get them in trouble. As it does with "apartheid" which, in the real world, is not merely "a generic political term for systemic segregation", but is almost invariably used to summon the emotional weight of the campaign against Apartheid ZA. Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. And the material in this sub-article is relevant to the subject of the parent article, which has survived multiple AfDs. I see no prospect of it failing to survive the next AfD merely becaus it has been formatted as multiple "articles", so nominating the sub-articles for deletion is a pointless waste of time. Andyvphil 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, whatever fault one may find with the descriptivist tilt of the Oxford English Dictionary, it's hardly to be corrected in that regard by Wikipedia (!). Wikipedia is the ultimate descriptivist (as opposed to prescriptivist) reference resource, as established both by its tradition and its core policy of WP:NPOV. Also, the following doesn't make sense: Inasmuch as the epithet is, notably, debated, there is no meaningful distinction between an article on the epithet and an article on the debate over the epithet. Because the epithet isn't notably debated in this case. In fact it appears not to have been "noted" at all, and is hence by definition not notable for our purposes. Since you bring it up, the same goes for Allegations of apartheid. Notwithstanding the misrepresentation of sources in that article, there are none that even recognize or discuss this class of utterance, "allegations of apartheid," and none that describe it generally as an epithet. Jay has found four sources in which "Israeli apartheid" is dismissed as an epithet, and for the purposes of that article he's misrepresented them as offering a general critique on the use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa, and then edit-warred the article to a standstill to keep the misrepresentation in place.--G-Dett 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Kurykh didn't find the "generic" definition in the OED, though he does report it in American-Heritage, etc. Was your initial statement in error? .... But that observation is merely interesting. If the "generic" definition is not in the OED I would think it ought to be in the OED since there are so many instances of people using it as if it were "generic" generally, but often unadmittedly, for the reason I've supplied. The English (non-prescriptive) dictionary form is unsuited to point out intentional tendentious useage of this type. On the other hand, intentional tendentious use is indeed a cited allegation in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The existance of a notable allegation of promiscuous use (see later comment) justifies a NPOV mustering the evidence found in Allegations of apartheid and its sub-articles. You are of course right that the sources of this sub-article are primary instances of the allegation, but this (sub-)article does not require separate secondary sources to justify it. (Comment: I am not sure there are notable allegations of promiscuous use, though there ought to be, but then you should be arguing to delete Allegations of apartheid and its sub articles, not just this sub-article, and that cause has been lost several times already.) Andyvphil 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the OED: Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib. Notice the three levels of figuration within the "generic" part of the definition. If dictionaries are "unsuited to point out intentional tendentious useage of this type," then Wikipedia is, let's say, super-unsuited to point it out...unless of course reliable sources have pointed it out. Jay has worked hard to misrepresent the sources in Allegations of apartheid so that they appear to be arguing that "apartheid" is an unacceptable epithet outside of South Africa, but all his sources actually say is that Israel isn't guilty of it. He's used a little smoke and mirrors of the most laughable sort to create the illusion that "allegations of apartheid" is a general topic, whereas in fact it's a topic of his own invention. You're right that that article should be deleted, but I believe you're wrong that notability is inherited. At any rate, the fact that Jay has constructed his hoax holistically doesn't mean it can't be dismantled piecemeal, one spurious stage prop at a time.--G-Dett 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Who says Israel practices apartheid? But there is well documented analogy to it made by very notable politicians (Nobel Prize winners) and artists. If you wanna keep this article just because the name of "allegations" as an epithet has been allowed into Wikipedia, then I'd rather vote for switching "allegations" to "analogy" in this series and see how many countries fit into it. Probably very few only. Definitely not China. They even don't fit into "allegations" category. Then I recommend to rename this article Epithets concerning China. Some day we may rename it even to China apartheid jokes. greg park avenue 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first off, per WP:N, notability is not inherited. Second, this is WP:POINT synthesis original research, as none of the reliable sources provided directly or significantly address "analogies between practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." VanTucky ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Human Rights in China or somesuch. Seems a clear case of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and/or climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. T L Miles 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Mackan79, Pandacomics, Huawei, Hong Qi Gong. While I agree that the article is informative regarding the Hukou system, that material belongs there. There are no secondary sources discussing the analogy and as such the collection of the information under this title is WP:OR. Tiamat 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom seems like a misplaced emotional opinion, not GF for WP. --Shuki 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions expressed here should converge on the proposed subject of the article in question, not on amateur speculation about mentality of its author or contestant. We don't need another Wikishrink. greg park avenue 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, Shuki, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT aren't emotions. Do you care to say why you think Allegations of Chinese apartheid qualifies as one of those "rare" cases under WP:NOR in which no secondary sources are needed?--G-Dett 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid begging the question, it's a logical fallacy. The article contains only secondary sources; it doesn't posit that there is apartheid in China based, for example, on the hukou laws and the definition of apartheid. Rather, it cites secondary sources that make that analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid," a source that makes the allegation is a primary source. A source that discusses the allegations – that says, for example, when the allegation was first articulated, or who contests it, or what its political implications are, or if or why it's controversial – is a secondary source. Now I can see you've been working on this article trying to save it since the AfD was posted – larding it with more truffles sniffed out by your google-hounds, and removing Jimbo's driver's license photo – but where exactly are the secondary sources? I'm not eagerly rereading with each tweak, I'll confess, so maybe you can point me in the right direction; still don't see anyone talking about the allegations. One thing's certain – it's absolutely, categorically false to say that the article "contains only secondary sources."--G-Dett 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bizarre claim that secondary sources all magically become primary if someone inserts the words "Allegations of" into an article title has been refuted below. I know you don't like the words "Allegations of" in the titles of these articles, but this new shell game of yours is taking things way too far; please have some respect for the integrity and meaning of words. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point strawman arguments cross over into the territory of simple lies. I never spoke of secondary sources "magically" becoming anything; I said, rather, exactly what you've said and are now trying to cover up, that "whether a source is a primary source or a secondary source depends on the context in which it's used." In an article about a certain kind of political rhetoric, examples of that rhetoric are primary sources, as you know very well and are dissembling about. I am flattered and pleased that you liked my metaphor of a shell game enough to steal it and pretend it was yours; your larger and graver deceptions, however, I find unsettling.--G-Dett 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford. It's not up to us to purge WP by what some enraged Wikipedians qualify as dreck for no valid reasons, tellingly spicing up the sauce with constant personal attacks.

> [G-Dett] "Sources who make the allegation are primary sources, Jay."

Wrong: if the Economist chooses "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid" for a title, that's a secondary source saying so - quite possibly citing a primary one who said so in the first place - absolutely nothing wrong with that. Same applies with "China reviews `apartheid' for 900m peasants," as feels The Independent, and "Third World Report: 'Chinese apartheid' threatens links with Africa" by The Guardian, or "China's 'Apartheid' Taiwan Policy" by NYT. I agree with Jay: The distinction between primary and secondary sources, valid in saner circumstances, is just a spurious red herring here. The list goes on with a dozen or so [WP:RS] - obviously, rational argument is futile here. --tickle me 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle me, you are now officially arguing that when a newspaper or magazine runs a story, it is "citing" its own staff writer. That the guy writing the headline is a secondary source, "citing" the primary source which is the story itself. Why not make the copy editor a tertiary source? And the paperboy a quaternary source? If you're like me and have a nice little Jack Russell to bark like hell and bring the paper to your feet, he's your quinary source. "The Independent feels" – I promise you, Tickle me, I'm not enraged, I'm tickled to death by this crap; OK, I'm mildly irritated at having spit up half my martini onto the computer screen, but I'll get over that. But let's be clear here – I am not responsible for the pretzel your train of thought has buckled itself into. It is precisely in such insane circumstances – in an article about what some people say, how some people use a certain word, as noticed by some Wikipedians using search engines – that the distinction between primary and secondary sources becomes fundamental. Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic.--G-Dett 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> Simply put, if the comparison you've found hasn't itself been remarked

> or discussed by anyone, it isn't a notable topic

Hard to believe you're pulling this one. If the the Economist, the Independent, the Guardian, or the NYT have articles titled like "Discrimination against rural migrants is China's apartheid," while dealing with the subject in the ensuing text, they're yet neither remarking nor discussing the topic, much less notably so, as these rags are no WP:RS? As rags in general are no WP:RS anymore, all of a sudden, lest they deal with apartheid in some tiny country we need not mention? This is sheer filibustering, hoping that opponents just leave the premises, tired eventually. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, saying that the Economist's article makes a serious allegation of apartheid is just ludicrous misreading of the source. If a newspaper runs a story called "London Mayor is worse than Hitler, says residents", do you think it is seriously alleging that the London Mayor is a fascist dictator bent on world domination?

These aren't allegations - they are analogies - or, in many cases, hyperbole or exaggeration. This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious; do you think your argument applies to Allegations of Brazilian apartheid as well? How about Allegations of Israeli apartheid? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> ludicrous misreading of the source

Would you mind elaborating on that? When likening China's discriminatory attitude against its rural migrants to "apartheid" they didn't mean it, because PalaceGuard008 knows better, QED? Whose palace are you guarding?

> This article tries to misrepresent exaggerated analogies as allegations

We might want to complain with the Economist, as their article doesn't suit our expectations. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your stupid Israeli or Brazillian "apartheid" war. Each case turns on its own facts, and these facts disclose an article which deliberately misrepresents sources through selective quotation. I've already explained what I mean by ludicrous misrepresentation: when something is "compared to" the Apartheid, that does not equal an allegation of actual apartheid. It's not hard to get.

If I say "school lunches taste like shit", I'm not making an "allegation of shit-serving at schools", am I?

The difference between analogy and allegation is quite clear. Look up a dictionary if you don't understand it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, this just escaped me till right now: G-Dett feels the urge to admonish us to "[d]elete this dreck" - right per nom. I can't believe that, given that dreck is Yiddish, while Zionist (and worse) is the standard qualifier for Jay and Urthogie, the authors if the disputed article. Seems like even faint pretense isn't needed anymore. --tickle me 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am less tickled by this sort of smear, though. If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here. And then drop it. For good. As in now.--G-Dett 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> "If you want to know how I feel about the word "Zionist," click here"

Astounding: you're writing your very own persilschein? Good thinking, I'm convinced, now. --tickle me 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're not supposed to feed the likes of you, but have some chicken soup and go to bed. I never said "Zionist."--G-Dett 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have some red herring yourself - do they make soup of bait fish?

> I never said "Zionist"

...and nobody claimed you did. Others do, and you know as much, as your contact with Jay et al is, say, intense. --tickle me 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-written article, well-sourced. I also like that it says "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" rather than "Chinese apartheid". I see no good reason to delete. I do see that there's some overlap between here and Human rights in China, but that article is already extremely long, and it wouldn't make sense to merge more information into it. Instead, this is a good sub-article as part of that series. --El on ka 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A good, well-sourced article. Frivolous AfD. Arrow740 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. AFD seems poorly conceived. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity Anyone who links this AFD debate with the rest of the "Allegations of X Apartheid" series, especially the god-damned Israeli one, is an idiot. I spent months trying to establish a "consistent" policy on the Taiwan/Republic of China naming policy, and failed. Nobody cares about your petty war. By trying to make China a pawn in your pathetic game you have only earned yourself the enmity of a whole new group of people. --Ideogram 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if the title of this article was changed to "Chinese apartheid", it is clear it would have to be about a specific government system that has been called apartheid. It is only by calling it "Allegations of Chinese apartheid" that it can talk about five different government policies which have nothing in common other than having the rhetorical device "apartheid" thrown at them. The fact that people overuse the term "apartheid" is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. We don't have articles about "Allegations that X is a Nazi", because it's so fucking common. --Ideogram 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move this to "demographic problem of China" or a page with similar title. Apartheid sounds more incendiary than anything else. This article is really biased too. I can't believe there're allegations of "apartheid against Taiwanese", no doubt referenced by single quote mined source. You want to know real apartheid? Go read how harsh we (the Taiwanese) treat mainland Chinese domestics and mail order wives here in Taiwan, what a pathetic article . Blueshirts 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Apartheid" is indeed "incendiary." The problem is, once Wikipedia is ablaze, putting out an individual flame here and there won't work. The whole fire needs to be put out. And, as a famous poet once put it, we didn't start the fire. 6SJ7 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Stupidity above. You are pouring gasoline on your individual flame so that you can make a big fire to attract attention. You think it's so goddamn important you don't give a shit for our priorities, which, surprise, don't include you. You think by irritating people you will gain allies? --Ideogram 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fire shouldn't have been there in the first place. This isn't the same as sex education where it's "incendiary" but gotta be taught because it's real. "Chinese apartheid" is about as BS as they come. Merge what's salvageable to human rights in China please. Blueshirts 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is part of the clique that is obsessed with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, that is the fire he is talking about. He is trying to spread the fire to China, presumably because he thinks we will be grateful for being used. --Ideogram 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. the article is a heavily POV essay about observers' interpretation of what might be considered apartheid in China. I do not believe that "the subject" is notable, as it is in essence the amalgam of separate three ideas joined together by a very thin thread as if someone did a string searc on google for "apartheid" and "China". The article should be deleted outright, but it strikes me that the parts of the three constituent parts could be split back out into Hukou, Tibet, and Human rights in China. Just because the article is sourced ad nauseum doesn't mean it is not NPOV, including the title. Ohconfucius 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is this? - I just noticed this message at the top of the article's Talk page:

This article was written under the auspices of Wikiproject Zionism, an effort sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry to ensure a favourable portrayal of the State of Israel on Wikipedia. [61] If you would like to participate, please contact Hasbara Fellowships to receive a list of open tasks.

Since when is any concerted effort to especially give any country a "favourable portrayal" sanctioned under WP rules? I'm pretty sure this is a gross violation of the cardinal rule of neutrality on WP. Seriously, is there really any question that this article was written to be POV and written as a violation of WP:Point? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, I am pretty sure. I've deleted it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's putting it mildly. It looks like it was deliberately designed to mislead people, and unfortunately it looks like it worked in at least one case. 6SJ7 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical disinformation, a tactic used first by former KGB agents to create false impression how much antisemitism exists, in case there is none, someone must invent it. It affects both sides and incites hate among radicals. greg park avenue 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'* Delete as WP:POV. Any useful information better placed elsewhere. I'm reminded of the old political tactic Let's make the bastard deny it. (Johnson, I think). The heading is phrased to give an appearance of neutral examination of "allegations", but serves as WP:POV advocacy for themm in my humble opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge to Hukou and Tibet Autonomous Region Yes, it's a WP:POINT effort, but there's some salvageable content. The Hukou article could use expansion, and there's content here that would improve it. That subject deserves more development. More info on how the hukou system is holding up as China urbanizes would be valuable. The Tibet vs. China issue is a separate one. Is there an article other than Tibet Autonomous Region where that material should go? --John Nagle 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-referenced article. IZAK 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the 'stupidity' comment, i feel that a discussion to delete one in the "apartheid series" while the others stay, is unencyclopedic on it's own. as of now, i think the article is referenced well enough to be just as unencyclopedic as the others. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2 and One Half[edit]

Strong keep. First, let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Deep breaths. There. Doesn't that feel good? Now, first off: I understand the instinctive reaction to believe that this article must be a POV-laden hatchet job. I just have to read the words "Allegations of..." and immediately the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Whenever I see an article with a title like that, I expect to see something like "Allegations That So-and-so Has Recently Stopped Beating His Wife". However, when you actually read the article in question here, you notice a few things:
- The article itself is, for the most part, extremely well-sourced, relying on extremely reliable, verifiable, and notable sources (The Economist, the Dalai Lama, and so on).
- The article is part of a larger umbrella article that explores the specific phenomenon of commentators repurposing the Afrikaans word "apartheid" to other nations. In other words, the point of the article isn't "Let's all slag off the Chinese" but "Here are ways in which significant public commentators have used this term to describe certain activities."
- The article is written with a dispassionate tone, and generally does not pass judgment on the underlying issues.

So on the whole, this seems to me to be an asset to the encyclopedia, and an article that should be kept. I have a few complaints about the tone towards the end of the article (in particular, the last few sections, including the Jimmy Wales section, start to approach "Let's start putting any time anyone has used the word apartheid here." I think it is a good idea to limit the article to, as it were, "blue chip" sources).

I am strongly opposed to articles that are simply coatracks for maligning their subject. This article does not walk, talk, or quack like a coatrack-shaped duck. Therefore, I strongly believe we should keep it. Nandesuka 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are blue-chip, some not, but none of them discuss allegations of Chinese apartheid.--G-Dett 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons do not address the objection that there is no discussion or analysis of the usage of the term. This article has no context, and no thesis or subject linking the parts together.

I understand that it was split off from the parent article when it reached this size. In fact the parent article itself has the same faults. There is exactly one cited paragraph discussing the phenomenon as a whole, plus a short section presenting the definition of the International Criminal Court. The rest, like this part, simply documents usage of the term. There is no common thesis discussed by these sources: the thesis is implicitly imposed by their collection in the article, which is "Gee, a lot of people use the word 'apartheid'".

Now it is clear why the parent had to become so long, forcing this child. The article wishes to present the thesis that the term 'apartheid' is overused. There is no reliable source stating this. The article sidesteps this problem by enumerating all these uses directly. It is impossible for the article to present a brief summary such as "A recent study found 94 uses of the word 'apartheid' applied to 22 countries", because there is no such study. This article is the study.

This is the definition of Original Research. --Ideogram 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is well written with reliable sources.Chinese government had engaged in discrimation against Religious groups,ethnic minorties,People have been arrested for there political views. Harlowraman 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Keep - I have many reservations about including specific instances of political rhetoric as articles, but if the consensus is that these are notable topics, then this article should be included. --Leifern 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to Human rights in China. this article is incredibly biased against China, presenting little or no criticism of these allegations. Delete and merge for now, until this can be made more NPOV.Bless sins 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the middle age, when the pest came, there were allogations of jewish poisoning of wells. Nobody had any proof or even seen a Jew poisoning a well, but everyowne had heard someone say it. Nobody could have o proof, because, as we know now, the pest was not the result of poison but of dirt and garbidge. The allogations in these articles have the same quality. We can only be thankfull that wikipedia is to unimportant to cause the death of thousands of innocent people as these historical allogations did. --Thw1309 11:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys asking for consistency just don't get it. When I was struggling to establish consistent usage of "Taiwan" versus "Republic of China" in article titles, where the hell were you? Oh, I see, you want consistent treatment of "Allegations of apartheid" but when it comes to consistency elsewhere, you don't care.

Anyone with any breadth of experience on Wikipedia knows there is no consistency here. Every editor has his own idea of "the right way to do it" and fights break out when editors with different ideas try to establish their own rules as "standard". Sane people avoid these fights and let editors reach agreement on individual articles, not Wikipedia standards. It is not my problem that you can't get the Israeli article deleted, just as the Taiwan/ROC naming issue was not your problem. Your attempt to make it my problem is pissing me off. --Ideogram 11:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and AFD is not a vote. If you don't address the issues raised, don't waste your time. --Ideogram 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - --Tom 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)ps I don't believe articles about "allegations" are appropriate for this project. Leave that to the rags. --Tom 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I might also note that a significant proportion of the people going for keep are WikiProject Israel members, several of whom seem to think that it is actually called "WikiProject Defend Israel". I suspect that the development of the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" series is an attempt to dilute the fact that Israel is pretty much the only country regularly accused of apartheid (and indeed a case of WP:POINT, i.e. if Israel can be accused of it, so can other countries). Number 5 7 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW I ran into a number of edit conflicts during this edit, so if I mangled something you posted, I apologize in advance. --Ideogram 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Delete and ban users who created theses articles as WP:POINT. The whole bunch of articles created by pro-Isreal users following the creation of Allegations of Israeli apartheid is scandalous, pointless and irrelevant. They represent exactly what shouldn't be done on wikipedia. Poppypetty 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If not, delete ALL "allegations of X apartheid" articles. It's ridiculous to have some pages kept and others deleted. Keep all or delete all. The administration needs to make a ruling. John Smith's 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all "allegations of XXX apartheid" or delete them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This meets wP:RS. Links to the economist and other reliable sources explicitly describing apartheid make this page one that belongs on wiki.Baka man 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and delete them all. - Crockspot 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as these articles are very unencyclopedic, maybe the Israeli and French one also. Its bunch of unrelated references sorted together to make original research. I think it is mostly personal interpretation of the idea of apartheid, when in reality, it almost has no relation to what the word really refer to.--4.228.243.203 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate articles focusing on these disparate subjects that have nothing in common except a word used by critics. For those counting votes, lump this one in with the Deletes. Let's see, we have "Treatment of rural workers", also known as Hukou - hey, we have an article on that. That has nothing to do with "Treatment of Tibetans" - are most rural workers Tibetans? I don't know enough about China, but it doesn't seem that way from the article. "Treatment of foreigners" - surely most rural workers are not foreigners, and most foreigners in China are not rural workers or Tibetans. Then there's a Jimmy Wales quote, a blatant self reference, that should just be deleted -- our founder is a wonderful person, but not a recognized authority on China, any more than he is an expert on Microbiology or Jupiter. Keeping these bits in a single article is essentially putting together a random intersection of information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unecessary series of articles. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It's illuminating that many "allegations of apartheid" articles have been nominated for deletion recently in what appears to be a pre-meditated campaign, while the one that started it all was not. Beit Or 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted. But hey, since AFD is not a vote, you may as well vote twice. --Ideogram 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Split or Merge While I agree that China has human rights problems, adding a separate article about "allegations" is likely to be original research. If it's mentioned and heard of by the majority of the people in the world, then it might be a different story. There may be sources, but is the article relevant to the history of China? The Apartheid of South Africa is certainly significant, but what about in China? In fact, it appears those topics seem to be more relevant to China's various policies (like policies towards Tibetans, internal migration policies etc.) Furthermore, clumping so many allegations in one article may be POV as well. So, I suggest splitting the contents to relevant articles, or deleting it outright.--Kylohk 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is a thesis (if not a badly written one). There are sources, yes, but they are used to argue a point instead of sourcing the contents. As you can see, the article is just a bunch of quotations - it does not reflect the real situation. Having sources also does not make it any more notable, as in WP:ITSNOTABLE. While I won't deny there are human rights problems in China, this article falls short as an original research. It being in a series also does not mean it should not be deleted. See WP:WAX. Besides, as observed earlier by other users like PalestineRemembered, most of the series are just recently created, as though to create the illusion that "allegations of apartheid" is one big notable issue, while it is actually not.Feathered serpent 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lothar of the Hill People. Zocky | picture popups 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JossiShrike 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to keep an article created to make a point. Content should be used in more appropriate articles. Catchpole 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More or less random collection of a few of China's many human-rights problems whose only connection is that someone, somewhere, once used a particular epithet in the context of discussing them - little more than a list of loosely associated topics. An OR synthesis from start to finish which ends on a particularly comical note with Jimbo Wales telling us that China restricts free speech just like South Africa did - in other words, an allegation of censorship, not apartheid. The fact that the authors felt the need to pad the article with this shows just how hard they had to work to put together this half-baked thesis. Still, at least after recnt edits we're spared Jimbo's passport photo. Iain99 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only is the article well-sourced and its subject notable, also some of the keep voters (notably, Jayjg) have worked hard to provide reliable sources and expand this article, as well as addressing many of the raised concerns. It is now in a decent state, and while some content is missing, it has a good NPOV and fully complies with WP:NOR. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain while I try to think through my questions, below. Answers would help, thanks. HG | Talk 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well sourced and written very well. It complies with WP:NPOV and with WP:NOR. The nominator's rationale (at least the ones that are not attacking the editors) have been taken care of. Specially the quotes and such. Also, please note that AFP, Reuters and BBC are not the only Realiable sources. There are plenty more RS that exist out there and the arguments that say that this article is not cited by RS is baseless. Note that it is not a violation of WP:NOR when an article has over 20 reference and EVERY SINGLE claim is backed by references. I honostly believe that people accusing this article of violating WP:POINT themself are breaching just that. Watchdogb 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdog. No one's saying there aren't reliable sources, or that AP and Reuters and BBC are the only ones. The problem is that its topic is an invention of Wikipedians, and these reliable sources are only primary sources which the authors are drawing on in order to produce a synthesis. The article is a spectacular hoax in that it uses data-mined commonalities of phrasing among real sources to create the illusion of a topic where none exists. If you want to see just how audacious the authors have been in their misrepresentation of source material, track down the AP report that quotes Jimbo Wales, and see what it actually says. It's for good reason they failed to provide an online link.--G-Dett 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing the waters Before breaking for a day or so, I'd like to elicit WP:Policy and other objections to the following possible proposal. Assuming sources do not mention all 5 (?) subtopics as Chinese apartheid, then: Split each topic into separate articles. Then, Rename with an NPOV title. For instance, I prefer "Controversies about Hokou" as more NPOV than "Analysis of Hokou as apartheid", but maybe I'd accept the latter. Likewise, I favor "Controversial descriptions of China policy on Tibet" to "Descriptions of Chinese policy on Tibet as apartheid". Note: Analysis w/Hokou, Descriptions for Tibet. If you support some such variants, please say so! Oh, and if this is too disruptive to place here, please move this text to the end of my Comments, where my ideas emerged, below. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support splitting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like Allegations of American apartheid - WP:POINT violation first off, and plenty of other policy violations as noted by the nominator and others. ugen64 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the inherently POV and OR use of the term "apartheid." This subject is something novel to Wikipedia, and we are simply not a forum for this. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A Google search for "Chinese apartheid" yields 240 hits!! --CGM1980 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if you exclude hits on site:Wikipedia.org, you only find 190 hits on "Chinese apartheid." --CGM1980 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But China+apartheid gets nearly 2 million hits. Using the google test in the face of numerous sources quoted in the article is clutching at straws. Isarig 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"China apartheid" (which also picks up "China's apartheid") gets just 62 hits. If we're going to apply the Hated Google Test then it's important to present the figures in a way that genuinely reflect the result. PalestineRemembered 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the point went sailing way over your head, so I'll explain : It is incorrect and incomplete to search for the compound term "Chinese apartheid" (or it's derivatives "China Apartheid" or "China's Apartheid"), as many relevant articlestreat the issue using terms like "china rethinks its apartheid" or some similar formulation. See for example [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4424944.stm this], which happens to be the first link to come up when googling for articles that include both China and Apartheid. Isarig 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your search string also returns hits like this (on the first page) this, this, this; as I understand it, any document containing the two words "China" and "Apartheid", no matter how much or what kind of text or punctuation separates them.

Google is not a substitute for thought. --Ideogram 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is good reason for grittng your teeth before carrying out the "Hated Google Test". But I'm grateful to Isarig for posting that link (even as I curse the fact he's not done a "Show Preview" first). The BBC article he finds supportive puts the word "apartheid" in apostrophes (ie it's a neologism contained in a primary source, not a secondary source as required by policy). Read the article in question and you'll discover it's announcing the demise of this official system (at least within 11 of 23 Chinese provinces), making the potential notability of our WP article even more marginal. ~~I'm still technically on~~ I started off on Isarig's "side", I read the article, found it interesting and voted "KEEP". Little did I know it was history masquerading as current affairs! I wonder if Isarig will answer the question I've put to him about primary/secondary sources? It would appear he's seen it. PalestineRemembered 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well-written article, sourced to numerous impeccable relaible sources which attest to its notability. If there's a WP:POINT issue here at all, it seems it has more to do with the motivations of the nominator than the motivations of the editor who created the article. Isarig 16:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the sources for this article are very largely primary sources - the kind of thing that Wikipedia policy now says we should try to avoid. Can you point us to the secondary sources that attest to the topic's notability? PalestineRemembered 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Compiling a list of primary sources that describe Chinese human rights abuses as apartheid and trying to tie them together as an article is WP:SYN. Per WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." When somebody can find an article or book about Allegations of Chinese apartheid, there will be justification for an article such as this. Until then, the article is nothing more than List of quotations alleging that China's policies amount to apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs)

Comment, none of the sources are primary sources, on the contrary, all are secondary sources. And there are articles provided that carry the title Does China Have an Apartheid Pass System? from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usage of the WikiJargon "primary sources" and "secondary sources" is confusing. To me, a more natural way of thinking about it is, what is this article about? Well, the title is "Allegations of Chinese apartheid". Logically then, the subject is "allegations of Chinese apartheid", and we would expect quotations on topics such as whether these allegations are valid, comparisons between allegations, perhaps a classification system for allegations. A quick scan doesn't reveal any such quotes among your references, although I admit I did not examine them closely. Perhaps you can select some good examples for us. --Ideogram 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that it's not actually confusing if you re-read WP:RS and WP:PSTS, and simply ignore the sophistry and Fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the issue. <<-armon->> 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not a good idea to force editors possibly less-experienced with Wikipedia to read and absorb subtle WikiDistinctions to understand this debate. Let's try to explain this in common-sense terms. Do you understand the difference between a source using an allegation of apartheid and a source discussing allegations of apartheid? --Ideogram 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article considerably today with material from books and articles on the subject. The subject is well presented and most definitively encyclopedic. I learned a lot while researching the subject, and provided a good further reading section for these inclined in becoming more educated on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this comment is placed here. It's as if Jossi hasn't read my comment above at all. --Ideogram 14:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you have certainly "expanded" the article; for example you've added yet another reference to the same brief passage on page 9 of Anita Chan's 249-page book, the one passage in the entire book and in her entire oeuvre in which she mentions apartheid in connection with China. (For the record, the article now references Chan's brief page 9 passage on three separate occasions in the body of the text, devotes two separate footnotes to it, plus two references in the "References" section – one of which is for a Foreign Policy article in which she never mentions apartheid. Another way of putting it: our article now devotes 277 words to the page 9 paragraph of Chan's which is 96 words long in its entirety. "Apartheid" is not even in the index of that book.) So you've stuffed in some more Chan, and you've put in a "further reading" section which includes several books on China which never mention apartheid, and one book on apartheid which never mentions China. As you "learned a lot" from reading these books, Jossi, do you mind sharing with us what you learned, and how it pertains to "allegations of Chinese apartheid"? To me, it looks like you're padding out this article's already dubious resumé with more random crap from the internet. I remain open to correction on that; but be aware that my office is located in one of the largest research libraries in the world. Every book you've put down there, and any others you might chance across while data-mining, is within thirty seconds of where I sit, and I will not hesitate to call you out on any further bullshit.--G-Dett 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the sentiment that while this is sourced, making a case for apartheid by using these sources is WP:OR territory. Corpx 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Watchdogb Taprobanus 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is written in professional tone; it is supported by sound documentation. Dogru144 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are good; some aren't; none discuss the actual topic. The most extensively quoted source in the article by far (at two full paragraphs and 284 words), and one of only two sources that actually pursues the "apartheid" comparison as opposed to mentioning it in passing, is an unpublished six-page conference paper by someone called David Whitehouse, who is not a China specialist or a scholar of any kind, but rather a writer for the Socialist Worker; Whitehouse was planning to flesh out his short talk into a essay for the International Socialist Review, where he's an editor (which would seem to increase the chances of a successful submission), but that has yet to happen. Most of the other sources have been seriously misrepresented. We are told for example that "Anita Chan agrees with Whitehouse on this point, noting that while the hukou system shares many of the characteristics of the South African apartheid system, including its underlying economic logic, the racial element is not present." Anita Chan doesn't "agree with Whitehouse"; she never mentions him and – unless her fingers are black with the cheap ink of well-worn copies of the Socialist Worker – she's probably never even heard of him. She mentions "apartheid" once and Whitehouse never; her one passage invoking apartheid – on p.9 of her 249-page book – is quoted here in full and paraphrased ~~twice~~ three times (with Jossi's latest bit of bra-stuffing), in order to trick the reader into thinking it's a "thesis" of hers as opposed to an incidental comparison. The misrepresentation of the AP/Jimbo Wales material, on the other hand, is a deception of a different order...--G-Dett 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! WP:SOAP. This is filling up the page with yet more sophistry on your part. Your "analysis" and speculations regarding the sources are completely irrelevant and it's notable how much they shift according to whether you happen to have an axe to grind. Until such time as you manage to take an editorially consistent position, I suggest that everyone just ignore your rhetorical somersaults. <<-armon->> 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what's not consistent? This article gathers together its data-mined primary-source quotations and misrepresents them in order to create the mirage of a topic. The relevant violations are WP:N, WP:NOR, and of course WP:POINT. Same old same old. What's new here? My nomination didn't mention the spurious non-reliable source quoted at such great length (Whitehouse) because Jay only stuffed him in after this AfD was underway; nor was the faked scholarly dialogue – between the scholar who mentions "apartheid" once and the Socialist Worker writer who says it a dozen times in his brief unpublished speech – yet inserted. The misrepresentation of the Wales material was already there, but then I believe I mentioned that. So what's new, besides these latest examples of editorial legerdemain?--G-Dett 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realize I didn't explain the distortion of Wales. Jimbo didn't allege Chinese apartheid. Jimbo criticized Chinese censorship, and then compared Google's decision to do business with China to other companies' decision to boycott South Africa during apartheid. Then he cited Google's reasoning that they were helping the Chinese, which Jimbo found "plausible." For the purposes of this article, to ponder the efficacy of boycotts based on the South African model is to "allege apartheid." When do we stop buying this snake oil?--G-Dett 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Jimbo's not there anymore. <<-armon->> 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no primary source in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cherry-picking quotes to prop up a framework of original research? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - there are no ideological or historical connections to apartheid the way Israel's policies can be linked to South Africa and Canada. Also, no similiarties in policy, i.e. identification cards, checkpoints, etc. this just seems like more pro-Tibet fuedalism and Falun-Gong crap to slander China and socialism. --Mista-X 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're way off on that. You're assuming this article was written by people with some particular opinion of China, which is not the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced. —Nightstallion 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has no lead, and there is no lead that can be written for it composed of reliably sourced material. --Ideogram 17:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: You deleted the lead, despite numerous sources cited in the article. I have re-added and provided sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are fundamentally confused. Find a source for this sentence:

A number of authors have leveled allegations of Chinese apartheid drawing analogies between some practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa.

This statement is not drawn from any source. It is a conclusion for which the rest of the article is supporting data. --Ideogram 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sourced set of slurs is still a set of slurs. I can't believe that so many users think sources are an adequate defence on their own, as they are no defence at all. Outside of fantastical lunatic ramblings there is no article so biased that it can't be sourced. Mowsbury 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and a note for the closing admin. A few days ago, I closed as a deletion the discussion for a related article, Allegations of American apartheid. The article overlapped with sections of existing articles, and the notability of the subject was questionable. The same problems affect this article. Like the American article, this article consists of a series of quotes strung together to create a theme. However, it does not cite anything to indicate that the theme itself - the subject of the article - is notable or has been the subject of significant discussion. You could just as easily retitle it List of people who have compared Chinese government policies to apartheid. It plainly fails WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Concerning the arguments that have been made in this discussion, I would advise the closing admin to look carefully at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; many of the arguments are of the WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety. In closing the American article AfD, I took the decision to discount such arguments as being irrelevant side issues, and I would advise the closing admin to do the same (AfD is not a vote count; policy trumps (lack of) consensus). The closing admin may also be interested to look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, where a substantial number of uninvolved admins endorsed the deletion and left comments of direct relevance to this discussion. -- ChrisO 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the closing admin is going to consider ChrisO's comment, he/she should also consider the fact that at least five of those who have said "Keep" on this page also are admins. (There may be other admins on each "side", I do not know who all the admins are.) So obviously ChrisO's interpretation of the policies/guidelines at issue (and his reliance on at least one essay) is not shared by at least some of the other admins who have weighed in here. ChrisO also refers to the AfD that he closed, which he should not have closed because he is a partisan on the issue of "apartheid" articles. 6SJ7 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a good understanding of policy, which you would expect considering I've been an editor for four years and an admin for three. As for the AfD, I reiterate that it was endorsed by the community as (in the words of the DRV closer) "the only reasonable choice that might have been made". As I've said before, I believe there are problems with all the allegations of apartheid articles, but that will not be resolved by editors deliberately creating bad articles in order to dramatise the existence of an older article of which they disapprove. -- ChrisO 07:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, you seem to be using your influence as an admin rather objectionably. Most of the AfD discssion has been policy-based; I see no reason why your interpretation of policy should carry more weight than others. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't. But since I closed a previous, closely-related AfD, the closure of which was endorsed in a subsequent DRV, my experience in this matter is obviously relevant. -- ChrisO 07:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closing admin. I'm not an admin but perhaps my review of the votes would be helpful, if you don't mind. A number of voters question the Article Name (Title) on POV grounds, several concluding that the Name/Title violates WP:NPOV. So far, it appears that no Users have defended the neutrality of the wording of the Article Name. (Some mention the consistency with other Article Names, but not neutrality per se.) See the review here. Under current policy, if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to Delete or at least Move the article? ............. If so, then this may not require a judgment call on disputed sources and WP:N. Likewise, while there may be a violation of WP:OR due to WP:SYNTH, such a judgment of article Content seems to be disputed. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to get involved in the name neutrality debate, but a non-neutral name is certainly not a reason for deletion. WP:DP states it clearly - "Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves." The argument doesn't belong in a deletion discussion. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks xDanielx for the helpful clarification. Nevertheless, can't a move be part of the closure decision? For example, may a move be an "additional action" recommended by an Admin or stipulated as a condition of consensus? From WP:GD: "An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action." Your further advice would be appreciated. HG | Talk 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement, at least for the most part. You're right that discussions on moving, merging, etc. naturally find their way into AfD pages at times, and although my opinion is that it's best to focus those discussion on the article's talk page discussing them on the AfD page seems to be an accepted practice. My comment just concerned your point, "if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to Delete or at least Move the article?" What I meant was that whether or not a consensus favors a move, the move should not affect whether the contents of the article are kept or deleted. So in effect, I think a "move" vote can be counted as a keep vote for the purpose of deciding whether an article's contents should be deleted, unless the voter states that "move" is their proposed secondary action (as in "Delete, or failing that move to X."). Essentially, I think that we should decide on whether the subject/theme/idea/insert_your_own_word_here (which is not judged only on the title, but the article as a whole) of the article merits its own article on Wikipedia, and from there we would settle any naming disputes. --xDanielx^Talk 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truly helpful, xDanielx. Here's a revised proposal to hold in consensus (i.e., H1 of my proposalin Talk). Perhaps both Delete and Keep votes could be predicated on basically the same conditions:

(H1.a) Delete and (i) approve as neutral the new Article Name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant], and (ii) affirm that any content transferred from the Deleted Article to the New Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).
(H1.b) Keep and (i) Rename to the more NPOV name "Controversies regarding human rights in China" [or a variant] , and (ii) affirm that content in the renamed Article would be subject to WP:NOR (Step Two) and then WP:N and other policies (Step 3).

Yes, it's rather awkward due to the workings of Keep & Rename and Delete->reCreate. Without agreeing to the proposal itself, does this seem procedurally correct? Suggested emendations? Thanks. PS I need to break for the night soon. HG | Talk 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm a bit confused by your wording. By "<Action>, conditioned on ..." do you mean "Support <action> if these conditions can be met ..."? Or "Support <action>, and also support an effort to implement these conditions ..."? Also, how would deleting work in conjuction with renaming the article? (Wouldn't there be no article left to rename?) I'm probably just misinterpreting everything you wrote... time for an early night perhaps. :) --xDanielx^Talk 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I'll revise my own text. The votes can be Keep/Delete and... , while the Admin would hopefully require conditions (i)(ii) in closing the AfD. (Is that correct?) Yes, if closure is to Delete, then the conditions cover any new Article created with the former content. Let me try "transfer" for this. Note that Keep requires a Rename (instead of Move), whereas Delete allows any user to Create an article for the content but only with the new NPOV name. Probably a minor difference, though Keep & Rename offers more control of the procedure. Is this better? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not 100% clear, but I think I understand you somewhat better. If I understand correctly, both options would result in a similar article of the same name, but the "delete" option would result in a "start from scratch" approach? I would be happy with either of the two options (as I understand them), but I'm not sure if those users who voted delete would be satisfied. Perhaps it would be best to start a seperate naming debate on the questioned article's talk page, so that the naming argument can be more coherently discussed and a clearer consensus reached? In any case, your positive effort is appreciated. --xDanielx^Talk 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the alternative name, it is my sense that the specific wording of the new China-related article is not necessary for consensus-building. If enough parties can live with an approximate wording, then further naming refinements can be handled under whatever, if any, new article emerges. (Conversely, and incidentally, I do think the Article Name would have to be discussed more thoroughly for the Israel-related article.) Indeed, so far nobody has suggested to amend my proposal, but I don't object to discussing and amending the proposed new Article Name. Thanks, xDanielx. HG | Talk 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the delete voters, some already appear to support renaming (here). Others may like (based on your formulation) their vote understood as: Delete, and failing that, then (H1a) or (H1b). Further advise welcome. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your point about page movement procedures is taken, but this is a rather unusual situation in which the article's principal contributors and defenders are only interested in this article insofar as it keeps the name it has; or at any rate, so long as it has a name exactly parallel to the Israel article, so that they'll be on a template together. The reason the article was created was so that it would have a place on the template; the reason it's been so rapidly expanded and stuffed with so many misrepresented sources in the last few days is so that it might pass the AfD, so that it might stay on the template and remain a bargaining chip for those trying to delete the Israel article. Any proposed change to the title, no matter how slight, will provoke a battle as bloody as this one; this article is not here to inform people about China.--G-Dett 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett -- Thanks for the feedback. You seem to imply the WP:POINT is grounds for Deletion. However, I would appreciate a comment that is responsive to my Note. I suspect you don't mind me being frank with you. Specifically, do you think the Article Name is neutral? Do you think it is more neutral than the variants I or others have floated? Could you accept a Move to a more neutral name, if that seemed to be the direction of a general consensus? Thank you! HG | Talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I would not oppose renaming the article, as I have proposed already. The material in the article is encyclopedic and can end up in this or in a number of other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, thanks. I'll add this comment to my review on the Talk page. Again, this does not imply that you support the proposal, it merely provides info about whether a consensus might develop regarding the Title.HG | Talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor that has expanded the article in the last 48 hrs, I disagree with G-Dett. The subject is indeed encyclopedic and interesting, and as long as you and others continue with not assuming the good faith of fellow editors, I do not see how these compromises can be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename to "Controversies regarding human rights in China" or something similar. Sufficiently notable subject; claims are verifiable. The allegations noted explicitly present themselves as allegations of Chinese apartheid, so the argument concerning WP:SYNTH seems rather ludicrous to me. If the parts are notable (and clearly connected in a meaningful way), then the whole is likewise notable. --xDanielx^Talk 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Apartheid is a specific system, which only existed in South Africa. Use of it in this way is perpetuating a POV-forced neologism, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing. This is not much different than Allegations that Bush is Hitler, Alleged holocausts perpetuated by the United States, or Allegations that Republicans are fascists, all of which I'm sure could be sourced, but none of which (I hope) would be allowed. It cheapens and dilutes the meaning of these concepts. - Crockspot 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, hi Crockspot, do you realize you've already expressed a delete opinion/vote on this afd above? --MPerel 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought this was another one I hadn't seen yet. - Crockspot 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey at least you're consistent ; ) --MPerel 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone of people of reason says more or less the same as you. That's why I (it was originally the User:Tiamut's idea) proposed to switch "allegation" to "analogy" and then let's see what those clowns who introduced this article into Wikipedia will come up with??? greg park avenue 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still support deletion. Allegation, analogy, whatever, it still cheapens and dilutes the true meaning of these terms, and analogy would seem even more original research to me than allegations. - Crockspot 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for speedy deletion on this one, and delete all or rename to analogy before the arbitrary commision. But this one if not renamed will be kept as no consensus anyway. greg park avenue 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm personally not fond of any of the apartheid allegations articles, and yet the references particularly for this article support its existence. --MPerel 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article based on distorted quotations. And start an WP:RfC on the despicable behaviour of the handful of people who started all the "allegation of Apartheid in Foobarland" non-sense. Rama 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 08:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existance or nonexistance of an allegation is a factual issue.... --xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - per Leifern --D-Boy 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced. (I don't much like the title, though.) ElinorD (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clear WP:POINT. This whole mess is a disgrace to WP:en. Popo le Chien 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from WP:POINT, this is quite obviously IMO a violation of OR.--Aldux 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I have never heard the term apartheid applied to any countries except South Africa and Israel. It looks like pro-Israeli propangandists are active on Wikipedia, and are trying to dilute the impact of the linking of the word apartheid to Israel with made up articles. We should not let this happen, lest Wikipedia's credibility be damaged. Speciate 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right: Because you only have heard a term applied to these two countries, you can safely jump to the conclusion that "pro-Israeli propagandists" are at work? That statement alone violates at least AGF and NOR. If anything destroys Wikipedia's credibility, it's that kind of ehm, strained logic. --Leifern 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom seems to misunderstand the definition of original research. It's not clear to me how we (as Wikipedians) are supposed to determine that the comparisons to Apartheid in these various sources are "unrelated." Does that mean that the critics are unrelated, or that we are supposed to make a capital-f, Factual judgement that the facts of the comparisons are unrelated? Apartheid was a big thing; comparisons to it are of (at least) historiographical interest. If the sources that compare Chinese policies to apartheid are deemed to be independent, that increases rather than decreases the need for an article. Savidan 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection (unacceptable per WP:FIVE), or, if you prefer, a loosely associated group of topics (unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Skirts entirely around actual perception of Hitler into random video game and book references. All with nary a citation to offend the eye. Eyrian 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO,as well as some WP:V and WP:OR just like all other "in popular culture" lists. No sources, no critieria for "popular culture", article tells us nothing about Der Führer (sp?), etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and like the majority of other "in popular culture" lists. Pharmboy 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprising it's existed for three years and this is the first nomination for deletion. There's no doubting that Hitler has been a pop culture figure for nearly 75 years; a lot of editors have created this one in great detail. Article tells us nothing about Der Fuhrer, perhaps, but does it really need to? Does anyone not know who Hitler was? Mandsford 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not convincing me this time. Hitler changed the world, no doubt, but as to "popular culture", I don't think it applies here. His life was a singular event that made permanant changes in the world. To be "popular" we have to define "current" somewhat, and I think once you get passed 20 or 30 years, this is dicey. Unless you can show me where he has been more influential in the last 20 years than his actions 60-70 years ago, or on par, then the premise of the entire article is flawed. Pharmboy 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yes? Surely, everyone knows that Hitler was that German guy that did awful stuff, but this article could have been so much more. A sourced analysis of public perception. Allied versus Axis propaganda, discussion over his vegetarianism, that sort of thing. Instead, we've got worthless trivia that goes nowhere. Before you say it's a starting point, it's not. Arguments should be made from a fresh reading of secondary sources, not starting with references and trying to justify their importance. To do the latter is intellectually dishonest. --Eyrian 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO, someone as famous as this has been referenced thousands of times. The notable references such as Chaplin's film should be mentioned in the Hitler article. Crazysuit 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve a lot. Hitler had a seat in popular culture (television, books, film) unlike almost any other person. Because he is the subject of much steampunk, which is inherently trivial but still notable, this whole article should definitely be kept. --Tellerman

Oh is it? Has that presence been documented in independent, reliable, secondary sources? --Eyrian 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect of me with requests for "independent, reliable, secondary sources" but I'm sure any fiction book about Hitler or semi-fictional movie about Hitler (for example, Der Untergang) is source enough. --Tellerman

That's not independent. You said steampunk mentions of Hitler were inherently notable. I was asking why, as I doubt there are any independent secondary sources. That's what notability entails. That's now what I'm seeing here. --Eyrian 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I really just said steampunk is notable, so in my mind, I don't see why steampunk with Adolf Hiter wouldn't be notable. I do agree this should be revised. --Tellerman

A piece of steampunk that had Adolf Hitler could be notable, but the phenomenon of Adolf Hitler in steampunk (which is a subset of this article) would need to be separately so. --Eyrian 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If, btw, you can find secondary sources that discuss how Adolf Hitler is a common or influential element of steampunk literature and entertainment, then please do write that article, as it not only sounds fascinating, but would surely be notable. However, make sure it really is an article, rather than a list of steampunk genre items in which Hitler has appeared. CaveatLector^Talk 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler steampunk has half a million ghits. When it's a matter of showing something is important, this is somewhat indicative, But if i were to say that half a billion bloggers indicated some sign of notability, i am sure i would be asked for a published source that there were half a million bloggers, not my own observation from google But. I expect I will find a formal source if I go through them all, but I don't even like this genre -- so I'll stop at , Fantasy and revolution: an interview with China Miéville Issue 88 of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM JOURNAL Published Autumn 2000. What we see when we open our eyes exists. DGG (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the link you gave, Hitler is mentioned ONCE, in a small list of recommendations the editor gives. If you assumed that 'socialism' equals 'Hitler', you might want to educate yourself on the differences of socialism and national socialism (i.e. socialism is NOT Nazism, and the Nazis actually hated socialists, for the most part). Also, and this might be more important as far as this discussion and future AfD's go, Google hits do NOT certify notability, nor does a lack of Google hits certify non-notability WP:GHITS. Ajisukitakahikone gets a measly 430 hits, while Smiths Station High School (my alma mater) gets almost two million. Which one is more notable? Which one should have an article and which shouldn't? Should SSHS now get an article because it has 1.7 Google hits? Google is no Minerva, nor is it an oracle or any other god of goddess of wisdom to which we should turn to understand the wonders of the universe, including the answer to the question of notability on wikipedia. You want to do research? Go to a library. CaveatLector^Talk 04:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The concept of popular culture demanding articles still baffles me; there is no unifying purpose for this concept in any article. At best these articles are trivia and at worst they are junk. Delete with prejudice. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hitler has been portrayed in popular culture far too often for a possible merge with his biographical article. The controversy surrounding his portrayal, and the changes of interpretation over the years, I think have some encyclopedic merit. Obviously the article needs work in terms of being encyclopedic, but I think it has potential. Furthermore, I think if it were deleted it would eventually be recreated - there is certainly a public fascination with Hitler. Iotha 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not arguing that Hitler is not often portrayed in popular culture, but as has already been stated above, this article lacks appropriate independent, third-party sources that explain Hitler's importance in media throughout popular culture. To point to this list of trivia and say, "see, look how many times Hitler is mentioned/portrayed! it must be notable!" is WP:OR by synthesis. If these sources exist, however, by all means cut down the article by leaps and bounds and rewrite it. María (críticame) 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Adolf Hitler was unfortunately a major historical figure, and so useful as a villain that he has been portrayed in films, books, and movies thousands of times. If the existence of a separate "in popular culture" article can be justified about anybody, it can be justified about Hitler. AfD is not cleanup, and deletion by the popular-culture bot is no substitute for editing. Whatever the deficiencies of the current article, we need an article under this title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A useful source for expanding this article might be found in this Guardian story. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get the link to load, but assuming it contains analysis, it'd be a good source for rebuilding the article, not expanding it. --Eyrian 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One big trivia section Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable content by switching to a prose format and redirect. If this isn't accomplished, then delete. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, OR. Corvus cornix 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this generalization of "in popular culture" lists is as much a violation of WP:FIVE as the articles themselves are alleged to be. In this case, I'm voting to keep this one because there is quite a bit of valid information here, including discussion of how he was portrayed within his lifetime. If people have included false info, delete it. I wonder sometimes if it's the bullets that are turning people off. 23skidoo 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if so then why not just censor wikipedia. 172.191.100.66 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, props to Eyrian. There is nothing redeemable in this article. Complete WP:TRIVIA and tons of WP:OR. Bulldog123 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not OR. These depictions were in notable books, television programmes, etc. This is not something thought up by the author of the article, which is what we mean with OR. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If you want to delete this article, then hey, go nominate everything in Category:Representations of people in popular culture at once. Or no, wait, nominate everything related to popular culture and other not-so-serious information for deletion. Oh no, wait, nominate everything that isn't about chrysoine resorcinol or High-Level Data Link Control for deletion. Seriously, go find another hobby if you only enjoy deleting useful, informative and encyclopaedic pages. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single person has been able to provide an argument as to how these articles inform anybody of anything. CaveatLector^Talk 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. m:Wiki is not paper, there is enough space for such topics. These kind of articles are the only way by which one can trace where topic or person XY has been dealt with; this is one of the main strength of Wikipedia, because a single individual could not gather all this information. And b.t.w., I don't see how WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:V and WP:OR are violated here. Zara1709 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a request for comment regarding, amongst others, this AfD nomination has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The general topic is apparently also being discussed at WP:VPP#Popular_culture_references. In this case, the article is slightly more than just a collection of unsourced trivia, and the nom carries with it the implication that more than half the popular culture articles here should be axed. Deal with policy first, renom later if appropriate. Personally, I'd say that there's space enough for the vast majority of them, assuming clear notability and adequate references. That said, the article plainly does require some cleanup/source work. MrZaius^talk 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all # in pop culture articles, I won't bother to mention ALL the different policies these pages violate. The Filmaker 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this topic is probably worth having an article on, this isn't it; lists like this are original research, plain and simple, as well as being non-encyclopedic. SamBC 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. Of all the popular culture articles, I thought this one might be one to actually have secondary sources analyzing the portrayal of Hitler. Instead, this is one of the most egregious collections of dubious research in the series. Delete unless someone adds actual secondary sources to establish weight and avoid OR. Cool Hand Luke 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see belowDGG (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on this--if any twentieth century figure has had an effect of popular culture in the US and europe, it's Hitler. The adoption of Nazi slogans and names is pervasive--and in fact, there are books on it. It's not my field, but The dark mirror : German cinema between Hitler and Hollywood

by Lutz P Koepnick, Faschismus in der populären Kultur by Georg Seesslen from OCLC in a 30 second search--added to the article &I'll do a few more. More sources can be added, but not to all of these dozens of articles in 5 days total. Possibly at the rate of one article a week, if the individual items are to be sourced properly as well. They should all be kept, and some agreement reached on which ones to work on first. There's a three way choice here for articles on this or any other subject: good articles, low quality articles, no articles. Only the first of them benefits the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per.... error error error, too many reasons! Mathmo ^Talk 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, big, important topic. No question of notability whatsoever. Everyking 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themill[edit]

Non-notable gathering place for college kids in Colorado; orphaned page; creator only edited this one page; has been tagged for cleanup since March to no avail. --Old Hoss 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Clearly non notable. Tomj 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and it's own first sentence. -Longing.... 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Sancho 07:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by C4[edit]

wp:nota guide, this seems to be the 2nd copy of the same thing as well. Pharmboy 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD here already covered the subject well enough. FrozenPurpleCube 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it has been done before isn't a valid arguement for keep. Wikipedia is NOT a TV Guide or Program Guide per WP:NOT. The other guides need to be deleted as well. Otherwise, we might as well not have the policy about guides. Pharmboy 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is quite valid to refer to prior discussions, especially since in this case, the argument is the same. You think this is a program guide. But the belief of others is that they are not. The purpose of that section of WP:NOT is to prevent up-to-date schedules, not to remove lists of this nature. Perhaps there needs to be some clarification there. FrozenPurpleCube 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there needs to be clarification. I can't see how a "current guide" is encyclopedia material. Interesting, useful, but that isn't the criteria. Pharmboy 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't inherently a current guide. That argument may be made about the other page, however, but not this one. It'd certainly be possible to edit it by adding previously broadcast programs, the same as it is for the other pages that were previously AFD'd. FrozenPurpleCube 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion that this article is "a TV Guide or Program Guide" seems to go against what seemed to be a very consensus-establishing AfD. That was over a year ago, of course, and consensus can change, but I think, as I thought then, that a discussion of the merits of this article can really only address issues that apply to all "List of programs broadcast by ____" articles, and that it would be much more productive and consensus-establishing to consider them all at once. Maxa megalon 2000 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a list like this has significant advantages over categorisation. --Darksun 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Sancho 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes being broadcast by C4[edit]

WP:NOT a guide, above article is a clone up for delete as well. Pharmboy 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some reservations. It's a new article, so I'd like to give it time to develop. Depending on a network's notability, such a list can be entirely appropriate, either within the main network article or as a content fork. Shalom ^Hello 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm going with weak keep. While it seems fairly notable, It needs a lot of work before even being a B class article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems needlessly redundant to the more inclusive List of programmes broadcast by C4, but it is possibly distinctive enough to survive on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't about clean, I thought that program guides were an automatic no-no. We just deleted similar material. Program guides are handy, but are not encycopedia material. Pharmboy 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind linking to the discussion of this deleted material? It would help to know what you're talking about. And no, program guides are not an automatic no-no. See the previous AFD I linked and even this one. It's not quite as absolute a prohibition as you might think. FrozenPurpleCube 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would disagree with the result of that particular link. Many interpret the policy as no guides. It is a tabled list with little to no context, which is pretty much a guide. You and I just disagree on the threshold is all. That isn't going to change. Pharmboy 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not if you come across without offering any kind of explanation of your position, and dismiss the existing consensus out of hand. It's one thing to disagree, but if you're not articulating why you disagree, it's not very helpful. Me, I think there's an obvious acceptance of the value of pages that list programs by their broadcast network. Such is a valid organization tool, the same as say, books by a particular author is helpful. Now as far as it goes, I'm not sure this page is a good idea on its own. "being broadcast" implies a bit of currency that wouldn't be as well served as simply listing by date in single article such as List of programmes broadcast by C4. FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, prior consensus is that Wikipedia is not a program guide. Corvus cornix 23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete by Mysid Deli nk 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEN Kids Enjoy Exercise Now[edit]

Advertisement, taken directly from their website [62]; orphaned page; creator is virtually only editor and virtually only edited this page. --Old Hoss 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also kill the associated image per CSD G6. Shalom ^Hello 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12 as the article is one big copyvio from various pages on the organization's website. The organization itself fails WP:ORG; I can't find any coverage of this group in independent, third-party reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speddy delete as copyvio. Oysterguitarist 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - all copyvio. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:40, 1 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cool Hand Luke 07:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza Head Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is tough one. Despite being a national ad campaign, I'm not convinced that this meets notability guidelines. Specifically, our guidelines instruct us to look for things that bring significant third-party coverage, and caution us that a topic should have long-term notability as opposed to a short flurry of activity. In these respects, I believe this advertisement fails. A Google test for '"Pizza Head Show" -wikipedia'" yields 471 results. I understand that the Google test isn't perfect, especially considering the ad campaign ran nearly fifteen years ago, but I compare those results to similar tests for Scrubbing Bubbles (62,000 hits), Frito Bandito (17,700 hits), or Buddy Lee (23,400 hits). These are campaigns similar in length and penetration to the Pizza Head commercials, and even they pale in comparison to advertising titans like McGruff the Crime Dog (90,000+ hits) or the Energizer Bunny (347,000 hits). Consequentially 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Neutral Never heard of it before, and I'm an old fart. Lots of stuff there, but I agree that it is really pushing the limits of notability. Hard to make a stand, mainly voiced in to just share your pain. This may have had some traction in some regions more than others, have to just see. Pharmboy 01:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national ad campaign for a major company that lasted 4 years. Note that it's a bit unfair to use Google to compare a primarily pre-internet character to those who are still in use, and ones with a far longer lifespan: Scrubbing Bubbles have been around for four decades, and is also the name of the product itself! The Frito Bandito comparison is more apt, but is today better-known (deservedly or not) as an example of corporate racial insensitivity than for the campaign itself. Comparing Buddy Lee is ludicrous: the character has been around for 90 years, and was once America's second-best-selling doll! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I used those examples precisely to illustrate what makes an ad campaign notable. The controversy surrounding the Bandito gives it notability beyond the "it was on TV." The longevity of the Scrubbing Bubbles is testament to their success as a marketing tool, and third-party coverage has been developed because of its long run. Buddy Lee is an advertisement that digs into best-selling merchandise, the combination of which has attracted significant third-party reporting. My point is this: just being on TV doesn't make you notable, even if you're an ad campaign. The thresh-hold for inclusion is not "it exists," especially in an arena where ads come and go literally every week. Consequentially 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as per above but does need a rewrite to rid itself of majority list form. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the significant stuff (not the lists of episodes and "Steves") into the "Advertising" section of Pizza Hut, and redirect. If reliable third-party studies of these advertisements can be found, I'll reconsider, but for now the Bucky Beaver treatment seems most appropriate. Deor 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some referenced material. Given that it was a three-year national ad campaign, it is likely that there is more referenced material in advertising newspapers and magazines. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Tall Man. Sancho 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinel Spheres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Written in-universe, notability isn't proven, no sources, appears to be primarily Original Research, and from what I gather isn't even an official name for the object in question DurinsBane87 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with sources from the fictional literature, I would have qualms about putting such a minor detail in a general-interest encyclopedia. Without sources, there is not much to discuss. Shalom ^Hello 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be cut down and merged with Tall Man. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikidudeman. --Moonriddengirl 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelthorne Sports F.C.[edit]

Non-notable club; has never played above Step 7 and has now left the Middlesex County Football League so seemingly no longer in the pyramid. Number 5 7 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in a recent DRV, arguments of "automatic" notability or lack thereof based on level played at etc can always be "trumped" if the subject meets the main WP:N criterion of having received third-party coverage, but I can find no evidence that this team has done so, so delete ChrisTheDude 10:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for what's it's worth, pretty much the entire contents of the article are a copyvio from here.... ChrisTheDude 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Angelo 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N by any standard. TerriersFan 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ChrisTheDude says it very well. --Malcolmxl5 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Onnaghar(T/C) 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per verifiability, notability, and original research concerns; those leaning toward "weak keep" agreed that the article needs a rewrite, and discussion cast unresolved doubt on whether serious reliable sources could be found. — TKD::Talk 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne-Wear rivalry[edit]

This article is all over the place, trying to define a reputed "rivalry" that may not exist in any meaningful sense beyond the football pitch (which would be better dealt with in the articles for the respective football teams). It consists entirely of unsourced original research. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Tyne-Wear Derby. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As at least some of the information seems to have been taken from this article from the observer. I had no idea about the causes of this rivalry, but the football rivalry is common knowledge locally and in the football world.

A (reader) review of this book on Amazon called Alice in Sunderland says "Hinting at the traditional Sunderland-Newcastle rivalry, a theme discussed in the book, the credits reveal that the Newcastle-based Arts Council England (North East) refused a grant for the Sunderland based work."

Similar claims aren't just made but referenced on the History of the Tyne-Wear Derby, an article which is linked to this one via a merge template. There's no reason that someone with an interest in NE England's history couldn't make something decent from this. QuagmireDog 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though it needs a thorough rewrite. The rivalry certainly exists, though is not nearly as prominent as some others (e.g., Lancashire-Yorkshire, London-The North). Current article needs considerable work, though. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablity is under question and it also appears to be orginal research.Harlowraman 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like original research but i'm not sure about it's notability. Oysterguitarist 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more notable Yorks-Lancs doesn't have an article, AFAICS, and the London-North is only mentioned fleetingly in Watford Gap, and, IIRC, North-south divide in the United Kingdom Will ^(talk) 12:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I'm not even sure how seriously the Observer story is meant to be taken; it's just a journalist adding a colourful backstory to a present-day football rivalry. The History of the Tyne-Wear Derby article, which seems nearly as superfluous as this one, adds a few citations, but none that really support the thesis of an ongoing non-sports rivalry between the two places (all cities have to compete with each other for industrial investment and political favours. Big deal.). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems alright, but needs a new re-write by an independent editor. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Mook[edit]

Biography of a freestyle/battle rapper who appears to be almost entirely non-notable. Aside from the utter trivia in the article, I see that he "is still looking for his record deal". Allmusic lists him with one entry for a track on one album (apparently a compilation). He is featured on a track of "Talib Kweli's critically acclaimed mixtape Confidential Mixtape" which may well be notable but for which we don't have an article. It is not clear to me that battle rappers should be held precisely to WP:MUSIC standard; for example, Serius Jones, who appears to be a small notch up in notability, took part in MTV2's Fight Klub, which is at least a claim to something. I'm not sure where the line is drawn for notability, so I am floating this AfD as a trial balloon. As for references, of course, I don't see any reliable ones, thought he has a fair number of google hits (e.g., youtube videos of battles). Comments? Nominator votes delete, but willing to be convinced otherwise. bikeable (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because it asserts notability by "battles", but there are no cites. Bearian 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No real evidence of notabiliy, no citations, and poorly written to the extent that it would probably need to be entirly rewritten anyways. For all we know, all of those battles he "won" could have been against highschoolers from milwaukee, they really don't prove anything. DurinsBane87 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N As to being poorly written, etc., that is true but not at issue. Pharmboy 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N Harlowraman 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Seems to be a noted underground battle MC. The artists bio[63] claims appearances on BET, MTV2, as well as coverage in XXL, Don Diva, and Dubbs magazines, which if cited would pass WP:N. dissolve ^talk 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment We have no reliable sources for any of that. His own personal MySpace certainly isn't reliable. DurinsBane87 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An appearance in Smack DVD Magazine[64] and Fight Klub on MTV2 (which clips are easily found with a Google search) seem to suggest notablilty to me. dissolve ^talk

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin' Like the Summer (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nothin' Like the Summer (song)

Non-notable song by a fairly notable singer. Single has never charted on any of the national music charts. I've proposed a merger to the singer's article, but in reality there's not a lot of mergeable content here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Nice formatting, good pictures and uses plenty of words that say nothing about a song no one has heard. Maybe one line in the main article worth. Pharmboy 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J-stan. --Caldorwards4 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable song. Oysterguitarist 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per non-notability. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Captain[edit]

Delete - an article on an individual chapter of a book? No. Just, no. WP:N or whatever but, come on, an article about a chapter? No. Otto4711 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm if the book itself doesnt have a page, then should this chapter? Maybe Nine Chains to the Moon should be created and this moved in there. Corpx 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I know it hasn't been made yet, but the information could be put into Nine Chains to the Moon, if the book is deemed notable. Useight 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Belongs in the main book article, which no one wants to create. Pharmboy 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crufty is a funny word, and it applies here. J-stan ^Talk 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the book does not have an artical I don't think a chapter should. Oysterguitarist 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unless the book's article is enormous, there's unlikely to be a reason to create a separate article for a chapter. In this case, the article doesn't really even seem to be about the chapter, but about the vaguely defined term "phantom captain." Moreover, it's a total copyvio of the art exhibit description (see footnote 2), which is also not notable enough to warrant its own page. Because of the copyvio, I'm tagging and blanking the article per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Onnaghar(T/C) 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the entire copntent of the page has been blanked as copy-vio, it is difficult to make any comment whatsoever. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Catholic Church, Huntingburg, Indiana[edit]

Non-notable church. Speedy delete was declined with the reason, "In the U.S., any church that is 150 years old is arguably notable." I disagree: the old Northwest Territory (which included Indiana) was settled in the first half of the nineteenth century. This church was established in 1861, around the same time as most of the other churches now in its diocese (the major exception being those parishes started after World War II) and decades after some of them. The oldest still-operational church in the diocese was established in 1732. Most importantly, this church does not appear to be covered by independent, reliable sources that would allow us to expand the article beyond its current stub status. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not familiar with churches, but quite familiar with WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if article is improved with citations Harlowraman 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where precisely are these citations supposed to be found? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't found anything useful on Google News Archives. Merely being an old church is not sufficient. To establish notability, keepers need to source something along the lines of: Any architectural notability? Any role this church has played in the community that has set it apart from other similar churches? Being the site of some notable event, perhaps an apparition? TerriersFan 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notabality asserted. Rather long title. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably historic, but I can't find any references online that give the history of the church or any reason why it's notable. If someone can come up with sources that could be used to expand the article and indicate why it's historic, I wouldn't have any prejudices to recreating it. There are a few churches in Dubois County on the National Register of Historic Places, but this isn't one of them. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jstan. Zero verification of notability in reliable, independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the decline of speedy may be justifiable, this is just another run-of-the-mill parish. And if 150 years is ok for the US (65% of our independence, and don't say settlement because there were people here before there were Christian people here), I suppose a similar measure would make either most churches in Europe (150 years rule) or Africa (65% rule) notable, unless we arbitrarily apply different rules and someone gets to accuse WP of apartheid and write another article about that accusation. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainstorm Rock[edit]

This appears to be original research and a neologism. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it. Heck a google search estimates about 74 pages with the term, the vast majority of which seem to be false positive. See [65] JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroooong Delete Completely Unreferenced, found no viable sources after quite a few searches. -- Jimmi Hugh 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but original research and it looks like a hoax. "musical genre...that conjures up images in the listeners mind of a singer usually in a tight t-shirt standing in the middle of a country road in the rain with his arms out to his side, a la Crucifixion", um what? T Rex | talk 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above and for several catchy acronyms, mainly WP:NOR, WP:V and a good dose of WP:CB. Mmmmmm. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though there's an article out there that refers to Coldplay as "kings of rainstorm rock," it never identifies the term, and I couldn't find any other reputable source. That seems to eliminate widespread usage, if nothing else. --Moonriddengirl 12:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Onnaghar(T/C) 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. Probably not ready yet for "prime time" notability. Few Ghits exist: [66], and many of those are blogs or WP mirrors. If deleted, do not salt, and wait for the term to catch on in another year. Bearian 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus (keep)—although the article shows little notability as it stands, users have shown that notability does exist (and a quick findarticles.com search shows that there are sources out there that discuss him at least in part). Please source the article correctly. — Deckill er 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maynard[edit]

The article fails to cite sources. It also fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. He is not just an activist, but also a legislative candidate. Will conduct more research before a final decision. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search easily reveals plenty of sources to show his notability. Have added some external links to the article which show he passes WP:BIO. Davewild 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE - Most keeps are based on possible future notability. We don't keep until it becomes notable, we create after it becomes notable. And this is (thus far?) a short lived, small sized, no major achievements organization. - Nabla 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation Quebec[edit]

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

The article reads like an advertisement, and fails WP:ORG. They're not even registered. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Delete GreenJoe 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the launch was widely publicized, they've held a meeting that attracted a significant number of people. If no further action is taken by the party, I'd agree to delete, but at this point it looks legitimate. Deleting now would just mean having to recreate it later. The article reading like an advert is a rationale for editing it, not for deleting it. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been the subject of fairly extensive independent secondary sources. There is nothing in WP:ORG that requires a political group to be a registered party in order to be notable. Skeezix1000 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until the Québec Election Commission rejects the application to register this Québécois party, we should allow the article to remain in existence. If the Election Officials do reject the application, then we should delete it. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Election Commission does not determine if a Wikipedia article should be deleted or not. If it is not registered as a party, then the question is whether or not the group is sufficiently notable absent registered status. There needs to be consensus on that question before any deletion occurs. Skeezix1000 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It is still in the process of attempting to register as an official party" - since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, they should come back when they succeed in registering. Anyone can "attempt to register" anything, making that pretty much meaningless. >Radiant< 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why registration as a party is being treated as the threshold for notability here. Who cares if it is registered or not? WP:ORG does not state that party must be registered to be noteworthy. This is a group that has been the subject of what appears to be some fairly extensive secondary source coverage. We can disagree on whether or not that means the group is noteworthy or not, but this reliance on whether or not it is registered strikes me as focusing on the wrong issue. Skeezix1000 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold is "having accomplished something", not "intending or hoping to accomplish something in the future". >Rad<fontcolor="#00EEFF">iant< 09:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without being flippant, what they have "accomplished" is garnering some public forums, national and local news coverage, and editorial items. Even "Le Devoir", a nationalist/sovereignist paper in Quebec, decided to cover Nutik's speech to the Westmount Rotary. (Said article cannot be sourced by non-subscribers at present, but it was previously circulated by Google News.)Toddsschneider 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Weighing in as a Montrealer, I have some familiarity with this "party." The total whacko (Nutik) is setting up his new "Equality Party" light as a vehicle for his own backyard ambition; he has thrice run unsuccessfully for the mayor of Westmount, garnering truly tiny amounts of votes. If he cannot even make a splash in a Westmount municipal election, running on de-merger, partition, and anglo issues, the chances of his establishing an Anglo-rights party a la Howard Galganov are virtually minuscule. Unfortunately, the emotion surrounding Quebec independence and anglophone/allophone rights & status is such that even such trivial efforts as this get some play-time. That should not, however, be conflated with notability. So, based on all that, this totally fails the standard laid out at WP:ORG. If, by some miracle, they get accreditation then the article can be restored. Meanwhile, I'll be at the local Sports Expert buying a new pair of skates to take with me to hell. Eusebeus 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find in any of the referenced secondary sources an indication that there is more than one person involved in this group. He held a public meeting which got media coverage, but the people in attendance were passive listeners to his speech, not members of the group. The "founder" of this group described himself as "the only candidate". A single person who goes public with the idea of starting a political party fails WP:ORG since, by definition, a single person is not a group. If something eventually occurs to show that the group has multiple members (e.g., it gets registered, or announces more candidates) then the article could be reinstated, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.Galteglise 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my reading of WP:ORG I see nothing there that justifies deletion of this article. It is fairly and carefully written, and far from being an "advertisement". It speaks to a nascent party trying to address key issues in Quebec politics, in nowise a trivial effort. Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball it can't be certain that this effort will fail. Nicoleksmith 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- They have to be notable to have an article. Your logic is flawed. The crystal ball theory goes to the assumption that they will fail, you have to prove that they are notable. GreenJoe 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be more than 100 "members", since many who attended the founding meeting signed the registration forms and/or paid their dues to join, but since they have not been 'recognized", I will reserve judgment until further notice. It may be dominated by a single public figure, but what else is new in politics? It may not be a registered party yet, but it is surely an "interest group", which *does* meet the definition of notability. At least it's not notorious like Raymond Villeneuve and his gang, and they haven't been "deleted" yet. Toddsschneider 11:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you back that up by citing a 3rd party neutral source? GreenJoe 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to belabor the point, but I think there is a clear distinction between (A) a group dominated by one person and (B) a single person who says he wants to form a group. The latter is the case here. I haven't found any secondary references describing any group activities (i.e., where anyone other than Allen Nutik claims to be, or acts as if, they are members of the group.) The member don't have to be "recognized" or registered, but they do have to exist. Absent proof of more than one existing member, this article should be deleted.Galteglise 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course there are more members than just Nutik. He didn't sign all the registration forms by himself. Not all their activities (formulating and posting policy for example) are done as an open meeting. A publicly inactive group is still a group. Toddsschneider 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, these assertions of signed registration forms and private meetings are either original research or speculation. There is no secondary source evidence of group activity, so it does not as yet warrant a Wikipedia article. If you can show me secondary sources, I will change my mind. Galteglise 23:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - News articles described the *founding* meeting, for example. At such a meeting, in Quebec, forms are completed by voters and registered donations are taken. That's not speculation, just reality.Toddsschneider 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But they don't say how many people were at the meeting. For all we know it is just the founder and his family like the Westboro Baptist Church. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. GreenJoe 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The CBC does: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/22/qc-affiliationquebec.html?ref=rss Quote: "Nutik met with about 100 people on the weekend at his inaugural meeting ..." Toddsschneider 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. Is that cited in the article? GreenJoe 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems quite clear that it is cited since after the link it says, "Quote:..." It's in the last paragraph, by the way, so you don't have to read the whole thing if you're in a hurry.Nicoleksmith 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
        I asked if it was cited in the article. I did visit the link. GreenJoe 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It was until hacked. I didn't bother updating it since it's just a game of counting heads. What matters at this point is whether they get enough verified signatures to officially register as a party. Then we'll see if that registration gets hacked (they already suffered electoral fraud by an attempt to "squat" the party name).Toddsschneider 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This says there weren't 100 people at that meeting. GreenJoe 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - actually, it says that the 100 signatures were not achieved at the meeting. There is no record in the West End Chronicle article you have linked of how many people were at the meeting. The reports of the exact number vary from article to article (as is always the case in newspaper reporting), but the range shows that it is not "just the founder and his family". If they have already achieved the 100 signatures needed, or will achieve it by the six month guideline, and don't fall prey to worse tactics against them like this namesquatting, they may officially register.Nicoleksmith 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — Nicoleksmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
        But that's what we're talking about. You have to prove they have the 100 signatures. 100 people at a meeting doesn't mean anything if they can't get the support to register. Lack of registration = Non-notable. The article can always be re-created if they actually register. GreenJoe 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm not sure that it matters whether 60 or 100 people showed up at the first meeting. I have been to plenty of "inaugural meetings" organized by a single person, attended by the person's friends, family, local reporters and a few curious people. The person announces that he is starting a group; the local reporter writes about it, but then the group either never meets again or has so few people participate afterwards that it peters out without ever doing anything. Those types of "groups" shouldn't have wikipedia articles, since they aren't really groups, just a single guy with an idea to start a group. The secondary sources cited here do not indicate that Affiliation Quebec has moved beyond the "idea for a group" stage to an actual group where members meet and have activities. (This is what I should have written a week ago).Galteglise 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I couldn't agree more. That's what I was trying to articulate. GreenJoe 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The party has held one public meeting..." Only one meeting? How is it even arguable that this deserves its own article? Otherwise, every one-off political meeting deserves its own article, on the grounds that it may, someday, develop into a political party or organization.24.201.90.18 13:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 24.201.90.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:ORG :"Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". Of which there are plenty, namely news articles.Toddsschneider 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Eyrian, non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Slalom[edit]

No verifiable claims of notability whatsoever. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete — TKD::Talk 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigazzi's restaurant[edit]

nn local restaurant; can't find any references other than articles locked behind registration-only pages. All of the registration-only pages are local mentions in one or two local newspapers, and an anon removed the prod. Delete. fethers 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am struggling to see what it is notable for. Is it the toasted ravioli or the frozen fishbowls??? --Malcolmxl5 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verification of notability. A cursory Google search also turns up zero reliable, independent sources lending notability of any kind. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I grew up in St. Louis and have eaten at Rigazzi's a number of times. It's a well-known restaurant in the city, but has no special notability. Deor 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nominating these apartheid articles individually is becoming disruptive and an energy drain on the community. Please try to sort out outstanding issues at the centralized discussion venue first. El_C 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid

The term "Saudi Arabian apartheid" is not in common usage and only produces 296 hits on google[67]This article is made up almost entirely of quotes and artificially blends two different concepts, treatment of religious minorities and sexual discrimination. Any useful information should be moved to Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia and Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The article as it stands is a POV fork of those two articles. Lothar of the Hill People 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination is frivolous. The only basis provided is a google test. Here are some other googles this user should have tried out on this verifiable subject:

The first two give hundreds of results, the third gives almost 5,000. also, consider that most articles dealing with saudi arabia's apartheid wont necessarily use the phrase in quotes. If a merge is being proposed, the appropriate place would be the article, not an AFD. --Urthogie 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google was not the "only basis" for this AFD. You completely ignored the arguments that 1) article is almost entirely made up of quotes, 2)it artificially blends two completely distict concepts 3) it's a POV fork.

It's not that that I had only one basis for this deletion request, it's that you've only addressed one of the points I've raised and ignored the rest. Neat trick.

In any case, your google point falls apart when you actually look closely. Your first two google examples barely returned 500 hits between them. The results of the third"apartheid in saudi arabia" is not what you say it is. Look at the hits and you'll see what's actually being returned are referneces to "gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia", "sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia" or "religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia". As a stand-alone phrase "apartheid in Saudi Arabia" almost never comes up and that's because as a single concept it doesn't exist. Of these 5,000 hits I only found a few dozen if that that were for "Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" as a stand-alone phrase.

What you've done is taken two different ideas "gender apartheid" and "religous apartheid" and mashed them up so you could have "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid". That's a completely unprofessional way to write an article. Lothar of the Hill People 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your remaining points apply equally well to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which has survived AFD 5 times. That's why I ignored them. The Israeli article deals with allegations that there is apartheid only in the west bank (90% of the quotes), and allegations that there is apartheid in Israel itself (10% of the quotes). Your attempt to separate "gender apartheid in saudi arabia" from "religious apartheid in saudi arabia" will be just as successful as my failed attempt to distinguish between various types of israeli apartheid allegations. Also, almost all of that article is a quotefarm, a list of quotes.--Urthogie 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since we're throwing up Google searches, how about this one. No reputable scholar has compared the two systems. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Urthogie Bigglove 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs work, but gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia is certainly notable. See also google books. <<-armon->> 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's have an article called Gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia or maybe Sexual segregation in Saudi Arabia but mashing gender apartheid together with discrimination against religious minorities is just a mess. Lothar of the Hill People 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such mashing sounds like an inevitable result of stretching the term "apartheid" beyond what it's really about, which is South Africa, in the past. 6SJ7 05:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons I stated on the AfD for Allegations of French apartheid, which was kept. And by the way, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x (to which WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a shortcut) is only an essay, and it doesn't apply here anyway. I don't think any of these "apartheid" articles for individual countries should exist, but one country should not be singled out. Let's have consistency. 6SJ7 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, How many times?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above comments. Amoruso 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Encyclopedia articles do not consist of lists of every use of a term. For us to keep this article, we must have references to secondary sources that study the phenomenon of "Allegations of Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" as a whole. Otherwise we could have articles like "Allegations that liberals are traitors" filled with copious quotes from Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and other right-wing commentators. And POINTy references to the Israeli article are invalid, whatever happens on other articles has no relevance to whether this article should be kept. --Ideogram 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of the whole unfortunate "Allegations of apartheid" series, why remove the one where "the apartheid is starkest"? Consistency please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. An amazing nomination. If ever the term "apartheid" was suitable outside of South Africa, it is in this country, as the article makes abundantly clear. --Mantanmoreland 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. what's actually being returned are referneces to "gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia", "sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia" or "religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia". As a stand-alone phrase "apartheid in Saudi Arabia" almost never comes up and that's because as a single concept it doesn't exist. No offense or personal attack meant, but this may be the weakest Wikipedia argument of the week. Actually that's more of an argument in favor of keeping this article. made up almost entirely of quotes Well, OK then, it should be expanded. Most articles start out sketchy. Gzuckier 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I have !voted before, keep all or delete all articles on this subject. However, of all the articles, this one is easily one of the strongest. IronDuke 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the nom, who could have been more explicit about the core shoddiness and illegitimacy of this article. This article is one massive violation of Wikipedia's policy against original research and its guidelines for notability. There are absolutely no secondary sources, zero sources, discussing the topic of the article, allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. You need secondary sources, per WP:N and WP:NOR except in "rare" cases, usually meaning unfolding events. An article about a pattern of political rhetoric detected by a Wikipedian but not remarked upon by any reliable source anywhere is decidedly not one of those rare circumstances where the need for secondary sources is to be waived. The problem here isn't that comparing Saudi human-rights violations to South African ones is outrageous or invalid; on the contrary, Saudi Arabia might be one of the few countries to whom apartheid South Africa would compare quite favorably in terms of human rights. The problem is that the comparison itself appears to have no notability. No one's ever remarked upon it, discussed it, debated it – in short, established its significance. A number of writers have used the term "apartheid" in its generic dictionary sense for systemic segregation, and a Wikipedian has data-mined the internet and gathered up all these primary sources into a quote farm on a topic not discussed by any reliable source. The actual topic here is Human Rights in Saudi Arabia; the Wikipedian who created this has simply culled from the voluminous literature on that subject those sources which happen to use the word "apartheid," either for rhetorical emphasis or merely in passing, and lined up a sequence of block quotes with little transitional sentences in between. You can't just have monkeys typing words and phrases into a search bar and robots arranging the results into a WP article; you need sources establishing the topic as notable in the first place. It would be helpful if the "keep" votes above would reconsider; some of their votes seem rather careless and reflexive, or premised on the existence of OTHERSTUFF. Those standing by their "keeps" should at any rate specify exactly why they think this article qualifies as one of those "rare" occasions in which the WP:NOR and WP:N requirement of secondary sources establishing notability does not apply.--G-Dett 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really up to you to determine the criteria by which others should evaluate this article. 6SJ7 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR is core policy, 6SJ7, and WP:N is a pretty elementary guideline.--G-Dett 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the claim that they have been violated is false. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case for their having been violated has been set forth here and elsewhere in detail; your asserted that they have not been violated has yet to be substantiated.--G-Dett 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well sourced discussion of the topic. Whatever problem one may have with the titling should be resolved comprehensively, and not dealt with piecemeal. Tewfik^Talk 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd comment. Well-sourced discussion of the topic? There is not a single source that even mentions the topic of the article.--G-Dett 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, OberDicta and G-Dett. Information in the "Treatment of Women" section can be incorporated into Sex segregation (Gender apartheid redirects there already). The "Treatment of minorities" section can be incorporated into Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia and the "Treatment of non-Muslims" section can be incorporated into Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The information is valid and interesting, but assembled like this, the article is a POV fork that is WP:OR. Tiamat 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Armon, Tewfik, etc. Well sourced, notable issue. It's rather astonshing people would claim this is a POVfork, considering the material in it is original, and at best has been copied into other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia and/or Sex segregation per User:G-Dett. T L Miles 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Humus. --Shuki 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to relevant articles. The Saudi apartheid analogy is not widely used. CJCurrie 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Sexual harassment article under the "Other jurisdictions" subsection as "Saudi Arabia", or still better, create the separate section "Saudi Arabia" parallel to the section "United States". greg park avenue 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reality Check: "Non-Muslim Bypass:" Non- Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca Bigglove 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be lots of fun to miss that exit. It sounds like missing the "Last exit before toll" sign and suddenly realizing you ain't got any change on you. Happens to women of any religion all the time; hope there are not that many non-Muslim female drivers on this road. greg park avenue 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Urthogie and Humus, nom is frivolous.

> [G-Dett] There is not a single source that even mentions the topic of the article

Wrong: perusing the notes and references section by Ctrl+F reveals that almost all mention the term apartheid, either in a quote or a title, and they don't mean that hateful Zionist entity, this time. --tickle me 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article is allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. There are no sources who talk about those allegations.--G-Dett 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, please stop playing this shell game with words. We all understand you don't like the words "Allegations of" in the titles of these articles, but that's no reason to start inventing bizarre arguments claiming that those two words can magically turn an article full of secondary sources into one full of primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Humus, nice picture. Arrow740 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, but rename. The factual accuracy was essentially not under fire in this afd. However the neutrality appears to leave a lot to be desired in the minds of the deletion !voters, and that neutrality is not really addressed by the keep suggestions. While this is a documented phenomenon - to the point where it is pointed out that Britanica even mentions it, they only use the word apartheid in passing. Therefore, one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion. Viridae ^Talk 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Can all people participating in afd discussons remember that expanding upon their reason allows the admin to fully evaluate their opinion. Comments like "Keep obvious" or simply "Keep" (or for that matter the deletion versions of those) are pretty much useless in an afd discussion which is not an exercise n vote counting. Viridae ^Talk 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba[edit]

POV/Content fork of Tourism in Cuba. Merge other material to less POV-titled "Tourist segregation". Lothar of the Hill People 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment giving this a less POV title such as Tourist segregation in Cuba might be considered as an option if there isn't a consensus to delete. Lothar of the Hill People 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a "Allegations of [nasty action] in [place]" article Will ^(talk) 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article.--JForget 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. A well referenced article about a broadly known phenomenon. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about Cuba's "tourist apartheid". It is beyond me how a 13 month old article that was spun out from Allegations of apartheid could suddenly become a POVfork of Tourism in Cuba. It's also strange that the editor who created both the Social apartheid and Urban apartheid POVforks would now complain about POVforks and claim that the word "apartheid" is POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well referenced discussion. I sympathise, Will, with your rationale, but any problems with the titling etc. should be dealt with comprehensively among the entire series, and not piecemeal on just one or two. Tewfik^Talk 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepGzuckier 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nom is frivolous, again. Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid is the place to deal with this. --tickle me 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yep it's frivolous. <<-armon->> 10:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-documented allegation. Dubious nomination. --Leifern 10:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Remove "tourist" from title. Amoruso 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - and speedy keep all future frivolous AFD from this nominator bent on disrupting WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well documented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not how you solve editing disputes. Please see WP:APARTHEID. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tewfik, tickle me and others; and my comments on the last few AfD's in this series. 6SJ7 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayjg. Jakew 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If not, delete ALL similar articles. Have one rule for everything and enforce it. John Smith's 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If not, delete all similar articles, as per John above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A frivolous nomination of a well-referenced article. Beit Or 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article. It doesnt need its own article, just a section within the main article. Title is POV, too.Giovanni33 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look, once it appears in the Brittannica it's sort of hard to argue that it's not well-referenced. Nandesuka 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the Britannica article called? Surely not "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the reference in Britannica is in a larger article about Tourism in Cuba which is precisely what a merge would do here. 63.164.145.85 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In its current state the article is just a quote farm, and strongly resembles the hoax articles in the hoax series "allegations of apartheid." But there are some indications that the phrase itself has notability, unlike the other articles which depend mostly on systematic and intentional misrepresentation of source materials and bloc-voting on spurious grounds in AfDs. It would be nice to see this article eased out of the hands of Middle-East-focused pranksters and into the hands of editors with a) an interest in and knowledge of the subject matter, and b) a track record of editorial honesty. If and when that happens, it should probably be renamed Tourist apartheid in Cuba, and leave it to the article itself to make clear that that's a contentious but popular vernacular phrase.--G-Dett 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Sorry for your RAfD. All these Israelian contributors have met here to bash you. Poppypetty 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem here. Cuba is widely known for this.--Mantanmoreland 15:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, POV, and a pretty ham-handed attempt to dilute the word "apartheid" into meaninglessness by crowbarring it into whatever political controversy that a small group of editors can dream up. WP is not a battleground, and everyone involved in this mess ought to go off and fight their petty little war elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - nom is frivolous. There should be some kind of moratorium on either creating or deleting articles of this type until we get a consensus on what do about them on Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid. <<-armon->> 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. No, this is not frivolous (WP:FAITH) so please come up with a better reason for keeping it? Yes, the centralized discussion is a better spot, but this article is an originally researched POV fork. >Radiant< 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain w/questions toward consensus. Greetings. I wonder if we might explore consensus-building in regard to the Article Name (title). I notice that the nomination implies that the Article Name itself reflects a point-of-view, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government. In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms. Hence my questions:

For Keep voters, if no consensus is reached, the outcome would be on your side. However, none of you so far defends the neutrality of the Article Name itself. Furthermore, an NPOV Name could itself be grounds for deletion. Would you argue that "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" is the most neutral name that can be found for this article? If not, would you modify your vote to "Keep and Rename to "Tourism policies in Cuba" or a similarly neutral title"?
For Delete voters, if no consensus is reached, your position fails. While I am sympathetic to your position, would you be willing to accept a fallback position. For example, would you modify your vote to: "Delete and, failing that, Keep and Rename to "Tourism policies in Cuba" or a similarly neutral title"? (Note that this fallback would allow you to challenge the Content of the renamed article on content-related policy grounds.)

In this manner, perhaps there may be agreement toward a rename, even if it is nobody's first choice. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an excellent idea, HG, and I hope that everyone will consider it. I have some additional and (hopefully) insightful comments as well. I was in disbelief when Jayjg mentioned above that, "Even Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about Cuba's "tourist apartheid"". But they indeed do. I think examining the single article (that I could find) in which they mention it would be appropriate. The article is a section of the "Cuba", and it can be found at "Cuba :: Services". The single mention can be found in the sentence, "However, the increased dependence on foreign tourism (...) wherein tourist areas are provided with many [comforts unavailable to the general public]—a situation sometimes described as a "tourism apartheid."" I think that the title of the relevant article is significant: It merely is, "Services".
Britannica does not, that I know of, have an explicit "NPOV" policy, but it indeed has done just that. There are, certainly allegations or mentions of "tourism apartheid", as is evidenced by the numerous sources provided in the article. I understand that these "allegations of" articles are very contentious, but I wonder if the editors who have commented here would comment on HG's, and now my, proposals to provide a neutral title for the article: namely, something like, Iamunknown]]. --Iamunknown 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining this proposal. As you suggest, I am rewording the draft name to "Tourism policies in Cuba" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) and still open to emendations. HG | Talk 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I have never heard the term apartheid applied to any countries except South Africa and Israel. It looks like pro-Israeli propangandists are active on Wikipedia, and are trying to dilute the impact of the linking of the word apartheid to Israel with made up articles. We should not let this happen, lest Wikipedia's credibility be damaged. Speciate 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - --Tom 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge onto Human rights in Cuba as per this proposal ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this proposed merge. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep a very important article that tells the truth about Cuba.--Southern Texas 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat apathetic keep. I'm not opposed in principle to a merger, but I suspect the "tourist apartheid" metaphor is significant enough for an article of its own. It needs to be renamed, one way or the other. CJCurrie 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced with verifiable references. Term enjoys fairly widespread use [68] [69] [70] [71]. Frivolous AfD. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not true either. I went to Cuba a few years ago. And there was no tourist apartheid that I could see. Bmedley Sutler 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Justice[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep

No sources apart from the Church itself. Will ^(talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is based on both cofs and other sources. --Fahrenheit451 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I have a major problem with the massive amounts of unsourced and contentious information that anti-Scientology editors seek to stuff this article with, this is a real subject, and a valid one for an article. Much of the info regarding this is closely related to Scientology ethics, though, and in the future perhaps a merge is possible if no properly sourced information is forthcoming. wikipediatrix 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipediatrix. I removed a bunch of the unsourced and OR-ish stuff likely put there by someone that was at the receiving end of the subject and is/was upset about it (I did not look at the edit history, only the tone of the material). OK, but Wikipedia is not the place to vent. --Justanother 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep ~~The nomination doesn't list any reason for deleting the article.~~ (If there is a properly formed nomination, I'd have to say that the article badly needs specific references rather than the generalized primary source HCOPLs.) Shall I pencil in 7/31 or 8/1 for next year? AndroidCat 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, just noticed that "Will" is actually Spectre. (Grumble grumble. I think that sort of name game is a Really Bad Idea.) AndroidCat 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we'll have to use some of their sources to describe their ideas. Anynobody 09:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12. Could've been tagged as such. — TKD::Talk 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmure[edit]

Badly written article, notability not asserted. Some of the text was lifted straight from http://www.emmure.com/main.php?pageID=bio -Nard 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:OR. And WP:BAND. And apparently WP:COPYVIO. --JayHenry 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability does seem nil, I'd also recommend deleting their "albums" here too: The Complete Guide to Needlework and Goodbye to the Gallows for the same reasons. Anynobody 09:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Bearian 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]