Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted (CSD:A7). --MCB 07:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mart Liquors[edit]

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

non-notable Dppowell 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What are we here for? Suggest speedy. Yuser31415 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-political web-based simulator[edit]

Most of the article seems to constitute Wikipedia:No original research. Although there are quite a lot of sources listed, every single one of the references fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: see User:Jobjörn/gpwbs-afd for a more detailed investigation of the sources listed in the article (as of 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)). The concept the article deals with fails the proposed policy/guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video games), and furthermore, the content of the article is mostly composed of descriptions on various nationsims, and every single one of these fails the established Wikipedia:Notability (web). I have, in vain, tried googling on the most imaginative search strings in order to find a source independent of nationsims, dealing with them. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Per AfD rules, this request may be close in five days, specifically on or after 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC). -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--M8v2 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One may want review the following earlier AfDs, as they may contain material relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True World Simulator (also dealing with WorldPower and SuperPower Classic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpower Classic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Diplomacy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpawn. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable, original research. Every one of the quasi nations (forums and log in sites) links right back their site and fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). The one external link is also a log in which does not help much. --John Lake 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A lot of guesswork, and WP:OR. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping it. I can remember playing 'Diplomacy' when young, and these games are just more sophisticated computer-versions. Could you not just remove the bits of text and the links that are objectionable? The article doesn't have to look like an advert. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These nationsims have hardly any relationship to Diplomacy (board game). They do not claim to do so, and the only thing they and Diplomacy have in common is well... diplomacy. There are other Diplomacy computer games. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I played 'Diplomacy' it was more 'stabbing people in the back'. Oh well. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, "diplomacy". ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lock (perhaps reduct to stub first) pending resolution of multiple mediations and other issues between article originator and editor proposing deletion of article. -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Delete Mediation appears to have been resolved (per comment below). I really hate to delete all that information. There is so much of it, it must have come from someplace reliable. I tried to do some research on the topic to provide at least one reliable source, but couldn't figure out what the topic was: Geo-political web-based simulator? Geo-political internet simulator? Geopolitical simulator? Some of the subject matter from the article might fit in the simulation article, but I'm not even sure whether the term "Geopolitical" is appropriate. Geopolitics doesn't mention anything about simulation. Before deleting the article, it would be kind of someone with some knowledge in this area to place a reference to this topic in an appropriate Wikipedia article. That way, someone in the future might be prompted to develop a correct article on the topic (whatever that topic may in fact be). There probably is a relevant article on the topic, but the present article does not appear to be that.-- Jreferee 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was under the impression that those matters had been settled. The two cases in question, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy, both initiated by me, are now closed. Itake has not made any edits to either of the articles since. He has also been invited, by me, to partake in the AfD discussion. I have not nominated this article to prove a WP:POINT, believe me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: I believe the article has been written by nationsim players, for nationsim players. I have myself played nationsims and yes, it is fun! But, there's a lot of fun stuff not in the encyclopedias. Perhaps that lies in the nature of fun... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Thanks for the information. I googled nationsim players. However, I still can't put my finger on the topic of the article, which means I can't actually determine whether the topic is Wikipedia notable. If it was, I would reduce the article, footnote it, and support it on deletion review. As I posted above, there has to be an article in all that text, but I can't figure out what it is and thus can't offer any support to the article. -- Jreferee 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd really like to vote to keep this article, because I think the subject is interesting and because I'd expect this type of game to be more popular in the future. BUT repeated AfDs on the specific games in this category have (it appears) failed to produce a single reliable source (as defined by WP:RS). Instead, it seems that everything out there on the Web (based on a couple of google searches I did) is either (a) a reflection/mirror of wikipedia articles or (b) game sites, forums, and other peripheral mentions about the specific games. So I'm guessing that there may be a thousand or so (or less) folks who play or have played such games, and that's about the level of interest in these. Ironically, perhaps, if someone had really done original research and traced the origins of each of the games, identified their differences, gotten figures on how many people play and have played each, gotten information about the business model (so to speak - costs to play, costs to operate, etc.), and compared the games to each other (if I were a potential player, which would I be interested in?), I'd be very tempted to argue "usefulness" (not an accepted criteria, I know), and it's possible that there wouldn't have been an AfD (not even unsourced article ends up here.) But that's not the case - it's really not a very useful OR interesting article. John Broughton | Talk 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting subject (to me, personally) but that's not reason enough to keep it. There's a fair bit of original research here, and as such, nothing that is verifiable is within this article. But I've copied this to my userspace if people want to work on it, it's at User:SunStar Net/Geo-political web-based simulator. For now, delete it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom said it better than I could. — Seadog^Talk 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:OR. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward Hotel (Jackson, MS, USA)[edit]

Twice prodded. User:Salad Days called it a "nn vacant hotel"; User:MER-C says "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no assertion of notability for both the old and new versions." NickelShoe (Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep It sounds like it might be a historic building, but it's not written enough to tell. If there's something of interest with this place, keep the article and get it fixed. If not, get rid of it. --Sable232 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, building is "part of the West Capitol Street Historic District, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places[1], and is designated as both a Mississippi Landmark and a Jackson Landmark", was listed as "most endangered" (top 10) in 1999.[2] It was also apparently once the home of Okeh Records (important blues label).[3] --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to whomever got the references in there! I would also note that the article should be moved to King Edward Hotel (Jackson, Mississippi), disambiguation should not use postal codes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is welcome back when it's open and notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. "The hotel was the center of Jackson society and politics for over forty years." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep National historic places and state historic places are notable. This building vacant or not is notable.--John Lake 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Completely unreferenced. Salad Days 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It might be notable because of historical value and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs serious clean up and refs. TSO1D 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix, don't destroy. Grace Note 10:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extend the article. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building, as built in 1923, is on the National Register of Historic Places, is listed among the 10 most endangered historic structures in Mississippi, and marks 140 years of Mississippi history. After 15 years of talks about reviving the hotel, city officials have the money to move forward with plans to turn the 83-year-old King Edward into 72 high-end one- and two-bedroom condominiums and 152 hotel rooms.[4] -- Jreferee 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a number of independent references to its notability from newspapers including a quote from the mayor that it it the "linchpin" of economic redevelopment, and is on the National Register. Edison 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of enough importance to warrant a keep. Xanucia 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important enough to warrant a keep. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough...has citations and everything. — Seadog^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's listed in the National Register of Historic Places and seems to have good refs. Doc Tropics 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs moving to a better disambiguator though. FiggyBee 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a good article as now written, it clearly is an article about a notable facility. WVhybrid 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is somewhat notable. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable †he Bread 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since all of the concerns have been met. MER-C 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a historical site, definitely notable, well written in its current state. Hope to see the article expand further. Ter e nc e Ong 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, move to King Edward Hotel (Jackson) since the current name does not follow the guidelines and we don't need the extra disambiguation suggested above. Vegaswikian 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable as historic site and can be verified now too Yuckfoo 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Gone Mad[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. All information appears to come from the band's own website. ShadowHalo 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or speedy delete all per nomination. Away with ye, come back when you're famous! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I'm not so sure this isn't a speedy candidate. -- Kicking222 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--Grand Slam 7 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Albums appear to be self-released. No hits on Amazon.com or CDBaby. They have only been "playing local parties and then hosting their own shows in local venues". Therefore, no indication they would pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete al per nom. Not notable at all. TSO1D 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC as a walled garden of non-notable band and album information. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.-K37 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. -- Satori Son 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I completely agree, this totally fails WP:MUSIC. --K yo cat^{¿Quíeres hablar?} 04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:VANITY Malla nox 05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per every reason above. Sr13 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all utter failure WP:BAND--John Lake 06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy Delete all - or Delete if this fails CSD criteria for some reason. I don't even see an ASSERTION of notability in there, though, so I think this can be speedied. Perel 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured the side projects, albums, and being featured on a compilation with very notable artists could be construed as assertions (even if they don't succeed at doing so). —ShadowHalo 07:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- non notable, and reasons listed in the comments above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements and no real assertions of notability. Plus with no hits on Amazon or CDBaby, as mentioned above, does indicate more signs of non-notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The consensus so far appears to be delete every Wikipedia independent topic related to Monkey Gone Mad. I found a few more Category:Monkey Gone Mad images, Category:Monkey Gone Mad albums, and Category:Monkey Gone Mad. If there are others, I assume that the administrator will delete them as well. As for my delete vote, only notices regarding the appearances of Monkey Gone Mad have made it to the newspapers; nothing about the formation of the group or the history of the group. Monkey Gone Mad really need to start releasing PRs so that newspapers will cover them better. If they eventually make the newspapers, there might be enough information to sustain an independent Wikipedia article on Monkey Gone Mad. As part of the deletion, it would be kind of an editor to list Monkey Gone Mad within an appropriate article. I tried to, but couldn't figure out where they could be listed.-- Jreferee 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; fails WP:BAND too. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, and Delete no assertion of notability. WVhybrid 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much first hand info ("the band states", etc.) Milto LOL pia 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BraxtanFILM (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Still no real assertion of notability for this small film production company - i.e. no published works other than a standard IMDB listing and one website mention. StoptheDatabaseState 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I quote the "independent" website: Braxtan Film started in 1989 when Hank Braxtan began making short films with a home video camera and some action figures. In 1994, Braxtan began making films for high school under the name No Budget Productions. This lasted until 2003, when while spoofing Star Wars, he called it BraxtanFILM as a joke, but the name stuck. Action figures? Spoofing Star Wars? Notable! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no serious sources have been produced despite several opportunities. If the company's films were reviewed in significant publications then fine but at the moment there is a terminal failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this self-promotion. Edeans 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverfied, nn notable.--John Lake 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it still looks like a speedy candidate. Doesn't even assert notability. Perel 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Speedy: Issues raised in the first deletion Nomination were not addressed and the keep consensus appeared to be conditioned on addressing the issues. Delete:There are no reliable sources giving any information about the topic. -- Jreferee 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per non-notability. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication from WP:RS that this "company" and its films are notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made up this subpage up just now. It sources everything in there, including the film awards. User:Fresheneesz/BraxtanFILM. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. I really think this company is good to keep - and will probably make some "real" news sometime in the next few years. Fresheneesz 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it. Also, the important parts are not sourced: They have won multiple awards for Indie Film Adventures, Freddy VS Ghostbusters, and Paramount pictures bought the rights to BraxtanFILM's Friday the 13th AGAIN!. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I must have deleted my work - I sourced some of the awards and removed the rest.. I'll do it again. Fresheneesz 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added the sources back in. Fresheneesz 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete close. Just H 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to my recent sourcing of the awards and NPOV reworking. Fresheneesz 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the inline cited sources should be removed from the article for failing to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability. The sites fanboytheatre.com and theforce.net are blogs or fansites that do not independently verify posted submissions. The postings at b-independent.com, protoncharging.com, and myfilm.com are also not verified by the posting site, and were submitted by the company itself (one is a classified ad). I will leave them in the article for now so that others may evaluate them. -- Satori Son 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the sources are awful, and sources even *that* good were difficult to find. Not to say that any of the information in the article is false. I suppose the issue here is whether the article asserts verifiable importance. Do the sources on the awards check out - cause those are the assertion of importance. Fresheneesz 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Group[edit]

non-Ocean personnel are writing inaccuracies about our company. These misrepresentations are a cause for concern for us. We want to provide correct information for all to read Coreymf 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is not in itself a valid reason to delete the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not a proper AfD case. You may edit the article to correct inaccuracies, but keep Wikipedia's policies (see WP:POLICY) in mind. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Coreymfs concerns (as described on the talk page of the article) have been adressed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. If people are adding false information, leave a vandal message on their talk page, and they will eventually be blocked if they persist. --Sable232 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and rv vandalism. No grounds for deletion per above. Ohconfucius 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The submitter seems to have made a mistake, and does not actually want it deleted. Drakh 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, g1, you name it. NawlinWiki 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steinabration[edit]

Strong Delete. No Google hits whatsoever, seems to be something made up somewhere in New York one day, celebrating some guy's birthday on December 8th. Prod removed by original author, claiming future notability in edit summary. StoptheDatabaseState 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree, this is complete non-sense. TSO1D 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, garbage. Might be speediable as no context. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for things made up over a couple of beers one afternoon.--John Lake 06:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsensical, non-sourced, orphaned. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSAX Tower[edit]

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts et sec, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers which are below 380 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all stubs, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the last AfD regarding these. Is it possible to speedy delete all of these, since the last batch were deleted? --Sable232 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I belive most of the articles up for deletion can be go up for Speedy Deletion because of lack of context.--M8v2 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Ohconfucious, are you going to move on to masts in other countries? MER-C 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to see. The US ones are in a sense easier - the 80:20 rule of deleteworthy candidates is easier to establish. Ohconfucius 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate mass nominations, but delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of this towercruft. Yikes! Edeans 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus shows that the correct name is polecruft. You're an evil name POV pusher!!! :) -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Whoa! Polecruft!! Sr13 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each and every one and congrats to nom for tracking all these down! - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable about these towers. ~~Do we have to have discussion on each and every one?~~--John Lake 06:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer.--John Lake 06:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think these are all in the List of masts anyways. Why do they need articles? Unless they fall down and crush a Democratic senator, they aren't notable. --Brianyoumans 08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (or merge) Whilst these are fairly useless, and I think the creator probably needs to get out more, they are also harmless. They are NPOV and verifiable. Wikipedia hasn't got a space shortage. If the creator needs to find better things to do with his time, so does the nominator. No-one in this debate has presented any argument as to why Wikipedia would be better off without this information. Yes, this is 'cruft', and so what? Do people just enjoy removing minor information from wikipedia just for the fun of it? Does it make us feel superior?--Sandy Scott 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes us an encyclopedia, instead of a collection of random things about poles. Like WP:NOT says we are supposed to be. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most encyclopedias don't have articles on Pokemon characters, indy bands, or colleges: Wikipedia doesn, so wikipedia is different. I see nothing random here, so I'm not sure why that's applicable. WP:NOT says Wikipedia isn't paper. So I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.--Sandy Scott 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT says we're not a directory. Articles which say nothing but what the thing is and where it is situated aren't encyclopedia articles, they're directory listings. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all although I do dislike these batch nominations.-- danntm ^T _C 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete - I don't have a problem with mass deletions, but they need to be presented properly for AfD and Deletion review purposes. ~~As the AfD presently is proposed, I don't see your mass deletion surviving deletion review. You may want to cancel this AfD and repropose it by placing similar topics in groups. For example,~~ (I figured out that my problem is not with the present proposal, but the mass deletion process. -- Jreferee 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)) I would support a proposal for deletion presented as follows: GROUP I:Citadel Broadcasting Tower Brentwood, Omnicom Tower Sharon, Reiten TV tower, SpectraSite Tower Louisburg, Trinity Broadcasting Tower Oklahoma, WCPE Radio Tower, WDAY TV Tower, WVEC TV Tower - Each article contains no more three sentences sentence, all the articles were created on same day by the same editor, Special:Contributions&target=85.74.33.35, using the same (wrong) approach to post each article, and the relevant information in each individual article is contained in List_of_masts, thus deleting the articles will not remove notable information from Wikipedia. GROUP II: etc.-- Jreferee 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant. We don't target individual editors, but the articles themselves except in the cases of trolls/vandals. The fact is that these listed are all pretty much useless stubs which capture info already in the FCC registration which, incidentally have tried my best to preserve. Ohconfucius 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant to getting your way and having the articles deleted. However, you are asking us to delete articles in the collective, not individually. There should to be a consideration in the deletion proposal of each editor's collective effort over multiple articles. Regarding the example I gave, the fact that an anonymous editor created all the stub articles on same day using the same (wrong) approach to post the information which largely already exists on Wikipedia elsewhere helps those voting to give consideration to that editor's collective effort and come to a conclusion that these article were a mistake by a novice editor. It will help the novice editor understand why their articles were efforts were. I do appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. However, you are not just asking us to delete data, you are asking us to delete the hard work of many editors. You might not see yourself as target individual editors, but the editors behind many of the above articles are new and might see it differently. For example, you listed not just one but many articles created by user 85.74.33.35. Also, I did not see a notice on user 85.74.33.35 talk page that many of his/her article are up for deletion. What is that new user supposed to think? Most of the editors of the articles you listed are new and probably have no idea that deletion is even possible. Fairness to these new editors during a collective deletion process should include at least a notice on their talk page and some showing consideration that their collective efforts to contribute to Wikipedia have been considered in collectively proposing their articles for deletion. I think we need to develop guidelines for collective deletions of articles.-- Jreferee 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as exemplars of articles about nonnotable things created by cut and paste from a database somewhere. There is no merit in trying to replicate everything that has an entry in some database as a Wikipedia article. These will then be stale copies of the original database with no automatic update function in place. A main article talking about the function history and types of masts, with a link to master databases elsewhere, would be far preferable. The oldest, tallest, etc could justify articles, especially if they have books, newspaper articles, architectural or engineering awards. There are no attestations of the importance of these things except that they exist. So do the transmitters, but no articles for them?Edison 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: burn with fire, and lots of fire at that. They are towers. They exist. And? Where on God's earth is the notability for this lot? Do tell, please. Moreschi 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought when I saw this entry was "Oh, my, somebody wrote an article about the Air Traffic Control Tower at SAX airport -- we must delete this airport cruft". Then I read it and found out it was transmission tower cruft, not airport cruft. Not all tower articles are cruft; CN Tower for example, is a good article. These are cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of reasons previously stated above: non-notability, etc. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to say that I hate mass-nominations like this, even if I don't necessarily think any of the articles will be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have mentioned the same sentiment, but that's the alternative? 30 distinct AfDs? I sampled about 6 of them; they all appear to have the same fundamental flaw, which is that they're just data extracted from some tower database, with nothing notable to say about any individual tower. So what would be gained by discussing each one individually? If anybody (perhaps the creator?) thinks there are some subset of these which should not be painted with the same brush, they should speak up now. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say smaller groups would be preferable. A half-dozen might be easier to swallow. It's not like there's a pressing hurry to delete any of these pages. At the worst, I'd say it's boring content, which while many things isn't a real problem. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion appear to be a valuable Wikipedia tool, but it appears to lack guidelines. For those interested, I started a discussion thread here. -- Jreferee 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but add the geographical co-ordinates info to the list of masts article. The rest of the basic info is already included on that list. Qandnotq 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge KSAX Tower into lists of masts. No consensus on the other ones. Just H 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Lin[edit]

not notable / vanity page. Subject seems to be a barber at Floyd's Barbershop as well as (according to her own web page) a "part time model." Doesn't seem to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Probably a vanity page written by the subject - note passages like "In junior high, she was still introverted, focussing on playing her violin and saxophone in band class. She spent all her money on the trendiest clothes because she wanted to be popular, but it just never happened." TruthGal 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info is so personal the article can be nothing other than autobiographical, and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not myspace. Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information present here is absolutely a vanity page written by the subject herself. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost none of the TV and film credits here appear in her IMDB page for some reason. Raffles mk 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Vanity article--SUIT 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:21 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity article. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, as non-notable vanity page. Doc Tropics 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the claim that her "crowning achievement growing up was winning the spelling bee in 6th grade." Meeting WP:BIO just doesn't seem to be there, based on reliable sources. The work claims (such as the TV guest spots) are difficult to verify, but likely wouldn't yield much in the way of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity. Jefferson Anderson 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Core desat 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Jarod[edit]

Nonexistant, non-announced, fake rumour-millesque Pokemon game Pumeleon 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A google search shows absolutely no results! Thus it is virtually impossible to verify the content in this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, violates WP:V. Assuming good faith but likely a hoax based on user's other edits and creation of nonsense articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I know hoaxes generally aren't supposed to be speedied, but this one is incredibly obvious. WarpstarRider 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I've looked everywhere for information on it. Defiantly a hoax/nonsense.--M8v2 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is clearly a hoax. The creator has been blocked indefinitely as a vandal. --Sable232 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas hoax, or at least incredibly non-notable. Koweja 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lee[edit]

This was prodded but had previously survived an AfD. User:Visviva says: "This appears to be a hoax article that was kept in error. No evidence given or readily found that this is real. Nothing in English on Google, and nothing in Korean for either of the possible names 송리 or 이송." Old AfD was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song Lee. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not cite sources or assert notability. Previous AfD seems inconclusive. Canadian-Bacon 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not a hoax 127,000 Google Hits for The Miso Soup Song All relevant to Song Lee 1,100,000 google Hits for the Potato Song some relevant But as it is now non notable--M8v2 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 127,000 hits dwindle to 60 if the search is restricted to the exact phrase; all of the 60 seem to based either on the (dubious) robpongi.com page or on the Wikipedia article. So I don't think it's clear that this is not a hoax; however, if it is real, it certainly doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Visviva 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love miso soup, delete per above. Edeans 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any form of verifiability. Many North Korean entertainers have been mentioned in the global Korean press (in North Korean news outlets and/or South Korean outlets focused on the North). That this allegedly famous singer has not speaks volumes. -- Visviva 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above findings. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entercom Greensboro Tower[edit]

This nomination completes the deletion of all stub articles of masts situated in the United states below 400m. Delete Ohconfucius 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good riddance. Polecruft. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this towercruft. Edeans 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia declares war on non-notable masts... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable mast.Coaster Kid 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia, including this article. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of masts. Just H 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Park Revue[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Only 54 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 02:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete article is funny and organization seems legit and singular. you don't have to delete every article about something just because it's not mentioned in the NYTimes. Jen 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article seems to admit it's own Non-notability. Canadian-Bacon 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is mostly in-jokes and other inside references, apparently not written for the general public. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:25 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable group fails WP:ORG. Doc Tropics 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this group meets WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as repost —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 23:01Z

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3[edit]

Speedy delete. This was nominated for deletion before. It was deleted. The same user has made the same exact page, only this time he added a bogus youtube trailer as an official teaser. My judgement then stands as it is now. Its way to early to make an article about this film.CyberGhostface 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Zero verifiable and reliable information. Fan-1967 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4. --Sable232 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Sable232 and MER-C Alf photoman 12:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. TSO1D 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a repost of previously deleted material.-- danntm ^T _C 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4 is insufficient guidance for user. Neither is WP:NOT#CBALL. There should be a policy statement that an exact stage of movie development meets the criteria for listing. It should be something like When a. Filming begins, b. filming ends, c. release date is set or some such an article can appropriately be created so we don't have to keep dealing with prospective movies. TonyTheTiger 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Mo Sheen[edit]

Delete. NN celebrity kid. Ckessler 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kate Beckinsale. Has appeared in films, but in very, very minor roles. --Canley 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:BIO. -- Chondrite 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her mother's article, as is usual with celebrity kids. No media coverage for the daughter herself means she fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Ckessler Stompin' Tom 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --Sable232 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate Beckinsale per other merge recommendations. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Edeans 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergelete - yeah, pretty much this should be deleted as NN, but she probably warrants a small (one paragraph) mention in Kate Beckinsale. Perel 07:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She already has. --Sable232 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's mentioned in Kate Beckinsale, and there is no real independent media coverage for the daughter herself.-- danntm ^T _C 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per danntm. Article can always be recreated if she achieves sufficient independent notability. Doc Tropics 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. This article can be created again if she ever gets famous (I suspect she will, though). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per imdb info. Very Weak Keep. Just H 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones[edit]

I see nothing encylclopediadic about this article for a single season of a college football team. However, perhaps there is a precedent that any single season of a sport at a division I (or II or III?) school is notable. I figure it's best to have this debate now, rather than after the author creates 100 articles. Aagtbdfoua 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is part of the ongoing efforts of WikiProject College football. One of the stated goals of WikiProject College football is:

To make Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football.

In order for Wikipedia to function as a "premier online resource," it needs to provide a complete historical view of Division IA programs. This article is part of that project and has been created in conformance guidelines established after extensive discussion (see discussion here, which is part of a larger discussion that starts here). There is no intent to create a single entry for each season, rather, the intent is to create a single page for all seasons under a particular coach (for example, see Georgia Bulldogs football under Herman Stegeman). In the particular instance tagged, it just so happens that the coach only coached for one season. --Tlmclain | Talk 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timclain. VegaDark 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Georgia Bulldogs football. This does not merit its own article. Edeans 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not merge I had the entire history of the Colorado Buffaloes on a single article and it became so big as to lose it's value. The College football WikiProject had a discussion where it was determined that breaking up historical articles per coach was more appropriate than single year-by-year pages. Thus, for example, Colorado Buffaloes under Gary Barnett instead of a single article for each year he was a coach. For some coaches, they only coached a single year. Nonetheless, for completeness of the subject, each year a school has participated in the sport deserves to be covered. Failure to do so would result in an incomplete coverage of the topic. --MECU≈talk 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no merge - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - "keep" because this is exactly the kind of info I wish I could find in a paper encyclopedia but cannot due to size limitations, and "no merge" because including the summaries for all 27 coaches on the Georgia Bulldogs football page would be intractable. --Roswell native 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article conforms to consensus of the WikiProject which is a compromise as stated above to avoid year-by-year articles while still providing comprehensive historical coverage. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - we are well on our way to 100 articles of college football seasons already. Please see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team... The goal of the College Football WikiProject is to ensure that these articles are well-written, well-balanced, well-referenced, and comprehensive. The article in question here is following the preferred format as noted above. Johntex\^talk 07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - active WikiProject with good justification for this article Perel 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessive level of detail for a general purpose encyclopedia. - fchd 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Articles similar to this have been discussed before. At some point a nod to the consensus should be made. CJC47 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article along the lines of Arsenal F.C. seasons (Georgia Bulldogs seasons?) Wikipedia is not a results database, there is no need to list individual match results in full. Oldelpaso 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle. Worthwhile content, but needs to be renamed to something along the lines of the articles that Johntex pointed out above for consistency's sake. A Train ^{take the} 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the naming convention used is the result of a long discussion on WikiProject College football. The conclusion of the discussion was to group annual seasons for a team together under the head coach, otherwise, a team like Georgia would have 112 separate stories for 112 seasons. Using the approach adopted by the Project regroups those 112 seasons under 24 head coaches. That being said, there is still room for detailed stories on noteworthy seasons such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. I hope this help explains the reasoning behind the method used to name the article. --Tlmclain | Talk 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. I tip my hat to you for the education, Tlmclain. :) A Train ^{take the} 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Short but well written, and it's part of a series that falls under the scope of an active, well-organized WikiProject. Doc Tropics 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VegaDark. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Georgia Bulldogs Just H 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Tower[edit]

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google throws up an enormous number of hits for this and there's a download link from the magazine PC World's website so I imagine that magazine has covered it at some point. Certainly, Icy Tower seems very well-known and regarded for a freeware release -- Zagrebo 12:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, what would an encyclopedia be without information about products and computer games also - both downloadable and retail? I disagree with that almost everything small I see is nominated for deletion - if you don't acknowledge the fact that people contribute in a serious way, no wonder there are many who dislike Wikipedia. Just because it isn't very notable it still has a huge fan-community and countless mods and is definitely worth to be kept. It is your narrow-minded point of view on everything that lowers the quality of this great free project. I'm sure the sources can be fixed, just issue the topic a clean-up template. Don't be so impatient. -- Karmus 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons cited above. -- Zagrebo 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notability is not established. PC world does review many games but not this one (at least not that I could find). A large % of the google hits seem to be mirror sites (it's freeware) offering download; I couldn't find any independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Chondrite 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IT was mentioned a few times in gaming press and stimulated online merchandising of some kind (see freelunchdesign.com). And it has got a Featured Article on Polish Wikipedia without any hints of unimportance. I'd say Oppose. Agree with Karmus. 83.31.197.8 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know so many people who've played this, I don't think that it fails to meet notability criteria (although I admit that I'm not feeling like sifting thousands of Google results to find appropriate sources).--Hús ö nd 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel like sifting either, but don't you think Chondrite makes a good argument that non-trivial reliable external sources likely don't exist? Pan Dan 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He does. But after seeing so many non-notable games for deletion, I just don't think that this is just another one of them. Additionally, it's quite a simple game and I doubt that any good sources could write much about it. Thus, for this one I just prefer to rely on its huge popularity.--Hús ö nd 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists). We have higher standards at Wikipedia! Pan Dan 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "My friends play it" is not a keep criterion. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. Also, can hardly see how does that make a "strong delete".--Hús ö nd 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough. Owoc 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and above points. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it does have a large following and it is one of the more notable freeware games. Delta Tango • Talk 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chondrite. If it's popular, it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists). At Wikipedia we need evidence of non-trivial reliable external sources so we can write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this - i dont see why to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.95.116 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shivah[edit]

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now passes WP:SOFTWARE: I have just added 7 references that proclaim its notability. --Amaccormack 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slab of reviews now present, good quality third-party sources. QuagmireDog 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is notable, is featured in a Reuters article, this is not a case of original research, by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valley2city (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, it passes WP:SOFTWARE. TSO1D 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no consensus. 1ne 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gilbert (game designer)[edit]

See User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer). This was previously nominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1) and received three delete votes in addition to the nomination and one keep vote. I am relisting to get a clear consensus. Specifically, this article fails WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. As I have already provided the sources in the first AfD, I see no point in keeping this open. Please take this to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must allow the sources to be discussed in the AfD process. That is its purpose, not to just have an administrator judge the worthiness of an article and close discussions. As it happens, I contend that your sources support the notability of The Shivah, not of Mr. Gilbert. Therefore it would be reasonable to generate a consensus of delete or redirect. This relisted AfD is certainly valid. Andre (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take this to DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly, would DRV be a better forum for this discussion? I'm not asking for a reinterpretation of your decision, nor am I raising a "concern" about it. It was handled incorrectly and therefore I am relisting it so we can handle it properly. Andre (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be handled by *professionals* on DRV. I see no point in continuing here. You did not care to check the verifiability of the article. This person has been mentioned in *many* reliable sources apart from the ones I have provided in the first AfD. The reliable sources include ones from BBC, CNN, Reuters and others. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean by "*professionals*". I'm an administrator just like you or them, and I can close deletions same as you or them. Wikipedia does not have "*professionals*" or special users with added judgmental power. At any rate, regarding your argument (which, being as you are participating in the argument, should really exempt you from closing the argument), Mr. Gilbert himself is not the primary subject of any of the sources you cited (The Shivah was, and Gilbert was merely mentioned in connection with that), and WP:BIO states that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" is a requirement. Andre (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the *professional* part was rather a joke. However, if you feel that I did not close it nicely, this discussion would be better suited on WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99% of comedy is timing, and this is really not a very amusing time for a joke. Anyway, a relisting of this deletion would benefit the process, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't just run the AfD again. WP:DRV exists to serve certain purposes that may be similar to this, but it is not unusual or inappropriate to just relist a deletion to build a consensus or remedy an out-of-order closing. Why, it just happened recently with another deletion of mine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Fatman. At any rate, I'm going to have to leave my computer now, so no more of this instant communication -- but please accept that your unconventional AfD closing has led to a confusing situation and the best fix would be to let this AfD run its course. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO also states – Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert is not an author (this means of books), editor, or photographer. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who program/write software are also known as authors. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But from context alone, let alone page history, we can clearly see that it refers to published authors. There's no ambiguity. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.. ?. Along with the sources – [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] — Nearly Headless Nick 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert's single independent adventure game, while it has received some press coverage, is hardly part of the enduring historical record, nor is it widely recognized. It's quite obscure, a curiosity at best, and borderline notable. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are multiple independent reliable sources showing his notability they belong in the article, not just here. The article is also stubby, even after all the previous deletion debate. The multiple references noted by Nick seem to the the same Reuters story appearing in various sites, which to me counts as one refrence, and it sounds like it came from a press release, which is still worth something, I suppose. Edison 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those who have gotten too used to hanging around here may have forgotten this, but the purpose of verifiability guidelines is to ensure that an article is verifiable, not to worship as an ineffiable God. If an article's notability is undeniably shown in its AFD discussion, then whether or not the article itself meets the guidelines is immaterial. -Toptomcat 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But Mr. Gilbert is not notable. His game, The Shivah, may be -- but he is not. Andre (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the previous AFD was improperly closed, it really should be taken to DRV. -- Whpq 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, those supporting merging are free to pursue that in the usual way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Reformed Theology?[edit]

Article does not assert its own notability, and this book is not more popular or deserving of a page than most of Sproul's other books (a number of which I have read). The book does not break any new ground and has not made any measurable impact like, say, MacArthur's Gospel According to Jesus. Article looks more like promotional piece than an encyclopedic description. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the proposed WP:BK. MER-C 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Sproul's article. I think the actual content will fit in one sentence. --Brianyoumans 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Brianyoumans, we don't nedd articles four sentences long. Alf photoman 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Brianyoumans. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because this much content can reasonably be an annotation to the entry in the bibliography in the Sproul article. If someone wants to add extensive information about this book, then a separate article would be OK (with just a summary in the Sproul article). JamesMLane t c 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Wizardman 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is within bounds per WP:CRYSTAL. Jay(Reply) 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Legacy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 195.114.94.194 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as I hate crystal-balling, the release date (stipulated by the developer) is now.. 4 days away? This particular developer has software which garners multiple reviews and seems to be very well received by the adventure game community. For the life of me, I can't see the point in deleting what's here for the sake of waiting for the inevitable reviews to appear as sources. This isn't just another freeware breakout clone. QuagmireDog 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am actually a beta-tester on this game, and although I think its release may be a few days late, it will certainly happen this month. When reviews come out, I will add them as sources. If the article is deleted, it will be recreated in a few months anyway. The original "Bestowers of Eternity" game (from which this article was renamed/merged with) did win 2 AGS Awards, too. --Amaccormack 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AGS awards (which may not be notable at all) for a related game do not establish the notability of this game. Chondrite 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is notable because it is the next game from the studio which released The Shivah which has garnered a significant ammount of press, (it's currently mentioned on the front page of cnn.com) and as such the studio and related products (especially this one as it's so very near release) are notable.--Wogoat 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY weak keep Looks like Shivah is headed for a keep now, so maybe this is notable too.. if the article still looks like this in a month, delete it. Perel 07:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only has the Shivah been kept, but the creator of this game's article has also passed AFD and been kept. Potential sources for reviews of this game (as soon as it is released) are already used as sources for The Shivah. It's just a matter of time now. QuagmireDog 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has NOTHING to do with WP:CRYSTAL, plus looks notable enough. I would like to see more information added though. --Wizardman 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richest Arab[edit]

Unsourced, incomplete and unverifiable list Static Universe 04:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's also worth mentioning that all but one of the people on the list has "unknown net wealth". MER-C 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unknown net wealth" for everything, and it doesn't even restrict itself to single people. Even if it did, why is a list of the richest Arabs important? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There aren't even figures for the net worth of all but one of those on the list. It is complete nonsense. --Sable232 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this article is pointless OR - and bad OR. KazakhPol 06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add relevant sourced information Alf photoman 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. TSO1D 15:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as original research. This is a list with an arbitrary scope and no added value. I would be amendable to a snowy close or other expedient close.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move and improve. I think that it should be moved to List of richest Arabs, and then all the net worths need to be researched and added. Also, there should be a list of individuals and/or a list of families rather than merging them into one list. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:32 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete if not sourced until AfD closure and rigourously improved. gidonb 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - was no need to even nominate this and give in to silly PRODS - firm is ridiculously large. Afd's purpose is not to get article improved. Go ask for peer review or something. pschemp | talk 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gartner[edit]

Twice prodded as failing WP:CORP. It's "an information and technology research and advisory firm." Bringing it here for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known consulting company with shares traded on New York Stock Exchange. The company's predictions and assessments are often quoted in computer magazines. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't it "Gartner Group"? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure is. Perel 07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've been moving away from that name for a few years now due to expanding business lines under the Gartner ___ pattern. Press releases now say "Gartner, Inc." or a specific business group. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the SEC, they're "Gartner, Inc." Shareholders voted to change the name on January 25, 2001. schi ^talk 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move and cleanup per above. MER-C 06:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gartner is one of the larger and notable market research firms. If necessary, cleanup to make that notability apparent, and move to a proper title if needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Gartner is very notable and influential in the IT industry. Perel 07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, but it's a bit corpspeak. Tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 09:52Z
Strong keep; very notable, just needs proper refs. A quick Google news search turns up dozens of hits, including this one, which seems to support the notability claim. schi ^talk 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gartner Group is to IT consulting what Microsoft is to desktop computer software. Ohconfucius 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeeeeeeeep. I am unsure whether to laugh my arse off or quit Wikipedia. This is ridiculous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Slattery[edit]

nn photographer. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, the user who created the article even says so on the talk page. I believe it fails WP:COI too. --Sable232 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the talk page: "Chad Slattery ...Is pretty much unknown". Enough said. MER-C 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Saying it's not notable is a pretty extreme way of failing to assert notability.. Perel 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe this was created as a test page and shouldn't have been sent to AFD, per the talk page. --SunStar Net^talk 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Jefferson Anderson 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --bainer (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield (band)[edit]

NN band -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve. It's worthy of inclusion, but it lacks in content. If someone can add more noteworthy information, than I'm fine with it being on there. If not, Delete. Human historian 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nothing of note, per nom. Akihabara 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The best this band has going for them, notability wise, is that they apparently have the former drummer from Good Charlotte... but once you dig a little deeper, you find out that this drummer left Good Charlotte just before they made it big (he's like the Fifth Beatle of crappy emo/psuedo-punk bands!) In the article's defense: The band does appear to have been on a major label and released two albums, satisfying some of WP:MUSIC. However, no sources or even an attempt to describe these albums as successful. -- Antepenultimate 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable per involvement of Aaron Escolopio. Mus Musculus 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, •••日本穣^{? • Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I'm leaning toward keep because I thought a band becomes notable after it cuts a record, of which this band has done twice. I think a cleanup tag and a CT desk assignment is more proper than deleting it. Am I way off course here?--Clyde Miller 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (conditional) - They are notable to some extent (see external link). I place merger templates on the related articles and added info to the talk page that may help move this article along. If the article is not moved forward in a reasonable amount of time and is place up for AfD again, consider my position a delete.-- Jreferee 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article states that they released two albums on Arista and Jive Records, both of which are quite notable labels. As such, they meet Criterion 5 of WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please releasing albums with arista and jive records is obvious notability under our music guideline Yuckfoo 02:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC and seems notable enough. --Wizardman 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sherman[edit]

nn "talent executive". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the admin (GWERNOL) who posted the article AGAIN for deletion, is, per his page, a self proclaimed Welsh trainspotter; so his interest in this genre: The Amercian Dance & Pop genre may not be best to qualify this Subjects contributions as Scott Shermans industry does not seem to be of the admins interests; just as i would know nothing of British industrial narrow gauge railways, a history of narrow gauge railways in the UK, comprehensive listing of same, Minimum gauge railways.

Also that the SAME admin felt it necessary to tag this page, and renom it for deletion seems to indicate some personal malice, as he was overturned, rather than through objectivity, I hope i am mistaken and its a coincidence he found this page.

while perhaps someone with no knowledge may be of use in establishing some merit, it is EXACTLY THAT person, who may be the one needing at some point to find more information on the Subject in which they're not familiar; We personally source wiki on what we do not know ;-)

Defaulted to more generic term Talent Executive at one point,as the listing of titles seemed excessive though thorough and more accurate note:previous versions included a DJ who is in no way related, also a fortune 500 member, fairly common name.

Subject is a well known industry Producer, Manager, philanthropist and Agent; Artists include Celine Dion, Jennifer Holliday C+C music Factory (most #1 dance hits guiness book world records) Amber, Ultra Nate, Currently President Atlantic Entertainment Group Clients include: Trump organozation, Paris Casino, Hilton Organization Created and initiated a common industry practiced known as "Shermanated" when you cross over acts regardless of who represents them to increase the turnout which has had marquees with Rock , impersonators, and jazz.

increased awareness to aids benefits by signing top entertainment legends to benefits

Involved in bringing Tony Bennett to MTV recharging Bennetts career brought the first pop and dance tour to Russia including boy bands, pop stars, and not only large venues, but to the "people' club tours.

Duke University graduate several industry awards, Grammy Award voter

Seems a significant pedigree and anyone researching the industry, events, dance or pop music would run across his name,

KathyStarburster 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where do I identify as a Welsh trainspotter? You seem to have me confused with someone else. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, respectfully, YOU have confused yourself with the subject of that posting: GWERNOL posted the article for deletion in the manner stated above, so the defensive posture was completely unwarranted. Your personal page identifies with "nada" except spanish language and is completely void of any information, combined with the intense knee jerk "research" below ( ie. using the info to attack and dismiss rather than verify, very telling. Felice navidad Starburster 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is partially yours, Starburster - looking at the article history, Gwernol never tried to delete your article. He did some work on it, and then tagged it with the "notability" tag - which is certainly an expression of doubt in the article's notability, but doesn't lead directly to deletion. --Brianyoumans 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the references with links provided is about Sherman. The rest are unverifiable claims. Akihabara 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akihabara. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This man doesn't seem to work in the kind of field where having a successful carreer is enough to be Included in Wikipedia on its own. Unless there are multiple independent sources writing about him (more than just mentioning his name in passing) there's not enough to build a good article on. BCoates 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think things are as bad as Akihabara says - I found small references to Sherman in the links provided - but I'm not seeing much about this guy online. Searching on "Tony Bennett" and "Scott Sherman", for instance, doesn't bring up anything about Sherman reviving Bennett's career, and I would have thought that would be big news. This guy may be a legend in the industry, but he doesn't seem to have any buzz outside it. Trivia: looking back in the history, it is obvious that this article started out as an article on an entirely different Scott Sherman, and then was hijacked at some point. --Brianyoumans 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said "is about" not "mentions". Generally speaking notability in Wikipedia policy requires being the subject of the article. I do not dispute Sherman was mentioned. I assert those mentions are an aside and essentially of no import. Akihabara 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put that way, yes, I completely agree with you. He is mentioned in passing in these references. --Brianyoumans 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Something very telling. Based upon this version of the article I looked up '"Atlantic Entertainment Group" "scott sherman"', and, lo and behold, if you remove the two Wikipedia pages which come up, the only hit is for this MySpace page, in which Mr. Sherman's email address turns out to be an aol account. Hardly the likely address of a famous entertainment executive. And the Atlantic Entertaiment Group's page is another MySpace page. How ... odd. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he actually does represent Deborah Cooper; the other celebrities... I suspect he either worked for an agency as an underling, or just goes to Those Sorts of Parties; if you are in the entertainment industry and are willing to pony up money to go to a charity bash, you can get your picture taken with people. I'm still for deleting the article. --Brianyoumans 09:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverifiable nn bio. Sarah Ewart 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Robertissimo 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the so-called references seem acceptable to me as per [[WP:N} therefore notability hasn't been established. Ccscott 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability of his own is shown in the references, a number of which seem to be duplicated. Nuttah68 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* looking at the myspace page which is indentified as his personal page; plus the record labels page centaurmusic.com does confirm his identity and relationship to C&C Music factory & Deborah Cooper. some refs were not specific, centaur was, society singers, was, Brianyoumans comments: idk just ponying up money will get those kinda pix..lol but even then. Maybe it just the lack of contributers or poor referencing. My2Cents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.240.227 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Your Name[edit]

nn EP from artist up for afd -- Ben (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though I think we should wait until the related afd is closed (as delete). MER-C 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. I only didn't nominate it myself because I wasn't entirely sure that no one else would have heard of it. It looked slightly more reputable than her books (but not much). Deb 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote that the article is appropriate, although it was overtly subjective. I made a few adjustments to the article myself because the album and this artist has had some notoriety. The status of her book, however, I agree is not abundantly clear.≈derekwolfe 12:40, 19 December 2006
- Correction: her book has been nominated for 2 IPPY Awards. ≈derekwolfe 10:29, 20 December 2006

The book has an Amazon sales rating of #2,294,295 - not that great, is it? Deb 11:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the artist was deleted. --Wizardman 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeternum[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable at all; all the info appears to come from the band's site -K37 05:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per k34 FirefoxMan 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not want - vanity. Milto LOL pia 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete notability asserted but not proven. Dakota 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Sandhu[edit]

Moved from speedy, since the article asserts notability. Non-notable (hence, unverifiable) article about the subject, who does not appear to have achieved any particular success as a comedian. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or demonstrate notability Alf photoman 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Subwayguy 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrKiernan 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kishwaukee Bible Church[edit]

Delete This church has no notable or verifiable information. It is not historical in any context. It fails every category per WP:CHURCH. --Адам Райли ^Talk 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spammy too, since written in the first person. MER-C 07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MER-C. NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per failure to meet WP:CHURCH. Edison 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Agreed, non-notable, but is possibly a part of someone using AfD to make a WP:POINT. Pastordavid 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure what previous editor meant about WP:POINT, could you explain please? Jefferson Anderson 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as pretty comprehensively established below, the D-cup threshold is entirely arbitrary (and porn industry vital statistics are not reliable anyway). Guy (Help!) 11:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts[edit]

Missy1234 tried to nominate this article for deletion but didn't format/complete the nom correctly. I make no suggestion as to its dispostion. Note: Previous AfD resulted in No Consensus. Her reason given on the article's talk page:

I have nominated this article for deletion. it is disgusting and i think it should be deleted Missy1234 23:46, 15 December 2006

Valrith 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missy1234 later posted a changed reason for the nomination on the talk page. I have pasted it here.

My changed reason is that it is inappropriate. There should instead be a list of Playboy Playmates. Sorry about the bad format, never nominated something before.Missy1234 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missy with all due respect, being disgusting is not a deletion criteria, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, this seems pretty silly and highly arbitrary, the precident set in "famous people with red (black, ect) hair" seems to apply here, that if you group all possible groupings of people then you could have literally billions of meaniningless lists. Being a playboy playmate might make breast size more cogent, but breast size is not an important factor of a person anymore than haircolor or anything. I couldn't see anyone making a "list of playboy playmates with blue eyes" or that being acceptable as encyclopedic material. Just say no to listcruft. Wintermut3 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, this seems too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. MER-C 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NON ARGUMENT: see my rationales below. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per Wintermut3. However, it has to be said this list is remarkable in that every entry has an existing wikiarticle. Weak keep per BCoates' argument. Akihabara 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a coincidence; WP:PORNBIO states that all Playboy Playmates meet notability. Keep because: The original reason for nomination is invalid; This can't be converted to a category without messing up the organization (though it should probably be chronological than alpha-by-decade); While it may or may not be true that "breast size is not an important factor in a person", it's certainly more relevant to one's career as a porn star than eye or hair color. BCoates 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wintermut3. It is this kind of arbitrary listcruft that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not this weeks issue of Teen Boy Fantasies. MartinDK 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, what encyclopaedia worth its salt would include this article? Delete it. Sam Blacketer 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's similar to another article List of big-bust models and performers. There are objective standards. Also, these women constitute many of Playboy's more notable models. Dismas|^(talk) 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how do you distinguish the notable playmates from the non-notable playmates given that we already established above that playmates are inherently notable. We already keep a list of playmates for that very reason, this is just listcruft derived from that list. MartinDK 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to trivial. A list of all Playmates would be more acceptable. Koweja 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- how is this trivial? playmates are certainly notable and the statistics are verifiable per playboy's all data. Also, breast fetishism is a notable fetish. Why is a list that addresses the topic of breast fetishism in the context of (arguably) the most well-known group of adult models so trivial? Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally, I think a list a Playmates would be preferable in tabular form with measurements. If that were permitted I would not oppose deleting this list. However, The closest that is acceptable is monthly List of people in Playboy by decade. On the talk pages at Playboy Online and associated pages and in my undeletion campaign for such pages I compared these monthly Playmate of the Month and Cyber Girl of the Month winners to athletes who win Player of the Month. I note that it is not currently WP convention to have articles for such monthly winners. Thus, we do not have Player of the Month articles for 3.5 of the 4 major sports (baseball lists half player of the month, but not pitcher of the month). However, baseball has been able to get articles that are equally odd Home_runs#Single_game_or_season_achievements instead. This list is not different than what is convention in an atmosphere where we do not allow the monthly awardees their own articles. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What was wrong with the prior deletion attempt other than that it was unsuccessful. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe disgusting isnt a reason, but it is inappropriate to have a list on here even if wikipedia doesn't have censorship. A list of playboy playmates would be more acceptable, like another user said.Missy1234 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234[reply]

Comment: ANOTHER NON ARGUMENTInappropriate is also not a reason. Notability and veriiability, my dear friend. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go to the Playmate article and you will find links to perfectly fine lists of playmates. Like I said this is just listcruft derived from those lists and articles. What is next? List of male porn actors by penis size? MartinDK 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment this "penis size" argument is kind of weak. if there was some extremely notable magazine that, since the 1950s, had been taking nude photos of males and for most of that time had including statistics including the length of their penis, such a list probably would be notable and verifiable. however, there is no such magazine, so the situation you describe is hardly analogous. on the other hand, if you wanted to create a list of male porn stars known for their large penises (i am sure there are some, though I know little about the subject), then you would be creating a list analogous to List of big-bust models and performers, which seems to enjoy stronger consensus for remaining on wikipedia than the article we are discussing here. So, in a narrow sense, your hypotheticsl list has no relation to the instant case because there is no analogous publication and, in a broader sense, wikipedia consensus seems to support creating a penis list such as you seem to find so absurd. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for breast size of persons in list. Some have no mention of cup size in articles. Edison 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most of these models do have cup size data provided by playboy. If some of them do not (and are thus not verifiable), the solution is to delete those models with unverifiable breast sizes, not to delete the entire list. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Why just D-cup should be notable?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the list is a bit icky (as would a list of male performers with an endowment above a particular length) but that in itself is not reason for deletion. Notability, verifiability and cruftiness are. As others have noted, all Playboy Playmates are inherently notable. Having larger or smaller breasts than some arbitrarily-chosen size (why D? Why not C or DD or F or some other size?) doesn't make them extra-notable. This differes from the List of big-bust models and performers because that list is performers by genre. That in itself may also be problematic; I don't know what consensus is on model by genre. Regardless, the two aren't comparable. Verifiability is an issue. As noted, not all of the articles have sizes listed. Including a model with large breasts without independent verification, based on looking at them or whatever, veers into OR territory. And this is fetishcruft. We've recently gotten rid of the fetishy lists of tall women and women with long hair. This is a more commonplace fetish or interest but it's still cruft. Otto4711 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft does not make me horny. Moreschi 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENTsimply mentioning listcruft does not an argument make. What is your argument (eg something rooted in ntoability / verifiability perhaps?) for deleting this article? 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep --- when dealing with a list of people as long as all playmates, subcategorization is useful. Also, sorry to break it to you, but in the world of adult photos, breast size is a distinguishign characteristic (as evidenced by the long term survival of the more general list of big breast porn stars). Also, there is utility to sorting adult entertainers according to breast size because breast fetishism is a very real part of human sexuality. As for the arbitrariness of "D" cup, plese see the long discussion about this that on the page talk -- this was a consensus that derived from people wanting objective standards (more specific than "big breast"). Any time we use categories on wikipedia that use bright line objective standards there is sure to be a bit of apparent arbitrariness along the edges of those lines. This is precisely why consensus is important, and in this case the consensus is that breasts become notably large at "D". If you disagree with this consensus, challenge the cut off. Interestingstuffadder 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If breast size is such an important characteristic then where are the lists for A-cup, B-cup and C-cup Playmates? Why are only Playmates so lisified by cup size and no other women? As for the supposed consensus that formed around the issue, the "long discussion" was one editor who suggested it and another editor who suggested using the word "large" instead of "big." That hardly speaks to a thought out consensus process. And neither of them even moved the article to the current title anyway. That happened two months after the "discussion." And I acknowledged that big breast fetishism is part of human sexuality. Lots of things that are part of human sexuality that don't merit Wikipedia articles. Arbitrary, non-notable, unverified cruft. Otto4711 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When has the lack of one list justified the deletion of another? No A cup list, so delete the D cup + one seems a bit strange to me Charlam 00 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd better nominate List of big-bust models and performers for deletion as well. Also, I would like to see you explain how this is so different from the ad nauseum listings of athletes by various statistics, etc. It seems clear that if this was about RBI or ERA rather than large breasts there would be little issue here. Censorship comes in many forms...Interestingstuffadder 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boo hoo, my big tittie list is up for deletion, I better cry "censorship" and see if I can get that shit to stick. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for that at all. As I already said if you'd bothered to read it, I see a difference between this list and the list of big bust models and performers because the latter is performer by genre and this isn't. As I also said, the big bust performers list may very well be problematic because of its being performer by genre, I don't know what the consensus is on that. If it concerns you that this is nominated and the other isn't, I'll go nominate it right now. As for whether an RBI or an ERA article would pass Afd, that's completely irrelevant and you know it (or you ought to). Articles stand and fall on their own merits, not whether another article exists or not. Otto4711 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...maybe you should have a look at wikipedia:civility and stop it with the personal attacks. My tone has been civil at every step. I am an experienced user with loads of good faith edits. I have provided justifications for my positions which are of the same ilk as plenty of arguments I have seen on other deletion debates -- there is nothing particularly unusual or blameworthy about them. Hopefully in the future your actions will be more in line with the spirit of collegiality that is so important to a successful wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, condescending comments like "sorry to break it to you" and accusations of censorship are so in the Wikipedia spirit. I don't take kindly to people doing the smiling mamba routine, especially when they retreat behind the skirts of Mother Civility when they're called out on it. Otto4711 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to be condescending with "sorry to break it to you" -- I aplologize if it came off that way. And, yes, I do think that there is some risk of censorship re wikipedia articles related to risque topics. I am sorry, but I simply dont believe this debate would be getting so much attention if it were about artichokes or hitting statistics; I don't quite see what is uncivil about that. And I also don't appreciate the accusation of being engaged in a "smiling mamba" routine. Where is your evidence for this? I simply have an opinion that disagrees with your own. I presented pretty standard-issue wikipedia arguments to support this opinion. Although you chose to focus on my raising the possibility of censorship, which I stand behind, most of my vote dealt with the difficulty of setting objective standards (as any specific cut-off line can seem arbitrary). I also talked about the usefulness of subcategorizing large groups and made reference to the phneomenon of breast fetishism as a justification for this list. Again, while you might not agree with them, can you please tell me how these are not standard-issue, fairly non offensive arguments of the same ilk as one sees all over wikipedia? Again, I apologize if my initial tone may have been a bit snappy, but it bothers me that you insist on attacking and attempting to discredit a "vote" (and I know it is not really that) that contains at least three arguments that a reasonable person would likely call legitimite (even if such a person did not agree with them). Interestingstuffadder 15:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for any perception of my remarks as inappropraite or an attack on the person as oposed to the (perceived) attitude. Rather than clutter up this nom any further, if you want to continue to discuss this we can move it to your or my talk page. Otto4711 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One word: cruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- why is this cruft? please expand. As it stands you have provided no substantive argument for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pathetic listcruft. — coelacan talk — 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENT How is this cruft? see my response to similar votes above. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT Nowhere in wikipedia inclusion guidelines do I see anyting about whether content will cause people to make jokes about wikipedia. Nor do I see anythign about wikipedia serving only what this user considers to be "legitimate" needs. "Cruft" inc coclusory and contains no real argument. This being "puerile" is not a valid basis for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, over-specific listcruft. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines do I see "overly specific" as a basis for deletion. notability and verifiability, my friend. Also, "listcruft" alone is ocnclusory and is no real argument. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"over-specific" is an argument because it makes it a not-particularly useful list (for anything other than hunting down particular editions of a certain magazine). I can imagine someone genuinely wanting to find information on models with large breasts, on on playboy playmates, but not the combination. It's like having a list of fictional detectives from Belgium; Fictional detectives, yes, Fictional Belgians, yes, but the combination is unnecessary, even if some articles fall into both categories. FiggyBee 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Nothing to do with the nomination by User:Missy1234, objectionable content is not justification for deletion. wtfunkymonkey 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- please explain why this is listcruft. As it is, your argument is extremely conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are already list of big bust models and a list of Playboy Playmates. TJ Spyke 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment why is this a rationale for deletion? the big bust models list is actually for porn stars, not playboy-style models, so the playmates wouldnt make it on that list anyway. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TJ, subjective, and uneyclopedic. Yanksox 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT: how is this subjective when most of these playmates have data sheets including their bust size? why dont you just remove the playmates who do not have data sheets but are still included, thus removing the parts of this article that are subjective, rather than advocating deleiton of the entire thing. and "unencyclopedic" is conclusory. how is this unencycolopedic? it is certainly notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much - crz crztalk 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines is "too much" listed as a valid criteria for deletion. What does this even mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly trivial. -- Kicking222 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- how is this overly trivial? this is a subset of the best known grouping of american adult models listed by a characteristic that a lot of folks who are interested in looking at adult models (a huge industry in dollar terms) care about (see also breast fetishism. conclusory argument. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate calling things cruft, so I won't, it is a fairly trivial list that serves no encyclopaedic purpose at all. †he Bread 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: see my arguments above regarding accusations of triviality. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of big-bust models and performers is fine, since big-bust modeling is a genre of its own (like it or not) - but this is merely a list over an arbitrary attribute. (Even if it's apparently not that disgusting, judging from an unusual abundance of votes...) GregorB 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a corresponding List of Playboy models with A-cup or smaller breasts ? (note I said model and not playmate) If this is kept, perhaps it should be split into cup sizes? 132.205.93.88 03:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect List of Playboy Playmates with A-cup or smaller breasts would be an extremely short article. Fan-1967 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&comment how is this an "arbitrary attribute". see breast fetishism. Also, do you seriously deny that a particulary notable characteristic of playmates to people who look at them (a large slice of the population) is their breasts? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, who needs this. Testikayttaja 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- "who needs this" provides absolutely no basis for removing this material. what does this mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that even Playboy themselves note their bustier Playmates with special editions (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) I don't see an issue with Wikipedia categorizing them as such either Charlam 00 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see that D-cups are exceptional or noteworthy among this population. Fan-1967 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- if you look at playmates over the years, a minority have breasts that meet this threshold, as evidenced by statistics compiled from playmate datasheets, which are available here: [20]. And if you really think D cup is too small to be noteworthy, why not propose changing the criteria to DD instead of proposing deletion. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Vital information for every 13-year-old lad who comes to read wikipedia. Otherwise useless trivia. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- oh, so wikipedia is too elitist to provide resources that might be useful to these 13 year olds and the likeminded? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - need help finding big breasts, don't take away this incredibly valuable resource. oops, I meant Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT-- this flippant statement contains no argument based on valid wikipedia criteria. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Disgusting" is no reason for deletion. The criteria for the list are clearly defined: Playboy Playmate, D-cup or larger. According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Wikipedia is not censored. If one finds this subject "disgusting," one should not be searching on "Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts." Dekkappai 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic listcruft. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from Appropriate topics for lists, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletionists love to throw around unsubstantiated, subjective terms like "unmaintanable," and "listcruft" (or, even worse, "disgusting" and "puerile") rather than making a cogent argument as to why the deletion of a certain article would be a benefit to Wikipedia. "Listcruft is a term used by some editors to describe lists which they feel are indiscriminate, or of interest only to a very restricted number of people." The article: List of big-bust models and performers is the 16th most-viewed article in the project [21]. Clearly the subject is neither indiscriminate (the criteria for inclusion on the list are quite clearly spelled out, quite limited, and quite verifiable), and clearly the subject is useful and of interest to a lot of people. Also, clearly, in a subject like this, some people are going to object strongly, and either openly call it "disgusting," or use more acceptable terms like "listcruft," whether they apply or not. Again, because one group of people disapproves of the subject this is no reason for deletion. This is a subject on which it is hard to find an objective, non-commercial, sourced reference. As long as the list is arranged in an informative way (this one is), and is sourced (this one is), this is exactly the kind of subject in which Wikipedia has an advantage over traditional, print encyclopedias. Dekkappai 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page. This article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ and lack of reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable resource for those with interest in the topic. also a well-maintained and frequently updated page. being "disgusting" is purely subjective and is not a valid criteria for deletion. i might find the KKK article distasteful, but i wouldn't want to delete it for just that reason. --Hexvoodoo 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that a list of free porn sites would also be a "valuable resource for those interested in the topic", but that doesn't make it worthy of being on Wikipedia. The difference between the KKK article and this is that the KKK article is not cruft that exists solely for 13 year olds. There are plenty of websites on the internet where you could put a list of big-breasted Playmates. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Also, the original nomination criterion may not be valid but that does not mean the page doesn't warrant deletion. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, some people will find this list useful. Wikipedia should not go around deleting articles because certain users are offended. Vidor 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above poster that many users will find this list useful. Actually, given the popularity of the general busty porn star list, I imagine this will turh out to be one of our more-used lists. Wikipedia has quite a bit of coverage of adult performers. This is perhaps because adult entertainment is (dollar wise) a huge chunk of the entertainment industry, which indicates that there are a lot of consumers out there. Playboy playmates are arguably the best known specific grouping of adult entertainers. If this is an area of widespread interest (it is) and we have a large amount information to be sorted (we do in the long list of playmates), it makes sense to sort it in a manner that is useful to its users ... and since breasts are the first thing most users look at on a playmate (and big breasts are a feature that many consumers fetishize), this does not seem like an irrational categoriization. Captaintruth 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone saying "Keep" on the basis of how useful the list may be: The issue is not how "useful" the information is. The issue is whether the list is notable and whether the list is verifiable through multiple reliable independent sources. Otto4711 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This switch of the reason for deleting the article, after nomination, from "disgusting" to "useless to anyone but 'horny teenagers,'" is not only dishonest, and another intellectually lazy non-reason, it is bigoted. Has anyone asked for proof that this appeals only to "horny teens." Or why it's OK to delete an article because it appeals to "horny teens?" This line of reasoning is a cousin to banning Spanish because it's of no use to us, only to-- eeeewwww-- foreigners. And who needs information on Islam, since it's only of interest to heathens? Arguments of this sort (we don't want to see it, so it's not useful) are despicable and fundamentally against the principles of Intellectual freedom which Wikipedia claims to espouse. "Ah," but the deletionists will counter, "those articles aren't listcruft. Well, neither is this one, by the definition Wikipedia gives. At best, this impulse to ban other users from obtaining information on subjects of which the banner disapproves stems from the sort of misguided prudish elitist do-goodism that kept Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the Oz series out of the reach of children in libraries for decades. These books were too popular. Kids liked them too much, so they had to be be garbage which would rot young minds. At worst-- and this is the argument I am seeing here-- this impulse to ban stems from outright bigotry and intellectual dishonesty. Now we have people proposing deleting the article on grounds of notability. Apparently applying the label of "horny teenagers" to defenders of this list is meant to other bully editors from stating some very obvious facts: 1) Playboy is more than just a very popular, long-running magazine. It has become an institution unto itself. Lists on this subject are useful to those many, and various types of people with interest in Playboy. 2) The Playboy Playmate is central to its popularity. Merely appearing as a Playmate once passes a model of notability requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). 3) And-- avert thine eyes here, o ye faint of heart-- breasts and their size are central to the popularity of the Playmate, so a list on the subject is entirely appropriate. And then we come to another bogus claim beloved of deletionists: unverifiable. Exactly how is this unverifiable? If you mean it is not yet properly sourced, that can be remedied. But saying it is impossible to source it is an absurd claim. To those who think they are elevating Wikipedia by attempting to cleanse it of everything a traditional encyclopedia does not cover, I think history will prove you even more wrong than the librarians who banned Burroughs and Baum. They at least had the justification of limited shelf-space for their book-banning. You do not. Wikipedia's strength is in covering non-traditional subjects exactly like this one, on which it is difficult, if not impossible, to find reliable, unbiased, objective, non-commercial resources. Those who seek to purge Wikipedia of subjects like these are harming Wikipedia, not improving it. Dekkappai 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. This is being driven by people who are morally offended by the existence of the article. And moral offense is not a valid reason to delete the article. And it most certainly is verifiable--the Playboy data sheets that come with this issue are a source of info dating back decades. Vidor 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I'm not that familiar with the subject material, but aren't D-cup or larger kind of routine? I mean, if you created two lists of Playmates, one D or larger, and one C or smaller, wouldn't this list have most of them? Fan-1967 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate is being increasingly full of argumentum ad hominem, particularly on the part of Dekkappai. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a personal attack. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Wikipedia too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In scrolling through the 12 playmates for 1999, I find four listed as D or DD, only two of whom are in this list. It seems the list is selective or incomplete. A category wouldn't be. Fan-1967 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed! Vidor 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you just fix 1999, or did you review all fifty years? A category would be self-maintaining on an ongoing basis. Fan-1967 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I promise to check the list against Wikipedia's individual Playmate articles and update accordingly. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Vidor 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But I still haven't seen any argument to maintain this as a list rather than a category. What does a list (requiring separate maintenance) give us that a category wouldn't? Fan-1967 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that this list is incomplete or could be better referenced in some places is hardly grounds for deletion -- how about we slap on a clean-up tag and let that collaboration that makes wikipedia work so well fix up this article...although you make an interesting point about the advantages of a category. I would support creating a category if this list does not survive the deletion debate. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tits. Herostratus 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENTThis is not a valid rationale for deletion. If it is notable and verifiable, it does not matter if it is about tits. Interestingstuffadder 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments in favor of keeping. Notable and verifiable. Most arguments for deleting this list dont seem to say much substantively. Quepasahombre 05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BCoates and Vidor. qwm 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made enough comments here, and see that this is getting into argument for argument's sake (i.e., labeling users of this list "horny 13-year-olds," and then accusing others of instigating Ad hominem arguments). However, I'd like to point out that the link that Interestingstuffadder provides will be very useful in cleaning up the list and adding more info to it if it should survive. I'm in the middle of a large project at the moment and see no point in taking time to work on this list when it is in danger of deletion. But should the list survive, and if no one else will, I would be willing to take time to do that work. Dekkappai 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a freshman in high school, and as a female, i think that the article i nominated is a sexist page. I think it is very immature for everyone to get into arguments on the articles for deletion page.Missy1234 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- being "sexist" is listed nowhere as a valid rationale for deletion on wikipedia. And I fail to see what is immature about defending an article that meets wikipedia standards for inclusion, especially when there is some evidence (see the very comment to which I am responding, made by the nom herself) that the quest to have this article deleted has been motivated to at least some extent by a desire to censor wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP
- Comment Could you be more specific? And possibly discover the joy of signing your posts? MartinDK 12:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete over-specific and unnecessary listcruft. In other words, this list adds nothing useful to the general playmates list and does not describe a notable category. Therefore it should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG & SPEEDY KEEP. Most of the arguments above in favor of delete are, I must say, as strange as strange goes. And, if I may make an excuse to be crass - These delete arguments are disgusting. They are:

This list is a list. What? Are you guys gone completely ... (fill in a synonym for mentally challenged)? A list is supposed to be a list, for God's sake.
This list is trivial. So, from when Playmate breast sizes have gone trivial? People are continously repeating - trivial, trivial, trivial... - without convincingly explainign why it's trivial. Is this one of those Fascist Propaganda techniques that says - repeat something enough times to make it a fact?
Wikipedia is no place for a list like this. Please, check out the essay on what Wikipedia is not before you start adding these comments. I guess, you'll find out faster that Wikipedia is nom place for such ... (fill in another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments.
This is useful only to horny 13 year old kids. Good. So, are you starting a debate on usefulness of the articles? Should we delete articles that are useful mostly to science graduates, or Malaysians, or Orthodox Christians? I hope you guys have run a research to find out that big-breasted Playmates sell more to horny 13 year olf kids or something like that.
This should be merged with Playboy and/or List of big-busted models. OK. But, that's an argument for merge, not delete. Please, learn to argue right before you propose something as drastic as a deletion, especially when there are plenty good argument against it (see above).
This list is unverified/ incomplete. Just slap a {{Cleanup}} or {{unsourced}} notice there. It's easy, and less drastic. Why talk of deletion at this point?
This is sexist. Most right. But, to hold this argument valid we should also be taking long hard look at all other sexist articles and lists and categories, like big-busted models, female pornstars, Playboy Playmates and a lot more. Check the porn portal, fight against all those model articles that carry info on their body measurement, and may be rewrite the Playboy article to read like:

Playboy is a sexist American mgazine, founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, who is identified by feminist acitvists and a number humanist groups as a prime anti-woman influence, and his associates, mostly made up of porn-industry henchmen. It has grown into Playboy Enterprises Inc. and is one of the world's leading system of demeaning women

Anyways, jokes apart (though I enjoyed rewriting the Playboy article) - the ground for deletion should be notability, neautrality and verifiability, not opinions like - "It's useless", "It's disgusting" or may be "God will strike you down for having such filthy things in here". The previous deletion discussion about the list (which was titled - List of big-busted Playboy Playmates) was about these three things, not there moral or use value. Can we just stick to logical arguments, instead of proving our moral superiority? Repeating again like the ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments above: This discussion is disgusting.

Let me just one of those arguments, spread over half a dozen comments here, posted by User:Maelin, will be good exercise to press the point that this is disgusting.

His last comment was:This debate is being increasingly full of argumentum ad hominem, particularly on the part of Dekkappai. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a personal attack. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Wikipedia too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It does not belong on Wikipedia.

Now, please, read this comment in light of his other comments.

His verdict was Delete and his reason was: This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile.

One of his ocmemnts was: We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page. This article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Wikipedia.

Another of his comments was: The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic listcruft. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from Appropriate topics for lists, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.'

He also provided a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks which categorically negated his point(s). Jumping to conclusions is easy, research is not.

I guess, if someone makes a slander at you and says, it was not personal, the wise thing to do id taking it extremely personally. Once again - These nay-sayers are disgusting. Tow more points I must raise:

Some Wikipedians here are discussing a vote. Please, understand that WP is not a democracy as voting goes (this comes from Jimmy Wales himself). We are expressing opinions here, not voting. Otherwise, all of you would have been barred from giving your vote twice or more times.
Some has also raised questions about the integrity of WP as an encyclopedia. I would suggest that they read the essay on why Wikipedia is so great, and take a notice of the term Free Encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia.

Good luck to all. Keep fighting, but Keep. I'd propose to all those who'd like to say Delete - please, read whatever Interestingstuffadder and Dekkappai has written here. If you have valid argument against those comments go forward, if you don't, please, take your zealotry somewhere else, and save us the pain. - Aditya Kabir 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has gone on long enough. Could an admin please close this AfD? In light of the raging personal attacks above I frankly don't care about the result anymore. Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right made me realize that it just isn't worth it. Congratulations, you managed to not only prove my point about Wikipedia but to do so in such a thorough and powerful way. Thanks to Interestingstuffadder for asking you on your talk page to come here. A new low point in the history of Wikipedia. MartinDK 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the points made in that well written post were rational arguments based on well established wikipedia rationales. Far from being personal attacks, they pointed out the numerous personal attacks that have been made by editors wanting to delete this article. Thus, I don't see why you are so worked up by them. I also don't see why an admin should close this debate, as it is still attracting new input. Finally, I freely admit to asking a few users who have been active in working on this list and who were active in the previous deletion debate to come here. They have demonstrated a concern for this list in the past and, as such, it seemed like a reasonable courtesy to let them know about this discussion in case they were interested in contributing. I know you are trying to imply that this is some kind of ballot box stuffing, but given the specific users I targeted and the fact that the result has been a well-reasoned argument for keeping the list (as opposed to a conclusory vote providing no rationale such as "trivial", as most of the delete votes have been make it quite apparent that nothing inappropriate took place here. Interestingstuffadder 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see my talk page for a reply and a link to how my initial comment today should have been percieved. I am not saying you stack votes, that would be a serious personal attack. Your friend and I grossly misunderstood each other. MartinDK 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, User:MartinDK has a point which he has already pointed out on his talk page is response to my apologies for hurting the user's feelings. The user was basically poitning at ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) and ... is disgusting parts of my comment. I guess, I'll have to change my writing style to stop me from miscommunicating. Let me explain myself a bit:

The adjective disgusting was taken from the original poster of the deletion proposal. The technique of repeating the same adjective was taken from the the repeating of the trivial argument. And, the idea of directing it against the very discussion was taken from quite a few comments above. I am sorry that it didn't come through that way. But, I'm still happy that the consumate effect of mal-argument did come through, which is happening for most part here.
The other, mentally challenged, bit was written in a lighter vain. I reasoned that if I make offers to fill in the blanks, instead of writing words like idiocy, confused and/or making accusations of dishonesty, it would go down better. Clearly, it didn't work that way everyone.

It seems that MartinDK made the same comment on the integrity of WP in an earlier debate, and some other Wikipedian actually agreed to it, instead of quoting an essay on what makes Wikipedia so great. So there was reason for the user to get angry at a lack of understanding on my part. Thoough I still don't understand why he terms you as my friend, especially when his research should've shown otherwise.

Well, Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right... A new low point in the history of Wikipedia wasn't exactly a thoughtful comment free of personal attacks (which got the user angry by the user's own definition), but it surely can be excused in light of these things.

Just one more point for any more newbie who may join this discussion - please check the policy page Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as well as the article on Ad hominem - before you make accusations of personal attack. Throwing accusations like that casually can obfiscate the debate on hand (like it is doing now). - Aditya Kabir 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to read through all of the new comments interspersed willy-nilly with the older comments with no regard to chronology and my eyeballs exploded. This Afd is now 51 kb long, which is longer than most articles. You would think that this debate was about something that actually matters the way some people are carrying on. Otto4711 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, don't knock the importance of sex or boobs. Without them, none of us would be here. ;) Dekkappai 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Those in favor of delete are complaining about attacks, style and length more than those in favor of keep. Any explanation? - Aditya Kabir 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease quit fighting. This is not a page to tell me that I should nominate other articles. It is only here for everyone to post if they want to keep it or delete it and why. Dont get into pointless fights with people you dont know. It's not worth your time. Ever. Missy1234 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)missy1234[reply]

Comment: The hell with it. I don't care any more. Have your big tits list. What's one more porn resource on the internet, after all? It's obvious that most "keep" votes on this page are not driven by a desire to make WP a better encyclopedia, but rather by a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs. I'm yet to see any lists of Playmates of the other breast sizes, no doubt because those determined to keep and contribute to this list find Playmates with smaller busts not nearly as interesting. I'm also yet to see a good reason why we need this particular list when we already have over a dozen Playboy related lists, but it seems that even with the noble Boobpedia resource, as promoted by several of the "keep" voters, there just aren't enough tits lists on the net. Clearly this debate will go nowhere, because the vocal minority will continue to destroy the consensus of everyone else. So have your damn list. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs".----Yup. God bless the Internet. Vidor 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that this list is somewhat distasteful and I personally find it offensive and sexist. However, this does not mean that it should be deleted. Playboy playmates are inherently notable, and there is a precedent for subsorting adult entertainers by bust size. Also, the size of playmates' breasts is verifiable. For these, and the various other reasons provided above (I see no need to rehash other editors' comments within my own, but I am taking them into account in expressing my opinion), this article should be kept. Mister Nice Guy 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So we can change your "delete" to "keep," Maelin? By the way, I think your idea of creating lists on the Playmates with smaller busts is an excellent one too. My own area of specialization is more in the Asian category than the US/Playboy, but hopefully another editor will heed your advice. Regards. Dekkappai 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, something that would be easier with categories. Fan-1967 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very useful resource for those interested in both Playboy and large-busted models. --David Hain 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Playboy Playmates. If this is an important categorization criteria, I suggest dividing this page into sections, or noting this information next to the relavent entries. The principal reason for merge is to help individuals find the information they're looking for; the title of this article is something someone would be unlikely to enter. Tarinth 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quoted bust sizes are notoriously unreliable. I have no problem with the list as such but it has to go as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: playboy provides this data for its own playmates. how is this not a sufficiently reliable source? sure, some playmates on the list do not have complete data sheets that include bust size -- the solution is to remove those unsourced playmates, not to remove the entire list. thus, this argument is really an argument for cleaning the argument up, not for deleting it. Interestingstuffadder 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CLS, this is something that should be categorized (at best) and not listed. There are no annotations, no non-article list items, all items are alphabetically sortable, list topic is redundant with some categories already available, poor precedent for alternate lists of similar topics (i.e., "do we justify lists for Playmates with C-cups, Hustler girls with every cup size, Bigguns with little'uns, etc?"), and finally, the list is founded on the WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation that "big breasts" must be D-cup or larger and that the resulting list is Playmates with "big breasts". ju66l3r 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position changed to delete. It seems I got carried away by the non-argument of most nay-sayers. But, it seems the list has not established verifiability, notability or neutrality all that firmly. The D up threshold is pretty arbitrary, and the information sources pretty outdated. And, over and above all that, someone really needs to establish why a list of big-busted Playmates is notable, and that with appropriate references, not just gut-feel or heresay. P.S. It's about tits - argument is still unacceptable. P.P.S. Sorry about my last comment, it was not posted with a good intention. - Aditya Kabir 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Park Baptist Church[edit]

DeleteNon notable, non verifiable information per WP:CHURCH. There is no information that this church has a historical significance, either. --Адам Райли ^Talk 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of or sources for notability and per failure to meet WP:CHURCH.Edison 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Pastordavid 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge link into Fresno, California. Delete the rest. Just H 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jay(Reply) 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedens Lutheran Church[edit]

Delete not notable, not verifiable per WP:CHURCH. --Адам Райли ^Talk 06:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 150 years is pretty old for a church in Wisconsin, and if members searched the newspaper clip files at the local historical society, or the historical files at the denomination's archives, they might just find enough material to write an interesting article and to show notability. But for now, this is just a stub with no claim of notability. Edison 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly delete A church celebrating 150 years of existence should be notable, but the editors of this article failed to show any. WVhybrid 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A church of that age, in wisconsin, is notable. I agree that the article is a stub, but the originators (or anyone else) need an opportunity to improve. Seems to be part of a WP:POINT about churches. Pastordavid 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WP:CHURCH has no agreed policy. --Doc^g 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, will reconsider if article is improved. Dr Zak 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you guys are only deleting it because it's a stub, then it's not really your place to be trying to delete the article. Granted, I vote delete since it's not-notable, NOT becuase it's a stub. --Wizardman 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Presbyterian Church[edit]

Delete Per WP:CHURCH, not notable or verifiable. Wikipedia is not a directory listing. Адам Райли ^Talk 06:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a very average church. Nothing to meet WP:CHURCH. Edison 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this article appears to not meet notablility standards, the nomination appears to be a part of a WP:Point about churches. Pastordavid 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of churches. Jefferson Anderson 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense (and even if not nonsense, non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sherwin Johnson[edit]

Prodded as a WP:HOAX; prod removed and restored. Article says he's some kind of Mexican prince. Bringing here for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. The links make no sense. What does nikken have to do with this? What do the White Mountain Apache Tribe have to do with this? The Diegueno website makes no mention of this family. '"manuel johnson" Diegueño' and '"manuel johnson" Kumeyaay' come up with zero Google hits. I also tend to doubt that any Native American tribe has "Princes". User:Zoe|(talk) 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minors detained in the global war on terror[edit]

This article is interesting, but is essentially pov in its view on terror suspects. There is no reason to list suspects based on whether or not they are minors. KazakhPol 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Definitely POV, but probably a valid subject for an article. Could also be merged with the main article listing war-on-terror detainees, if there is room for another section. --Brianyoumans 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to remove this article. Akihabara 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minors are treated differently by the law, international standards, etc. so it doesn't strike me as POV to list them differently. Would you mind elaborating, KazakhPol? Thanks!--Kchase T 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep per Kchase02. The article does need to attribute criticisms to (plentiful) sources.--Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- According to WP:DEL, specifically, WP:DEL#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. -- Geo Swan 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- disclaimer -- I started this article.
- This article is important. There are many newspaper articles that get the details wrong. About six months ago some Arab journalists came away from a briefing from a DoD spokesmen, believing he had told them that there were only three minors in Guantanamo, and that those three were receiving schooling. Untrue, the three children who received schooling, and played soccer with their guards, at Camp Iguana were released in January 2004.
- I'd encourage anyone who thinks they have noticed POV in the article to be specific about their concern -- on the Talk:Minors detained in the global war on terror -- Geo Swan 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What I meant by my "Definitely POV" remark above is the the topic of the article, as stated, is POV. If one wished to make an article with the opposite POV, one would title it Use of Child Soldiers by Islamic Terrorists. Both of these are going to be attack articles, inherently. However, I think this is a valid topic and a good start on an article. --Brianyoumans 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I first started initiating articles on the Guantanamo captives I had my first experience with the {afd} process. One day I found four articles nominated for deletion at practically the same time. Several of the nominators argued that the topic of Guantanamo was "inherently POV", and "inherently anti-American". I asked them to explain themselves more fully. But they declined. So far as I am concerned no topic is inherently POV. Some topics are merely harder than others to write from a NPOV. But I don't think this means we should try to create dueling articles from two different points of view. I think this means we should just try harder to write one article that we can all agree is written from a NPOV. If there are specific passages you feel don't measure up to the NPOV standard I encourage you to draw them to our attention, on Talk:Minors detained in the global war on terror. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for reasons explained by Geo Swan Alf photoman 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is important but needs more sources. TSO1D 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. Speedy keep only applies in limited circumstances as described at WP:SK. POV isn't normally a reason to delete an article, though it may be a valid reason for something that is irredeemably or inherently POV, where substantial efforts have been made to fix the POV problems. List of sequels that were better than the original is a good example of an article idea that is inherently POV; and so can't be pursued.--Kchase T 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced (U.S. Defense Department and Labor Department, other verifiable sources) and bears on the GWOT. If the nominator sees POV, feel free to edit. If there are reliable sources which disagree, feel free to add them. Edison 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Neutral on this particular article, but what's the justification for having the separate articles on each detainee? They may be encyclopedically notable as group, but this does not mean that they are notable enough as individuals for their own articles Bwithh 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a lot of the work on the articles on the articles on the individual captives -- and their "notability" is a perenial question. Many wikipedia contributors have called for the deletion of particular articles, citing WP:BIO. Two wikipedians nominated Shaker Aamer, the first article when sorted alphabetically, announcing their plan to then do a bulk deletion of all the other articles on Guantanamo captives if that nomination succeeded. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.
- I point out to them that WP:BIO acknowledges, right in its first paragraph, that it is not an official wikipedia policy. WP:BIO acknowledges that it is just a guideline, one that is considered controversial by some contributors. Whatever authority it has is based not on being an official policy, but on its interpretation of three real official policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER.
- My perception is that these challenges highlight the weakness of using "notability" as a guide to which articles should be deleted. It is far too subjective and vulnerable to unconscious influence from the wikipedia's systematic bias.
- If there is ever an explicit debate to transform notability from a guideline to an official policy I will argue very strongly that it should not be transformed. Rather I would suggest this guideline be deprecated.
- IMO we should stick with the more objective criteria WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER.
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're coming from an understanding of Wikipedia which is very much the opposite of mine. Pointing out that WP:BIO is just a guideline is a double-edged sword. I've routinely point out the same thing when inclusionists use WP:BIO to argue for keeping articles. I would emphasize that proponents of encyclopedic notability see it as extending not just from notability guidelines but also from WP:NOT which is a core official policy as well as the No.1 official policy & mission statement: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." All other guidelines and policies including WP:NOR,WP:V, WP:NPOV serve this ultimate overarching policy/mission statement. Exclusion on the bases of encyclopedic notability based on these official policies helps prevent (or slow) Wikipedia's slide into becoming a free-for-all webhosting/information database/news report archive/networking&marketing service. Bwithh 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are being cited by other sources. They are proving useful, as a reference, to external authors. That is part of what makes an encyclopedia, agreed? Could you explain more fully why you think these articles don't fit within the goals of an encyclopedia?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and is timelyRaveenS 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be better sourced, less POV GabrielF 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep (alleged, if you like) arbitrary detention (& denial of due process etc.) of minors is obviously notable in & of itself as a more serious breach of human rights than arbitrary detention (& etc.) in & of itself. possibly speedy keep or WP:SNOW per bad faith nomination? very difficult to agf when nom does not explain/justify what they mean by 'essentially pov in its view on terror suspects'. (note the 2 sentences in the nom are unrelated) ⇒ bsnowball 13:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (repost). M a rtinp23 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MG2s[edit]

Self-serving, non-notable band. No verfiability, no sources, violation of WP:NOT (As in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Is just a local band. Pumeleon 06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no indication that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Even if the "Sun Sentinal" (sic) reference can be shown to be real, the band is still local in scope, and likely wouldn't pass the criteria for multiple non-trivial mentions vis-a-vis WP:RS. And no folks, Myspace is still not a reliable source... --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just saying "is notable" isn't nearly enough. And 200 CDs sold doesn't make a band notable either.. WP:NOT MySpace. Perel 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V, 20 ghits. MER-C 07:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, very weak assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you have an argument for the inclusion of this band beyond quotes from people who might not exist, then leave it here on this page, do not blank it. Read this for notability guidelines for musicians. You fail to satisfy any of them, or even come close. The band in question is merely a local band. Pumeleon^T 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second Comment - I have had to put the {{afd1}} on this page three times; once to start the process, and replacing it twice after it was removed. I have also had to restore this page after it was blanked twice. I suggest Speedy Delete and Salting the Earth. Pumeleon^T 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't speedy it because CSD A7 is met in the article, where an assertation of notability is made. We're just going to have to deal with the user him/herself, as a speedy deletion now will only incite him/her to file a DRV or something similar. M a rtinp23 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looked at the page logs, and changed my mind :) Already deleted four times. M a rtinp23 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. WinHunter ^(talk) 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoSuave[edit]

SoSuave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD) SoSuave is a dating website which is not notable in terms of internet-related or dating advice articles and most of the article consists of original research. While topics like David DeAngelo and AskMen might pass a notability test, I doubt SoSuave would. I move that this article be deleted.--Folksong 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy db-spam Akihabara 07:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 07:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siam Ozerkam[edit]

I doubt this article can be expanded beyond what it already contains. Ozerkam wasn't notable for anything remarkable prior to his unfortunate death at the hands of Australian criminal/author Chopper Read. -- Longhair\^talk 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not seem notable. Search made more difficult by inconsistent spelling of this person's name. Akihabara 07:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't a notable murder as such, hence any claim to notability for the subject is quashed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wizardman 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. Essjay (Talk) 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grabscrab[edit]

non notable Scrabble variant; very few Google hits. Brianyoumans 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Willing to reconsider if notability and/or existence can be sourced from a neutral reliable source (i.e., not grabscrab.com). --Kinu ^t/_c 07:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Scrabble variants, which already has an entry on "GrabScrab". Frankly, I doubt it deserves even that much, nearly all the (few) ghits are on blogs. Tubezone 10:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to scrabble variants as mentioned above. Koweja 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect would be fine with me. --Brianyoumans 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per tubezone. --Wizardman 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double the Trouble[edit]

There is no source provided that confirms that this will be the next album. I looked it up on Google and only found links to Wikipedia, blogs, etc., but no reliable sources. ShadowHalo 07:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Essjay (Talk) 09:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Forestry[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod, a claim of notability has been made on on my talk page. MER-C 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Future of Forestry (FoF) meets the following four requirements for notability (though admittedly the page should be updated with these references) which according to WP:MUSIC, a band "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." FoF was reviewed on DrivenFarOff.com, a music review site with a staff of nearly 20 people, as well as Infuze magazine, an online magazine on art & faith with a staff of more than 20 people, and Melodic.net
"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" FoF has performed in several states and has upcoming tour dates in Oregon, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Florida
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" FoF has an EP with Credential Recordings (indie) and is on a compilation by EMI (very major)
"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" FoF is the most notable Christian band in San Diego, playing in front of approx. 2,000 people at Flood Church weekly

Nothingcorporate 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would seem to establish notability. Nothingcorporate, you mentioned on MER-C's talk that you had references, etc. If you could supply those, that would probably establish notability for sure.--Kchase T 08:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Review on DrivenFarOff.com

Review by Infuze Magazine

Review on Melodic.net

List of Upcoming tour dates

Their EP on Amazon

X2007 Compilation by EMI on ChristianityToday.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nothingcorporate (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Article failes to satisfy the notability guidelines WP:MUSIC, Kearny High School, blogs, myspace.com, amazon.com and subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Article does not even assert the notability of the topic. If this was CSD it would fail WP:CSD#A7 & WP:CSD#G11 Hu12 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it passes WP:MUSIC. To Hu12, reviews by publications are going to be subjective. The reviewer, whether it's someone in Rolling Stone magazine or in one of the reviews mentioned above, is going to voice their opinion on the band and its music. Mutliple, non-trivial reviews passes WP:MUSIC. A tour schedule on the band's website is relevant. The amazon.com info is relevant for record releases. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The presence of reviews from independent sources mean it passes WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the criteria for numbers 1, 4, 5, and 7 of WP:MUSIC - Matthew Hambrick 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Three notes by anons/new users were struck. Essjay (Talk) 09:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Twin PVR[edit]

Reads like a review. I doubt these belong in Wikipedia. If someone shows me policy to the contrary I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Akihabara 08:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, satisfies WP:CORP. MER-C 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I strongly suspect that at least the FAQ section is a copyvio from the manufacturer's site, although the link in the article appears to be broken. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as MER-C says it definitely clean up. I agree with Akihabara that it reads like a review, with a little how-to and speculation thrown in. Review, how-to, and speculation do not belong on Wikipedia. When all that is removed, it will leave a legitimate article on a product. Fg2 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ad for a product --- as well as most of its owner's manual. Perhaps the company that made the thing is notable, but this article is not about the company, it is just an advert, and a poorly written advert at that. WVhybrid 05:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company no longer sells the Pace Twin PVR and appears to have removed information from its website. A lot of this information is related to external support for this device. Having looked at the deletion policy there could well be justification for removal but I would point out that I have been unable to find such a comprehensive collection of information on this device elsewhere on the web. It seems to me important that the information be retained, (If this article is deleted, then the data should go elsewhere with a cross reference from digital video recorder). Tony-wkp 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is just a collection of information about an obsolete product, but that currently still has many owners, to whom the information has proved valuable. The information is not available elsewhere. In future, it will also be useful as a historical archive of the technological capabilities and consumer market trends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.70.211.10 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It is no longer possible to access info via the manufacturer's site so this is a valuable source of "how to" for owners —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.160.6 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hightower[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 08:31Z

Keep Seems notable. I found another article about him, but for some reason the site is blacklisted so I couldn't add it. Akihabara 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for a poetry book Tin Can Tourist ranks pretty high on the sales list. Alf photoman 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually tagged it for speedy deletion originally, because it was an article edited by only one person who's other contributions included two other articles which almost no other editors worked on, however I think he is probably notable enough to warrant an article, it just needs work by other editors to expand and make sure that it is NPOV. Phydend 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the format but per Phydend it could use expansion. JamesMLane t c 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (hoax.) Jay(Reply) 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Beasley[edit]

Bump from speedy: article has assertions of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 08:44Z

Speedy Delete as spam+hoax. ("Antonio Mckinley Beasley" + Forbes) yields 0 ghits. So does search without middle name. "IndaSpotlight" gives 0 related hits, as does "Creative Movements LLC" or ("Creative Movements"+Cartersville). The only thing that does exist is "Beasley Jones LLC", which links to a website that appears to have exactly 3 pages, hardly the homepage of a "international ... empire". So all the claims to notability are false.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wand TV Tower[edit]

— (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts et sec, I'm nominating these 54 US radio and TV masts which are between 400 and 450 meters tall. There are hundreds of masts below 500m in the USA, and none of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all dead boring stubs, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you confirm the masts will remain on the list of masts? If so I can agree we should delete this mastcruft. People can recreate from the list if they have something interesting to add about them. Akihabara 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have every intention of keeping the List of masts. Please refer to Masts below 350 meters tall. In place of the links to the articles to be deleted, I have previously copied the external weblink to the relevant article on the FCC site, so that a simple click will get you there. I don't undertake to be able to do them all before they are deleted. Hopefully, sombody will help me perform same this time around, as this work is very time consuming. ;-) Ohconfucius 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've moved the information elsewhere, why not just redirect all of these to the List, there is no need to delete.--Sandy Scott 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (or merge/redirect) Whilst these are fairly useless, and I think the creator probably needs to get out more, they are also harmless. They are NPOV and verifiable. Wikipedia hasn't got a space shortage. If the creator needs to find better things to do with his time, so does the nominator. No-one in this debate has presented any argument as to why Wikipedia would be better off without this information. Yes, this is 'cruft', and so what? Do people just enjoy removing minor information from wikipedia just for the fun of it? Does it make us feel superior?--Sandy Scott 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sandy Scott, we do not keep articles because they do not do any harm, but instead because they are found useful to this encyclopedia. If everything that didn't do any harm was kept, Wikipedia would be filled with balant spam which could kill the servers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I though Wikipedia kept articles unless there was a compelling reason to delete them. What is the reason to delete this information? It isn't 'blatant spam' it isn't 'POV' and it is verifiable. I still see no reason. Is there a need to keep the number of articles down in order to spare the servers? I wasn't aware of that, but perhaps you are right. Can you point me to the information?--Sandy Scott 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable masts. Wikipedia, of course, should not have an article over each single mast, building, or large structure out there. If these had some amount of press-release or wide acknowledgment, I'd say keep. Otherwise, none of these are notable. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Somebody, who doubtless knows more about masts than I am ever going to (I hope), thought them worth making articles of, and they are still apparently worth being noted on lists, so there is clearly some sort of interest. As the articles are already in place, making redirects of them seems a far more sensible and productive course than totally eradicating them, and one which doesn't take up much server space either. HeartofaDog 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable utilitarian structures, as boring and fungible as telephone poles or mailboxes. Delete these stale copies cut and pasted from a directory. Edison 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: burn with fire, and lots of fire at that. They are towers. They exist. And? Where on God's earth is the notability for this lot? Do tell, please. Moreschi 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list of masts or similar. Lack of content in a particular article is not a problem requiring deletion, rather in this case it's a problem requiring merging. Similarly lack of importance of individual elements of a series of things is not a problem requiring deletion, it's a problem requiring merging so that appropriate context can be provided. --bainer (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am pretty sure that many of these masts were just erected by TV or radio stations without much thought for names, and the names used here may or may not be correct. Unless someone can establish the notability of any of the above masts, with magazine or other published articles which refer to them by name, I do not think we should even bother with a redirect. Ohconfucius 13:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep on grounds that no-one can be bothered checking they're all nn so delete votes are ill-informed? (for instance, closer, are you going to check this point?) establishing precedent for blanket deletions like this might be a very bad idea (unless there is precedent already, in which can this is irrelevent). please note i am not questioning noms assertion, i am concerned about the principle being established. ⇒ bsnowball 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is of course free to test any (or all) of the articles to see if they're not useless stubs. ;-) Ohconfucius 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows more about this subject merging or redirecting these articles, rather than just deleting them all.--David Straub 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of an overdue cleanup. Errors in the listing are usually pointed out by this point in time. If a mistake is made the article in question can be undeleted. Vegaswikian 07:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus at least for now. I don't like mass deletions, they put a bias towards articles that wouldn't be there otherwise. afd these individually please. Just H 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I hope you're not serious ;-). Please note that all the articles are c&p "[Towername] Tower is a [n] meters high guyed TV tower at [City, State, Country] at LONG°" N and LAT°" W. [Towername] Tower was built in [Year].". There are nearly 848 masts of under 500m in height listed in List of masts (86% of total). In most of the articles proposed, there is not even the slightest assertion of notability, so this is pure cruft. I have furthermore taken care not to nominate any which have even slightest assertion of notability. IMO, the AfD process is sufficiently transparent that all the articles are easily checked if participants are prepared to spend the time, which admittedly not all are. Proposing separate AfDs for this "commodity" would be even a greater waste of kb and everybody's time. Ohconfucius 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Sandy Scott.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to appropriate list(s). No need to salt. Leave the way open to separate article when a mast gains notability by being climbed by King Kong or whatever.JamesMLane t c 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of astronomical topics[edit]

Delete - This is simply an unwieldly, long list of any topic that may be remotely related to astronomy, including articles on general subject information, articles on specific objects, and articles on people. Remarkably, the list is simultaneously overly broad, overly long, and woefully incomplete. It conveys no useful information, and it is so long and so broadly inclusive that it is not useful for navigation. The article is not salvagable; deletion is the only option. Dr. Submillimeter 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, arbitary, incomplete and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 09:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The talk page claims that its primary purpose is for tracking edits using the "Related changes" feature. Perhaps this should be moved out of the article namespace into an appropriate project? BCoates 10:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will mention this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, the best WikiProject to handle this page. However, I have the sense that this page would not be needed in that WikiProject; the Wikiproject already has a few unmaintained work lists. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought about using the list for tracking changes to astronomy-related articles and realized that the list is so woefully incomplete that it would not be useful for such an activity. For example, compare the list of NGC objects in list of astronomical topics to the list in Category:NGC objects. Given the incompleteness of the article (and the overwhelmingly impractical issue of adding all astronomy-related topics to the list), I would say that this page can no longer be used effectively to track changes to astronomy-related articles in Wikipedia through the "related changes" feature. This is an additional reason why the page should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the nomination, this page is part of a navigation scheme. If one is navigating from Wikipedia:Contents — which is the "contents" link right at the start of the Main Page — and follows the link thereon to the lists of topics, this list is the next step downward in navigation towards astronomical topics. Uncle G 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did not claim that this was not part of a navigation scheme. Instead, I am claiming that it is not useful for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At least in my view this list is much to cumbersome. Nevertheless, it's part of the navigation and I believe that it should be revised (by adding subcats, etc) rather than deleted. TSO1D 15:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And one more comment Do we have a precedent on this? There are tons and toms of those lists: List of science topics ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why a gigantic list is needed when there's already a category. —ShadowHalo 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be a category if anything. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless maintained by a bot (and the incompleteness argues that this one isn't) I don't see the point in this sort of listcruft when the category system handles the same needs much better. —David Eppstein 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this really should be reorganized into sublists if its part of a navigational scheme. 132.205.93.89 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — At one time this page was probably more useful than it is now. But I'd at least like to see the various red links moved to the Requested Articles page. Otherwise I think this page is now better presented through the Astronomy category tree. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST - maybe (definitely) it could be better written, but so what? WilyD 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is no worse than the other cumbersome navigation articles in WP. It's not as if we actually had something better and consistently implemented. DrS, what do the other astronomty editors think? DGG 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - RJHall and I are the only regular members of WikiProject Astronomy or WikiProject Astronomical objects that have posted here despite an announcement at WikiProject Astronomical objects. I voted to delete; RJHall seems to have made a neutral comment. An anonymous user has commented at WikiProject Astronomical objects that the list should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This list can never be complete, and if it is will be completely unweildy. It lacks a simple, coherent focus, and was long ago superseeded by Category:Astronomy. --EMS | Talk 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Come now - at the very least, lists are superseeded by categories is long known to be false. "Incompleteness" is also a lousy criterion for deletion (For instance, it could be used to delete several featured lists), unwieldy is subjective and pointless (There's no "more wieldy" alternative) - and claiming it lacks a simple, coherent focus is absurd. This list fell out of the simple, coherent focus tree and hit every branch on the way down. It's a model of simple, coherent focii. WilyD 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the very least, rather than deleting this list (which we all know would be supremely retarded) "For the sake of navigation" it might be sensible to trim it down to just the more specific lists and "foundational" articles, so that people would stop complaining about it's "usefullness" WilyD 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is not an encyclopedia but meta content that should either be in project space or superceded by categories. Eluchil404 07:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic seems worthy of inclusion. If there are problems with the article, they can be addressed elsewhere. delldot | talk 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eluchil404 above Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Servatism[edit]

Unsourced, hard to verify, self-admitted neologism. A google search for servatism returns lots of links, but for the most part they seem to refer to "con- [line break] servatism". A search for servatism -con returns only 356, mostly WP mirrors and plays on "conservatism" ("Kahn-servatism"). A search on JSTOR suffers from the same problems. So I'd say the article needs to be sourced to establish current usage or be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 09:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism with no sources provided to verify word is in use. --Metropolitan90 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted an article which serves no purpose other than to inflate Pacific Western University, an unaccredited school identified as an issuer of worthless degrees and likely diploma mill in senate testimony. Pretty much everything her - including this nomination - is the work of single-purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pacific Western University people[edit]

A list of nobodies without wikipedia articles who got their "degrees" from an unaccredited school- alleged diploma mill. Created by Jreferee (talk · contribs) who has an agenda and needs to be watched. For the few people who do have articles are like Doris Brougham, an online resume with no wikinotability. FFGGGFFFF 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I don't see a claim in this nomination that warrants deleting this article. The article itself is heavily sourced. If think the original author is using this entry to push his agenda, Be Bold and fix it. BCoates 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep If holding the nom open has some bad effect. BCoates 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Each entry in the article is footnoted and the above claim is not a basis for listing an article for deletion. List of Pacific Western University is being considered for DYK status, which has a five day window. Keeping List of Pacific Western University as an Articles for deletion will cause the article to not be considered for DYK status. Regarding the speedy portion of my keep vote, Wikipedia Guide to deletion states that Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated. See Special:Contributions/FFGGGFFFF. -- Jreferee 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you run a check user then. Its best to show how the list of nobodies is worth keeping. You have removed Pacific Western University from the list of unaccredited schools.[22] STOP PUSHING YOUR VIEWS WITH THIS "SCHOOL"FFGGGFFFF 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-documented list of notable PWU alumni. Summary style per MoS prohibits listing them on the main PWU page. Jokestress 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the majority of those people notable? Its a list of spam. FFGGGFFFF 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have great doubts about PWU, however the list of its alumni is well documented. TSO1D 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubts that it is well documented, but people like Jaya Suprana, Doris Brougham, and James Villanueva (an amazing list of 15+ SELF published books) listed hardly are worth keeping a list of. Can you imagined if every person like this from Harvard were included on the list. Keeping this is a bad precedent. FFGGGFFFF 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suprana and Brougham are well-known media personalities in their respective countries, but I agree that the Villanueva article (apparently started by him) does not appear to meet notability criteria. That does not negate the value of the article in question, though. Jokestress 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the school any names of people who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles and delete the rest.Edison 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of HTML decimal character references[edit]

I know it was already voted 3 times to deletion and voted to keep. But I believe it happened because of odd reasons, explained bellow.

The Unicode reference is very usefull, and was already properly added in wikipedia. However, for its insane size (more than 1 million characters) it was removed from wikipedia. It was resurected in wikisource, which recently was also removed from there. Actually it was hidden in wikibooks as part of "Windows Programming" book. So I re-moved it to its own book (Unicode book), so hopefully it will be easier to be found.

Why the hell I'm talking about Unicode, in a HTML characters article? It is because this page is in fact a Unicode reference, NOT HTML. It still persists "as useful" because there is no Unicode reference in wikipedia, for the reasons told above.

As most of the "keep" previous votes was because "it is useful", and because it is a shame to wikipedia this article still remaining as it is, I am providing the link to wikisource so you can compare

Note: It is a ambiguity why this page is so protected, still the Unicode reference was deleted from here and wikisource. So I will simply move this page to "Unicode reference" if this page will be kept again. And, please, don't vote keep just because it survived 3 times.

Note 2: if you compare the 2 tables, note this article's reference is in Decimal, and the reference in wikibooks is in hexadecimal. Beyond that it is the same.

Reasons

It is a single implementation of Unicode. This list is not part the HTML pattern at all. There are many Unicode implementations out there (Java, Linux, etc...).
There is a much better, already divided, complete Unicode reference in wikibooks
It is not enciclopedian (it is a reference table - of 1M characters - , and its not an article)
It is still too big, incomplete, with broken links, misguiding, and will ever be.

Resolution

Delete- For the reasons I listed above.SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{10:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)}.
Delete I would say move to wikibooks, but it is already there. Someone should double check to make sure there isn't anything to transwiki first. Koweja 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Please provide links to other 3 deletion reviews This is unfair double jeopardy in my eyes. TonyTheTiger 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:List of HTML decimal character references. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are the links: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination, 3th nomination. SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{10:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}.
Move to Wikipedia namespace Wikipedia:List of HTML decimal character references 132.205.93.88 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete this, and then add the link to the wikibook on Character encodings in HTML. Obviously, we really don't need duplicates.

Delete. WP:NOT a technical manual; redundant to Wikibooks version. Sandstein 16:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Wafulz 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International conversations[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Site has no Alexa listing and essentially no google hits on domain name. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, may be a speedy candidate. MER-C 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Noble idea, but lacks assertion of notability, no references or sources, doesn't even register on Alexa. Only states what they hope to do, which so far isn't much of anything. Tubezone 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete.--Hús ö nd 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothahood[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement and is pumped with POV. No sources recorded. Mostly mentioned in blogs, no verifiable sources. Sr13 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No real assertion of notability, no albums released, no references or sources... should be db-band speedy delete, so I decided to be bold and tagged it as such. Tubezone 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC non notable. TSO1D 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, very weak assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 21:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:EBONICS. Try reading it. Anomo 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.

Lawrence Anderson[edit]

The subject of this 20-month-old stub already has a much longer article under his Latin name, Laurentius Andreae. Category listings and links to the entries in the French and German Wikipedias have already been added to the other entry. All that's needed is the deletion of this stub and creation of a redirect from "Lawrence Anderson" to "Laurentius Andreae".Romanspinner 10:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirect per nom. Boldly done. Close? MER-C 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, no objections were raised in 12 hours. MER-C 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, db-group. Redirected as below.Deizio talk 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy[edit]

Non-notable, possible vanity, no references, no articles link to this. Croctotheface 11:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Asserts no notability, reads like spam. Tubezone 11:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. MER-C 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Remedy. Danny Lilithborne 13:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Danny Akihabara 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry but I cannot understand the arguments above. According to WP:MUSIC, an album is notable if and only if the artists are. So if you are claiming that the band is not notable, why would you want to keep the albums and delete the band page's content and redirect it to the disambig page for the albums? TSO1D 15:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you're a little confused, article up for debate concerns an unknown band. There are however a couple of releases by notable artists also called "The Remedy". Deizio talk 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings of Age of Empires III[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article describes the costs, statistics and uses of objects in a game, and has no relevance outside the game. Similar page, Age of Empires III military units, has been deleted 3 times already. No page with similar content exists for the other games in the series. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I felt like I was reading the manual again. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though someone should move the info over to one of the gaming wikis first. Koweja 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a gaming guide, although I would hope that I could be transwikied somewhere.-- danntm ^T _C 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and not userfy unless creator needs a day or two to move off WP servers. Far too specific facts-and-figures detail for an encyclopedic article. Some of it may be too close to copyrighted content for WP policy. WP:NOT a game guide or manual. There is a Wikiproject:Computer and video games, please check there for some more specific guidelines, or see comparable ones being developed by the newer Wikiproject:Board and table games. Barno 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gaming is an area of research in mathematics. The mathematical goal is optimization. Military research also using gaming. Also there are many game articles on wikipedia. I'm not sure why this one is singled out. Daniel.Cardenas 21:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games#Deletion. It isn't being "singled" out. This article has nothing to do with optimization or game theory. It is just a glossary for a computer game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - It is a list that helps with optimization strategy. Daniel.Cardenas 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the buildings of Age of Empires 3 were especially researched in a area of mathematics and the article covered that connection, that could have warranted a keep. Delta Tango • Talk 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a game manual, this list is not formatted as an article it's just GameFAQs material. Why would someone who hasn't played need to know the building costs? QuagmireDog 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep you guys dont get the policy, this is a LIST not a guide, would you rather have stuff listed in the main article go here and read my counter for the delete

here are my reasons

here is some text from the wiki strategy guide article this article does not include any of these in it

are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague, as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections".

detailed gameplay information, for example, maneuvers that are not detailed in the manual complete maps of the game, which show the placement of all items (including hidden and hard-to-find ones) detailed instructions for specific locations on how to proceed from there explanations of puzzles details of enemies, including techniques on defeating individual enemies (especially "boss" monsters) checklist of collectible items cheats and game editing, although this has been less common in official guides

none of these are in this list, and dont say collectible items becuase these are standard buildings not ones you gain by playing.--Superchad 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)superchad[reply]

Delete - complete cruft, written from a non-real-world perspective, WP not a game guide. Get through the next level on your own. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fucking ridiculous. Blatantly game guide and fancruft. The Kinslayer 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcsmokerson[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 12:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per MER-C. Not notable. Akihabara 13:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wafer-thin stab at asserting notability, no dice with WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established by article. A Train ^{take the} 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non-notable, may be a hoax, web-site link is a 404. Hu 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definately non-notable. I don't think it's a hoax. -- Ben (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AvA[edit]

Unsourced and unverifiable crystal balling for a non-notable documentary. Contested prod. MER-C 12:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD G11. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomical Pocket Diary[edit]

Delete - First of all, this is a non-notable publication in astronomy. Second, this article appears to be an advertisement. The article was created by Y23. A search on '"Astronomical Pocket Diary" -Wikipedia' in Google turns up this page at y23.com. It appears that Y23 is attempting to advertise this product on Wikipedia. Because of both the non-notability and commercial nature of this page, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as corporate vanity. Yes, you're right, the only purpose of the article is advertising because Y23 (talk · contribs) created it, and no substantial edits were made since. So tagged. MER-C 13:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County Municipal Roads[edit]

1) is nothing more than a partial list 2) doesn't even clearly indicate what the contents of list are or even where 3) the only source listed is a map--not even the publisher or year 4) there is no encyclopedic information provided about the listed roads and it is very unlikely that much more could realistically be said about the roads older ≠ wiser 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit more, such a listing might perhaps be appropriate for an individual county article or as a subarticle related to the county, but there is nothing that intrinsically links the roads in one county with the roads of another county. I can recognize that the roads are in Michigan and the list could in theory be renamed to at least indicate the location, but I have no idea what a County Municipal Road is and there is no definition provided. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFAIK, by the guidelines, county highways aren't automatically notable, only state and federal ones are. BTW, the county in question is in Michigan. Also, it's mistitled, name of county should be in the title. Tubezone 13:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Leelanau County Municipal Roads, then there is no reason to delete.--Sandy Scott 14:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it avoids the question of "What IS a County Municipal Road?" What is the definition? What is the criteria for inclusion? Is there any verifiable source other than a vague reference to a county road map? older ≠ wiser 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC) -- The Leelanau County Roads Commission makes no mention of these numbered roads. The roads are not identified as such on maps available from the county web site [23] The National Functional Classification Map from MDOT for Leelanau County does not mention any of these numbered routes [24] Perhaps the route numbers might be some sort of historic designation for these roads -- but how is anyone to verify this? There is no mention at http://www.michiganhighways.org/ -- even the name, "county municipal highways" is something of an oxymoron -- counties and municipalities refer to two separate and distinct tiers of local government in Michigan. As it stand now, this entire list reeks of unverifiable original research. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not limited to one county, as there are 27 other Michigan counties with this type of numbering system, so this opens the field to documenting them, and creating a more complete article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.20.21 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable and boring as a list of telephone poles, mailboxes, driveways or potholes. We have never had a guideline that says county roads are inherently worthy of articles. No sources to show any are notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Edison 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conservative Monday Club publications[edit]

WP:NOT a directory. A list of publications by a political group seems to be unencyclopedic material. Any notable publications which had a wider impact could easily be mentioned at Conservative Monday Club, if there are any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bibliographical material is generally quite suitable for Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 13:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps an annotated bibliography would be, but a bald list of publications appears to fall foul of Wikipedia is not a directory, point 3. The publications are of such limited distribution and importance that the overwhelming majority are not included in the British Library integrated catalogue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'directory' point isn't much good. We have lists of books by Belloc and Blyton, Chesterton and Derrida ... need I go on? Lists are lists; saying that they could be annotated also is always true, but the criteria for lists are not about that. Charles Matthews 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair point is that publications should be verifiablle. I have deleted a whole section ('policy papers') and have had some success with verifying others, or satisfying myself thay are obscure. (One was on eBay ... I didn't cite that!). Given the provenance, I believe these all existed, but within our rules it is reasonable to ask for more. Charles Matthews

Right, I've made a pass at verifying all the booklets. The ones with Anthony Courtney: clearly exist, he was a British Naval Intelligence officer who annoyed the KGB enough into publishing a compromising photo of him from a decade before - interesting story. Charles Matthews

Keep, merge of you want. --Sandy Scott 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~As far as I can tell, the publications are "self-published," which means (1) they're not notable; and (2) their existence is not verified by any reliable source. Is there any way, for example, for us to confirm the existence of those publications? TheronJ 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the British Library catalogue works as claimed, and the Monday Club was indeed the publisher of these works, five are catalogued. A random sampling of the remainder, searching by author/title, found no others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not Keep all the verifiable items, mark the rest as unverified for now. We can verify a lot more from the

Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [25]. And by the way, Wikipedia is self-published, as are government publications, and many Newspapers. Many larger organisations self-publish works, it doesn't follow that they are 'not notable' (whatever that means).--Sandy Scott 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN is what it means--Dmz5 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many organisations that are notable self-publish - but here we are talking about publications we can't even verify - so they simply cannot be included. If this article is kept, it will properly be trimmed to the five verifiable works that TheronJ describes - and I imagine at that point the deletion debate will be restarted by someone. --SandyDancer 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim list to those publications that can be verified by reliable sources. Once that's done, consider a merge and redirect to Conservative Monday Club. It looks like there's good progress being made on verifying some of the publications. Once that's done, the editors can consider a merge and redirect, but AFD is not necessary for either of those actions. TheronJ 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge remaning content - it seems to have been established above by TheronJ that most of the publications listed (i.e. all bit five) cannot be verified. Why not delete the page and move those five publication to a section of the Monday Cub article? --SandyDancer 12:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty more are verifiable. There were typos etc.; the current list should be OK. Charles Matthews

- This article was spun off from the Monday Club by Charles Matthews. I presume, but haven't bothered verifying, that the content was added there by one or other of the now-banned editors who took an interest in this subject. While delete and merge is not normally accepted as an outcome, I see no reason why it should not be in this case, as the content being merged is still attributed to its creators in the history of the Monday Club piece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (I don't get JamesMLane's argument.) Sandstein 09:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Haven[edit]

nn residence park. "even a professional baseball player" lived there. Akihabara 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic neighborhood in San Jose, California. At least two independent published works on this neighborhood found [26][27], plus it's part of an official City of San Jose Conservation Area [28]. Passes WP:NOTABILITY, and especially WP:LOCAL. --Oakshade 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As clinching evidence of notability, the website sells "Cast-pewter keychains with the original Palm Haven logo engraved on the bottom!" JamesMLane t c 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Blonde Productions[edit]

Subject of this article, although not blatant advertising, does not appear to be an especially notable company. – Clockwork Soul 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue against the point "especially notable company". The fact is it is a small company if you base it on man-power. However surly it is better the have credible, reliable article rather than no article, it may not assit everyone, but it may assit one person. (My apologies if I have edited this discussion page incorrectly, I am still learning Wikipedia) – JKimbley 15:14, 16 December 2006 (GMT)

Speedy delete as blatant advertising (not sure why the nom doesn't think so). - 24.60.23.232 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP WP:NN TonyTheTiger 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tony. TSO1D 20:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like everyone has decided to delete it. I appreciate ClockworkSoul for being the only one to be able to give a valid reason for deletion, don't forget to delete the logo too. – JKimbley 10:07, 17 December 2006 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Pink[edit]

Another article on a film stuck in development; this project is from January 2004 [29]. IMDb is not a reliable source; that a film has its own page on that site is neither here nor there, particularly given that it often reports misinformation about supposedly upcoming films. Not every film that might have happened but didn't warrants its own article - films get cancelled all the time. Extraordinary Machine 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If production resumes and a release is imminent per press coverage, the article may be recreated at that time. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox

Delete per Dhartung - cannot have reliable sources about something this iffy and thin. Peripitus (Talk) 00:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it's in the West End. Which may be a long time coming... Guy (Help!) 00:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The news coverage isn't about the boy as an individual but rather about the circumstances of his death. We don't usually have articles about otherwise nonnotable persons that died in the course of crimes/accidents/wars even if the crime/accident/war has news coverage. Sandstein 09:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Jabaji[edit]

Victim in a recent I/P incident. Seems to have no other claim to notability and article reads like an obit. Do we routinely have articles on people killed in ongoing political conflicts? I don't think so Daniel Case 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An individual tragic victim in a long ongoing conflict is very unlikely to be notable in the long run. Also, at 14 years old he is unlikely to have had the chance to do something notable for himself (as opposed to having it done to him). Sam Blacketer 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obits are disallowed. 9/11 is precedent. - crz crztalk 14:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, death was on 12/3 but only two hits on google news [30] GabrielF 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, an all-too-common event. DrKiernan 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant news coverage of the event, see table below. --64.230.124.92 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International	Wire service	Israeli	Palestinian
1. VOA News: [31] 2. Al Jazeera: [32] 3. Herald Sun: [33] 4. The Australian: [34]	5. Reuters: [35] [36] 6. Agence France-Presse: [37] (see news item 2/3 down page)	7. Haaretz: [38]	8. International Middle East Media Center: [39] 9. Palestine Times: [40] 10. Palestine Press Agency: [41]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let Go (Vanessa Hudgens song)[edit]

Prodded by myself, deprodded without explanation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 15:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreleased single with no significance. A Train ^{take the} 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even assert that it will be the next single. If you're going to be a crystal ball, at least be assertive about it. —ShadowHalo 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A1. Deizio talk 15:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

101.1 THE JUICE[edit]

A fictional radio station some newly registered Wikipedian wished could exist, but that never will. Delete. Georgia guy 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as, essentially, a hoax. Daniel Case 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, CSD G7, deletion requested by author & only substantial contributor. Deizio talk 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combinary[edit]

This page constitues original research, which I attempted to undetrake on Wikipedia, not realising the policy on original research. I will re-link once I get my research peer reviewed. David n m bond 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dehardwarization[edit]

Prod replaced with sources tag. Unreferenced, possible neologism. Deizio talk 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it had a source or reference, I'd reconsider, but this seems like original research/neologism. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even any hits other than Wikipedia or mirrors. TSO1D 20:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, probably original research. —ShadowHalo 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters company[edit]

No indication of notability for this police unit. A Google search, excluding Wikipedia mirrors, yields 7 results. Maybe redirect somewhere, as this is also a generic military term? Contested PROD. Sandstein 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article on a company at a Military Academy (school). Nothing of note in the article to merge with school article. Nuttah68 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The phrase "is considered one of the elite companies" is what concerns me since it's a weasel statement and is unreferenced. If a reliable source can be found to support it, then keep it. But based on the seven Google hits, it seems unlikely that that'll be possible. —ShadowHalo 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC iPod[edit]

Can't find any evidence of a discography that meets the standards of WP:MUSIC; Google doesn't show much evidence of non-trivial coverage Daniel Case 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:V, WP:MUSIC TonyTheTiger 18:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article says his music was circulated around the Internet and that it was written off as one of the worst albums of the year. If either of those can be sourced, it might meet WP:MUSIC, but I don't see that happening. —ShadowHalo 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable musician. Home page syas how new album is being recorded in bedroom and I'm sure the name would have changed if they'd been near a record company (lawyer). Nuttah68 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Just H 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenarcher.net[edit]

Contested PROD. Lengthy vanity article about a non-notable (WP:WEB) university website. From the version history: "...and pray that this article isn't indicative of the level of education they accept at this university." Sandstein 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know what is in there for the merge tag person to merge... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very non-notable with an Alexa Rank of 1,906,644, does not meet WP:WEB requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written (though that can be taken care of), but mainly just unimportant. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. TSO1D 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. I don't think the fact it's badly written is another reason to delete though, since it can be improved, but it's still not notable enough. Insanephantom 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, discounting WP:ILIKEIT-type arguments. Sandstein 09:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Kings[edit]

Notability concern not addressed since June. A look at Amazon.com shows one release on a named label -- thus not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Please see Talk:The Old Kings for comment by de-prodder. Delete unless non-trivial reliable independent sources are found that we could use to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Carhonda 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Or should every band in Category: Singaporean music be deemed non-notable by definition and deleted (no, that's not a suggestion, it's a complaint against the current version of WP:MUSIC, which is a good tool for making it hard for future researchers to find information on a lot of elements of culture when said elements no longer exist)? Strangelv 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC), who unfortunately lacks the time and health to even find every such article in danger, let alone vote to keep them.[reply]

Neutral. Actually, if you look at the artist's web site[42], it shows that two albums have been released on the same label as Pan Dan found on Amazon which therefore might meet criteria #5. However, the label, Jade Palace Records seems to be a minor label at best. If someone can show that it is a notable label, even if just in Singapore, I would support keeping this article. Ccscott 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the primary notability criterion, and then there's the ancillary criteria of WP:MUSIC, which only indicate possible non-trivial media coverage. In every case, ultimately, I think we have to check the primary notability criterion, so there are enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. So even if this band passes WP:MUSIC by a hair, I would still say delete if it fails WP:N. Pan Dan 13:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discography establishes notability to me, even though it might be hard to prove that a Singapore-based band passes WP:MUSIC. I don't have ready access to the media that would be most likely to report on the group. JamesMLane t c 08:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep, other solutions such as mergers are not ruled out. This was an unusually good AfD discussion, by the way, although several contributors referred to "votes" that, in fact, do not exist in an AfD discussion. Sandstein 09:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersive PDE Wiki[edit]

Non-notable website. Mike Peel 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — No ghits, ask got 4, yahoo has 1. Not all sites that run MediaWiki need to be on the wikipedia. The artice doesn't assert its importance and has no references. FirefoxMan 21:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per FirefoxMan (but as long as it's here on AfD I'll wait a day or so.) Melchoir 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was just mentioned on WT:WPM; I think the WPM people should be given a chance to respond, rather than cutting off debate early. And the involvement of T.Tao seems to lend notability to the subject. All that said, the relevant guideline seems to be WP:WEB; I'm not entirely happy with that guideline but I don't think this is the right test case for it. And this article seems clearly to fail that guideline. So weak delete, not speedy. —David Eppstein 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is worthwhile, regardless of how it relates to the guideline, you can change your vote to "keep". In this decision, it's the votes that matter. (We can fix the guideline later.) --KSmrq^T 07:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that this process is not a vote on how much we like the article, but rather a discussion to build a consensus on whether the article meets the appropriate notability guidelines. —David Eppstein 07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some theory to that effect, just like there is a theory that juries in U.S. law should do exactly as the judge instructs. But, like the juries, we are free to decide however we like. An admin closes the AfD upon determination that a consensus has been reached, and usually that is based on the votes and the arguments. But then, that means the admin is not exactly bound by the votes either. There are benefits to "going by the book", and there are benefits to tossing the book. We hope to choose wisely, presumably with the goal of making a better encyclopedia. That said, here we have no need for extra-book activity, for WP:WEB states
This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use…

In this instance we have a clearly non-commercial, non-vanity site full of quality content with a six-year history and world-class contributors. Do we really want to speedily delete our stub out of misguided devotion to a rough, non-binding guideline intended to prevent crank, vanity, and commercial site ads?

Notability is a peculiar Wikipedia concept. For example, my "Don't kick the baby!" link is to an article about a cartoon character in a TV show. So Ike Broflovski is "notable"; but by popular standards, probably 90% of our mathematics topics are not! (How many editors, even among mathematicians, are familiar with the Szemerédi regularity lemma, or have any interest in the Ganea conjecture?) Look at all the articles on Marvel Comics characters; is this mathematics article less worthy than one on, say, Modred the Mystic? Of course not, and it's up to us to say so, just like the Marvel Comics fans speak up for their interests. --KSmrq^T 11:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People have written about the Szemerédi regularity lemma. No one has written about the Dispersive PDE Wiki. No article that we write on the latter could be an encyclopedic, tertiary reference; it can only be an advertisement, and I for one oppose advertising anything. This is why we have notability standards in the first place. Melchoir 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~if article can be improved to WP standards before close of the AfD. Technically it meets the Speedy requirements, but~~ There is a lot more content in the referenced site that I first thought, and it looks very legit. For example, see [43]. The creator, User:Haseldon, seems to be an established mathematics editor on Wikipedia, and I think he could fix the article. I notified him that this is up for deletion. ~~Unless the article is improved, I'd vote for delete (but not speedy). The Dispersive PDE Wiki site itself does not meet WP:WEB, but~~ The content of the site is GFDL and some of it might be usable in WP's math articles. It would be a bit surly to delete the description of something we might later make use of. EdJohnston 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to a simple Keep after I expanded the article. This stuff looks like real Wikipedia-type material, and it's worth having an article that comments on it. In its present form I think the site has value to mathematicians and deserves at least a pocket explanation from us. I can imagine creating cross-links between WP articles and the sections of this site. EdJohnston 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the way you've expanded the article. The whole of the second section could be moved into the Dispersive PDE article, sans self-references. The third section belongs in Dirichlet problem. That gets us back to the first paragraph, and the point of this AfD. Is the website notable enough to have a whole article dedicated to itself, rather than just having links to it from the bottom of pages such as Dispersive PDE? At 50 active contributors, assuming that no-one else is as notable as Terence Tao, I'd say that's a resounding no. Mike Peel 18:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And let's do wait for comments from interested mathematicians, who are just now beginning to learn of this AfD. Those with little mathematical background may not appreciate why Terence Tao is relevant; the answer is that he is considered one of the best minds in contemporary mathematics, having just won a Fields Medal (a rare top prize in mathematics) and a MacArthur Fellowship (sometimes called a "genius award"). If he thinks the site is worth knowing about (making many hundreds of contributions to the wiki version), and you don't, who should we believe? Hmm. The article is a stub less than a month old, and the wiki form of the site has only existed since July 2006 (but using content hosted by Tao dating back to October 2000). It is unrealistic to expect it to get lots of search hits already. (In fact, given the nature of its content, it will likely never be heavily linked.) "Don't kick the baby!" --KSmrq^T 07:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: looking at Tao's contributions they all seem to have been in July and August, soon after the wiki was created, with very little since then. --Salix alba (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles just because we like their subjects, or because we think their subjects might become notable in the future. Advocates of various websites use those arguments all the time. Melchoir 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to mathematics websites and expand. As it stands it clearly falls foul of WP:WEB and is unlikely to change it status. I don't particularly see the utility of having this article, it is basically just a link and the information here could be included in Terence Tao or an appropriate PDE page. Howerver there are a number of other similar mathematical communities, the Knot Atlas springs to mind. I think it would be more useful to have a single page documenting these than a lot of little stubs. --Salix alba (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure I understand the arguments for "keep". Why should we have an article on some wiki because Terence Tao likes to contribute to it? It's more of an interesting thing about Tao rather than an affirmation of the notability of the wiki. Does notability just transfer like that so easily? I'm sure the wiki will do well enough regardless of what is decided here. I'm sure with contributors like Tao, the site is worth knowing about. I don't see why this means that it becomes Wikipedia's mission to advertise it though. For example, there are obscure books that are worth reading. Are we supposed to say they are notable because we like them? --C S (Talk) 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put the site's article up on AfD as it makes no claims of notability, and it doesn't appear to be notable. If it's got content that is useful, then by all means link to the site in articles on that topic (or better still, incorporate the content and reference it). But does the site need a whole article to itself? If so, please show that it is notable - e.g. news articles that discuss it, or references to it in the literature, etc.

Additionally, I dislike Salix alba's proposal to set up a mathematics website page, as Wikipedia is not a links directory. Mike Peel 12:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The search term [dispersive-wiki -site:tosio.math.toronto.edu] gives me 28 ghits; perhaps not all unique, but clearly more than the proposer's 0 ghits. More to the point, this is not "just another" blog, webcomic, or social-network builder. Among the dispersive-pde websites, it is the number one. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not ready to cast a vote yet, but I did read the guideline WP:WEB. And I looked at the website a little, and I searched Wikipedia for references to Dispersive Partial Differential Equations. The only relevant hits I got were in articles about Maxwell's equations, and about the Schrödinger wave equation. Those may not be the best understood PDE's in the world, but they are extremely important in physics. And I gather that the point of calling something a "dispersive" PDE is that its solutions don't look like persistent standing waves, but decay over time somehow (the sine wave versus a Bessel function, more or less). So it seems to me that the best solution might be to have an article that actually discusses dispersive PDE's, and why they're important, and maybe why mathematicians have unanswereed questions about them, and then link to Mr. Tao's wiki through that article. Oh -- I also read Mike Peel's home page, and see that he's in astrophysics. I understand now why he thinks Tao's website is not notable. The website is focusing on the well-posedness problem. I've studied with both physicists and mathematicians, and the physicists never seemed to care about the Dirichlet problem. But the math department devoted an entire 12-week class to it. This is analogous. DavidCBryant 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to DavidCBryant for the extensive comment. I took some words from David's comments and added them to the article. Please look at the article as expanded, and if you think it worthy of keeping, make further improvements. Feel free to replace any incorrect material. EdJohnston 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT remark But please, not "Mr. Tao". Just "Tao" is fine, but if there's to be an honorific it should be Dr. Perhaps Dr.issimo, in Tao's case. --Trovatore 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terence Tao or Delete (so that this !vote is not counted against a delete consensus). If the wiki were a reliable source, in our sense, it would be worth keeping in order to link to; but it can't be, for the same reason WP itself isn't. Salix alba's suggestion (Merge to List of mathematical websites) also has merit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's not notable now, it may be in a few months. Sometimes if there's a consensus to delete and an article accordingly gets deleted, that fact is cited if an article with the same title on the same subject is created later. What will be the course of events if this gets deleted now and not long afterward this topic becomes notable? Michael Hardy 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one reason to merge; the link will be in Terence Tao, and the merger can be reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably people will actually have to use their noggins and realize that the situation has changed, which could be demonstrated in some manner. --C S (Talk) 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems every bit as notable as anything else in Category:Wiki communities, or, for example, as notable as planetmath. linas 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PlanetMath has a lot of links from other math articles (generally as the credit for some specific external link to a PlanetMath page on the article's subject, via the {{PlanetMath}} template). Do you see it as likely that the Dispersive PDE Wiki can be similarly linked from more than a handful of articles? —David Eppstein 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, people occasionally write about planetmath: try [44] or [45]. You wouldn't know this from reading the article, of course, but if our Planetmath article went on AfD I'd vote to keep while citing those sources. Melchoir 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PM has a lot of links because of WP:PMEX. In principle, we could copy most of the content from the PDE wiki into WP, which would result in hundreds(?) of links. It should be noted that none of te WP math regulars are active on PDE's.

More importantly, I note that we have wildly differing standards for notability on WP. In math, we tend to reject articles on mathematicians who haven't won any important prizes, whereas average joe-blow programmers get to have bio's. We don't have articles for most physics/math journals, but we have articles for comic books. Notability criteria for rock bands seems low but staunchly defended. So although I get the feeling we sometimes have too much crap on WP, I'm erring on the side of caution: do we through out the baby with the bathwater, by voting to delete things like this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linas (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment another solution would be to move it to project space, we reciently had a discussion on WT:WPM about creating a list of resources for mainly books. This could be expanded to cover the good, but less notiable maths website as a resource for editors. --Salix alba (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea; all we'd need there would be the link and a paragraph of explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Mike Peel's comments. It's a great resource, but that is not a reason to have an article in Wikipedia. As long as no reliable source refers to the wiki, we should not have an article about it. ~~Do not merge with Terence Tao; the wiki does not seem to be an important part of Terry's life, and reversely, Terry is just one of the contributors as far as I can see~~. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, from 2000 until the wiki was started a few months ago, Tao hosted the content. Also, if he is just one of many contributors, that would seem to be an argument for keeping an independent page. (Ironically, if Wolfram owned and advertised the site and used it to feed their business, as with MathWorld, more people would know about it. Remember Catch-22?) --KSmrq^T 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I still feel that the wiki is not important enough for Terence Tao to be mentioned in his article, but perhaps one line is warranted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 10:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-10000 robots[edit]

Nn characters, split off from the main E-Series article for no apparent reason. Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say merge, but the main article already has a section for E-100000Y. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the E-10000 Series should merge, but not within the E-Series section itself. A major edit may help.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essjay (Talk) 10:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina and Bettina Reilly[edit]

Non-notable minor characters on a minor TV show. Otto4711 16:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Also nominating, for the same reason:[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive source of TV trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary of each character and actor to the existing stubby article for the TV series Harper Valley PTA (TV series). Edison 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edison. Danny Lilithborne 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, including the images. Sandstein 09:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zime[edit]

Apparently implausible object. From the article:

Universal ZIME Belt (Josta) consists of 18.4 trillions single ZIMEs. More than 400.000 persons and concepts are located on Josta sofar. Each ZIME is able to store unlimited amount of infomation while not growing bigger or more complex. Using today's computer technologies it is easy to encode information in ZIME but it requires a future Quantum Computer to decode it. This is why ZIME is often refered to as a Quantum Harddisc.

Has anyone any independent proof that this exists, as described in the article? If not, I suggest deletion as unverifiable. The Anome 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: if this AfD results in deletion, it would make sense to delete Universal Josta as well. It might also make sense to look at the relationship, if any, between User:Strazds, and User:Turdus, and their respective contributions to the Armands Strazds article. -- The Anome 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have a clue what it is (WP:HOLE), but it was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-11-19. Note to the closing admin: if the article is deleted, please take care of the massive number of images that were uploaded for the article. I'm not even going to try and guess what a Zime stone is. (Image:Zime0 30.gif, Image:Zime1 30.gif, etc). --BigDT 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (1) A proof of 18.4 trillions ZIMES is purely mathematical: 16 ^ 16 and it roots in a graphical structure of ZIME. Every ZIME consists of 16 elements and each of them can carry 4 bits of information (0..16). That gives us 16 ^ 16 = 18446744073709551616 or 18.4 trillions. (2) The statistics of the EXPO project (www.zime.de) alone show that there are more than 300.000 participants of the project. Other round 100.000 participants are from other projects of ZIME Foundation (e.g. 'Your ZIME in Belt of Latvia' with more than 40.000 ZIMEs). (3) ZIME is encrypted using so called one-way-hash algorithm. It is a matematical concept allowing very fast encryption, but very slow decryption procedure that can even take years with the most powerful supercomputers. Other examples of one-way-hash algorithms include so called message digest algorithms (md5, sha, etc.). Quantum Harddisc is a term coined by physicists like David Deutsch to describe a storage medium that can be used only with the hypotetical Quantum Computer but not with the todays computers. --Turdus 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hand-waving nonsense. "Each ZIME is able to store unlimited amount of infomation while not growing bigger or more complex." is not plausible if you want to recover the 'stored' data. (OTOH, a hash function does indeed have that property, but it's not designed to store data. Input from a Real Cryptographer would be helpful here. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - As a Real Cryptographer I can only confirm the mathematical possibility to recover data hashed by one-way algorithms. The most common approach is so called Brute Force Attack (BFA) i.e. searching through the all possible existing data combinations. With ZIME it works this way: any amount of data can be hashed producing a Hex-16 digest. Digest is visualized as ZIME. This digest can be obtained reversly from any ZIME any time. Then the BFA is used to decode the original data. -- Turdus 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You're claiming to be able to recover a file from its MD5 digest? I don't think so. What makes your digest method any different from MD5 or SHA1? --- Bpmullins | Talk 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - pls read once more and carefully what I'm claiming. I never claimed *I* could do that! But a mathematical possibility is with no doubt there as I already explained. --Turdus 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: no, you can't, and no such mathematical possibility exists. Consider a 128-bit MD5 hash value: there are only 2^128 possible such values. Now consider a 256-byte file: there are 2^2048 possible such files. A simple counting argument shows that it is not possible to uniquely recover input files from their digests, even with a quantum computer, because the files and digests cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence. -- The Anome 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - you are right about one-to-one correspondence. But remember, that we are searching for a meaningfull texts. This limits possibilities dramatically! --Turdus 01:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I was expecting you to raise that objection. Let's look at it in detail. "Meaningful" natural-language text contains just over one bit of entropy per byte (see [46]), and so, even if you restricted the 256-byte file to "meaningful" text, and conservatively assumed one bit per byte of entropy, there would still be 2^256 such files. The counting argument still applies. Please look up "unicity distance". -- The Anome 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        ZIME is coded using a very strictly standardized data structure. How do you think, how many of these 2^256 files can have such a structure? --Turdus 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are proposing that this is a universal lossless compression algorithm, then, with some input pre-expansion created by the "very strictly standardized data structure". Please see the lossless compression article to see why that is impossible. -- The Anome 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I have never said it were "universal lossless compression algorithm". I said: its a digest. There is a difference as you may notice. --Turdus 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can invert a short digest into source files drawn from a pool with size larger than the number of possible states of the digest, you have produced an effective lossless compression algorithm. Or are you withdrawing your earlier assertions about invertibility? -- The Anome 00:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Its a pity that I have to vaste my time because some people dont want to read carefully enough and generate spam-like comments! Everything you say is true for the PC on your desk. But I said clearly: quantum computer is a solution. And nothing else. --Turdus 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Quantum computers cannot overcome counting arguments: even if it's a magic box (which quantum computers are not), if it can't get any more information than is encoded in the digest, it cannot possibly map its restricted set of inputs to the much larger set of outputs that must be generated if the digest is to be inverted. -- The Anome 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am glad you found your own theory about quantum computing. In this case I naturally cannot oppose - every theory has its right to live and to die! Good luck with further opposing ZIME! May be you can get it out of WikiPedia (who cares!), but not from the minds of the creative people of the world! Best regards! --Turdus 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Counting arguments based on the pigeonhole principle aren't new, so I can't take credit for them. However, they work rather well on claims of infinite compression using message digests. -- The Anome 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is true only for meaningless information. But can you imagine that a good message digest algorithm will produce the same output for the strings "The pigeonhole principle is an example of a counting argument" and "Hilbert's Grand Hotel can accommodate more guests without doubling up on rooms"? --Turdus 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please re-read my comment above containing the words "unicity distance". And, while you're here, you might want to quote the section of Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality that you claimed supports your assertion that quantum computers can invert message digests, but have so far been unable to supply. -- The Anome 12:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) Let me help you: the only question that really matters is: are there substantially more messages encoded into ZIME than a biggest possible digest hex number: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. The answer is no. And are not expected to be. And if - we just choose for ZIME2 a longer digest, kind of DoubleZIME. (2) Quantum computers, as described in "The Fabric of Reality" will be able to perform any computing operations in a reasonable amount of time (in fact at almost no time!). If we put this in the context of ZIME, it becomes obvious that a term 'Quantum harddisc' is a good one. --Turdus 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That's not consistent with your earlier claim of unbounded information storage. The important question is not how many messages you expect to encode during the lifetime of the system (which will obviously be less that 2^128) but the space of possible messages. Let's take your comment above as an example. It is 570 characters long, and thus has an information entropy in excess of 500 bits. It is almost certain that another "meaningful" message of similar length (indeed, billions upon billions of such messages) will have the same MD5 digest, and that it is therefore impossible to uniquely recover that message from its MD5 digest. If we widen our scope to include the entire set of meaningful messages of information entropy 500 bits, the "almost certain" becomes an absolute mathematical certainty. This applies regardless of whether you have a conventional computer and an unbounded length of time for brute forcing the message, a hypothetical quantum computer of performing any computable task, or even access to a hypothetical hypercomputer. I have said this before, in several different ways. Putting the members of a larger set in one-to-one correspondence with a smaller set, which is what your compression scheme amounts to, is simply impossible. Even if you have a quantum computer. -- The Anome 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) By now we have encoded near 400.000 ZIMES - each of them unique. Is the "unicity distance" big enough? I really do not insist to leave the theoretical claim of Quantum Harddisc in this article if its too controversial. But I think its worth mentioning it in some form. And: we have tested ZIME digest (DWD) against MD5 with the result that DWD produced much less redundant outcomes. E.g. we encoded 2.3 Mio different data sets with DWD and every single digest was unique. (2) A ZIME Quantum Harddisc theory is strongly supported also by the prominent physicist Prof. Dr. Andris Buikis, who is also a member of ZIME Foundation. (3) Even more important than decoding I regard the verification functionality i.e. only the person who has produced a certain ZIME can reproduce it again. --Turdus 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The question is not whether you can digest a set of a few million distinct messages and not have collisions (you could, for example, reasonably expect to digest about 2^64 randomly generated messages before seeing an MD5 collision -- see the birthday paradox to understand the reason for this particular number), but whether you can do this to the much larger set of all possible candidate messages. The difference in size between these two spaces is sufficiently big to make them qualitatively different: 2^512, for example, is 13,407,807,929,942,597,099,574,024,998,205,846,127,479,365,820,592,393,377,723,561,443,721,764,030,073,546,976,801,874,298,166,903,427,690,031,858,186,486,050,853,753,882,811,946,569,946,433,649,006,084,096, which is somewhat larger than 2.3 million. One is sufficiently large to overwhelm the message digest algorithm, the other one isn't. And this is only for 512-character natural-language messages: hardly "unlimited" storage. -- The Anome 08:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or non-notable Latvian divination or cryptographic method. Lacks multiple independent verifiable sources. Edison 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ - according to Edison (what a vanity!) the central EXPO 2000 project of Latvia is not worthy to be on WikiPedia??? "Non-notable Latvian divination" - somebody, pls send this guy to the WikiDesert :) --Turdus 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't strictly a vote, but please note that it's still bad form to say "keep" three times. Traditionally, on subsequent comments, you say comment instead of repeating your position as to not be confusing. BigDT 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm still trying to decide if zime is a cult or an algorithm. BigDT 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment & Speedy Keep :)~~ - dear BigDT, zime is both and much more! Just let me complete the article! BTW have you already got your own ZIME? --Turdus 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've struck through three duplicate "keeps" by Turdus, who is also the original article poster. I was wondering why there were so many "keep" comments for this. Remember, AfD is not a vote: and even if it was, voting multiple times (four, at the latest count) is unlikely to persuade others of the merits of your argument: and, again, if it was a vote, after removing the duplicates, I make it four "deletes" against one "keep" so far, with the one "keep" coming from the original author of the article. -- The Anome 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Dear Anome, its a really bad style to strike through other users comments. I like big bubbles because they use to burst in so many funny ways! :) And: one good KEEP against 1000 stupid DELETES must win in a really good WikiPedia! --Turdus 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you would like to remove your duplicate "keep" comments yourself, rather than "vote" multiple times? -- The Anome 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - No, thanks. If I vote many times I really mean it! BTW AfD strictly speaking is not a vote, as somebody already correctly said (oh, that was you!). --Turdus 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. No notable independent sources exist (i.e., other than the web sites created by the "founders" of ZIME there are no other reviews / references of it) QuiteUnusual 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What exactly is not verifiable for you? That the EXPO 2000 took place? That Latvia participated with ZIME project? Or you believe nothing that you cannot touch? --Turdus 02:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What is not verifiable is ZIME. Feel free to write an article about EXPO 2000 if you want. The fact that the EXPO took place is an irrelevance to the verifibility of the claims about something that was showcased there QuiteUnusual 11:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you can demonstrate this, you could probably justify a one-sentence mention of it in the EXPO 2000 article, without the impossible claims of infinite information storage. (Oh, look, there is one.) If you can't demonstrate this through citing independent, reliable sources, then this article is an automatic delete, together with that sentence. Please see WP:V and WP:OR. -- The Anome 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Is the book "The Fabric of Reality" by the Oxford professor David Deutsch reliable enough source for you or it also contains "impossible claims"? --Turdus 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Go on then, tell us where David Deutsch tells us a quantum computer can invert a message digest. -- The Anome 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Read the book - its really worth it! And I hope you will discover much more then a simple method of inverting a message digest. --Turdus 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've read it. I find it interesting that you think I haven't. I certainly can't remember your project being mentioned anywhere in it. So, to reiterate, can you show me where David Deutsch tells us a quantum computer can uniquely invert a message digest? -- The Anome 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my comment about the book above. --Turdus 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please see my reply above. Claims about the computational power of quantum computers are irrelevant to the counting argument, which holds even if you have a magic box instead of a computer, provided that the magic box gives a consistent output for each input. -- The Anome 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy merge. A Train ^{take the} 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Agilism[edit]

Contested prod, several suggestions to merge with Agile software development. Perel 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per self, this isn't notable enough for its own article but would be a good paragraph or two in the main article. Perel 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Agile software development - useful as a view on the latter.--Michig 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why even bring this to AfD if you want to merge it? A Train ^{take the} 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Essjay (Talk) 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"School Riot"[edit]

We must not go down the road of allowing articles on individual episodes of game shows unless they are so notable as to demand it. Debralee Scott's outrage to the contrary, this is trivial past the point of minutae. Otto4711 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this content can be merged into the main Match Game article. This can be its own section. I will add the merge tag to the article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 17:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Compare The Newlywed Game#"In_the_butt, Bob". That's the only game show episode ever that I'd consider notable, and it's barely a solid paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already included in the main Match Game article int the "references in pop culture" section. Just delete this. Otto4711

Merge per Newlywed Game example Subwayguy 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Already in the main article, not too noteable anyway. FirefoxMan 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable tv show episode. Edison 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or, failing that, very very weak Keep. I actually watched that episode just two days ago (it's on disc 2 of the DVD box set). It did show up on the TV Guide "memorable moments of TV history" list and seems to be one of the things about the show people remember best (In an interview on the disc, Brett Somers said the contestent was "robbed" and that Rayburn "lost control" of the show at that point). It also shows up on loads of clips shows and countdowns and such, like the recent "50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time" on GSN. I'd prefer it in the show's article instead of its own, but it definitely should be discussed somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It doesn't require an article by itself. A merge should do it. Insanephantom 08:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It can be covered adequately in the Match Game article. Adding some detail there (the question that was being asked, the Brett Somers comment mentioned by Andrew Lenahan) won't clutter the article. JamesMLane t c 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Match Game - as per nom. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 06:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4 and salt. Natalie 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Gatto[edit]

Renominating for AFD. The article has been repeatedly remade despite the fact that it was deleted per the previous AFD. It has been speedy deleted at least twice. I am renominating it for standard AFD in order to ask that it be protected from being created again. The Filmaker 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per nom. Absolutely not notable, doesn't need this constant re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this should redirect to something like List of minor characters in The Godfather, but as such a list doesn't seem to exist, Delete. Carom 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I wouldn't be opposed to salting, either. If List of minor characters in The Godfather ever gets created, they can go through DRV to get it unsalted and get a sectioned redirect. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2[edit]

Contested prod. User:Plumcouch's prod reason was: "There are rumours on several gossip magazines about this movie, but no official statement from a verified source, like Rediff, TimesOfIndia, etc. I officially suggest to delete it since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there are no sources according to WP:RS. Comments?" This was apparently recreated after an AfD in November, but since the concern is crystal balling, it might use another look a month later. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article provides no evidence that the AFD last month got the wrong answer when it deleted the prior article - which I am absolutely convinced was in better shape than this. GRBerry 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though there probably will be a Don 2, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and until there is an official statement, either from the producers, Shah Rukh Khan himself, or anything else that constitutes a reliable source, there is no basis for an article. No prejudice to recreate when such an announcement is available. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Kaos[edit]

Only notability asserted relates to ACW. However, all ACW links in the article are dead-ends, and there are no other mentions of Anarchy Championship Wrestling on Wikipedia. Akihabara 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know next to nothing about wrestling, but I can evaluate a google search. This one gives one or more musicians that use the name top billing. I can tell this isn't a hoax, but don't see any reliable sources out there. The article doesn't cite any sources, so I think deletion is the right answer as there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO. GRBerry 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael 'Warble" Finucane[edit]

Twice prodded. Plain old WP:BIO concerns. He's an artist. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Orphaned article, non-notable subject, and I doubt it can be helped.--SUIT 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter is non-deserving of an article, soaked with POV and non-encyclopedic in its tone. The fact that this article hasn't even been Wikified to camouflage it from discerning eyes is an insult to us all. Flush this article like a dead goldfish. ◄HouseOfScandal ►18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability; was also subject of spam campaign. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete sickeningly written vanity article. Danny Lilithborne 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apalling tone suggests authorship by Finucane or his publicist. Despite my request on the talk page, no refs provided. -- RHaworth 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, author has cleaned up some of the most excessive prose, but the WP:BIO issues remain. Kuru ^talk 04:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrKiernan 12:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jay(Reply) 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial governors in 1747[edit]

Unneeded page Zack3rdbb 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --S onicChao ^talk 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's an entire category for different years, and I believe that whatever action is taken must include all of these articles. TSO1D 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, taking a look at Category:Lists of colonial governors by year it seems there is quite the list building up here. Seems like somebody has done a lot of work. Whether or not this kind of page needs to be deleted, I don't know, but I'll need more than "Unneeded page" as an argument. FrozenPurpleCube 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly part of a long series, potentially encyclopedic as it develops, let's see where it goes. Plus the modern ones are certainly legitimate and where does one draw the line date-wise? Newyorkbrad 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There really is no reason to remove only one part of a very long series. TSO1D 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potentially encyclopedic but needs a lot of expansion. Let's see where this one goes. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've extended it a bit, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per nybrad & tso. we have lists of leaders etc per year. i'm entirely unconvinced of the utility of this whole genera of lists, but afd of one example is not place to deal with that issue. ⇒ bsnowball 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back 2 '93[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Google doesn't know about it, and the article is unreferenced. --Chris (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. J Di ^talk 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. --S onicChao ^talk 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling at best, a hoax at worst. —ShadowHalo 22:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many "keep" opinions were not conducive to establishing consensus. Remember, AfD is not a vote, and just saying "keep, he's notable" is not very persuasive (see also the essay WP:ILIKEIT). At any rate, WP:NOR could not be overridden even by a "keep" consensus, if there were one; this article appears to be largely original research judging from the thin sourcing. This result doesn't preclude the recreation of the article in a form compliant to WP:BIO, WP:NOR and WP:COI – i.e., by someone else than Jeff Rosenbaum himself. Sandstein 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rosenbaum[edit]

Apparently written by the subject of the article, no outside sources, questionable notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 16 December 2006 (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}}.

Speedy Delete - Autobiographical, directly copied from subject's bio here. If it's not self-penned it's a copyvio. However, users edit history and comments about self makes it pretty clear to me it's self-penned. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addendum - However, edit history and diffs should stay accessible via some means while other actions against user are in progress. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will have access to a deleted article, what is needed is a mention on the user's talk page that the article they wrote was deleted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Violates WP:AB, WP:NN, WP:COI, self-aggrandizing.

From Wikipedia's Policy on Conflict of Interest:

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Rosencomet, the creator of this entry has violated everyone of these policies. - WeniWidiWiki 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and others. TSO1D 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This and related articles are the subject of a pending Request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple interviews and media appearances meet WP:BIO. Also, it is not a copyvio as ACE gave permission to contribute text from their speaker bios to Wikipedia. —Hanuman Das 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - And who was it who gave this permission? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who or where was permission given from ACE? I must have missed this. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's around somewhere. The person who wrote the bios gave permission, IIRC, which clearly is their right to give. —Hanuman Das 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in, Rosencomet gave himself permission to re-post what he had written for the rosencomet.com website here on Wikipedia. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hun, you know what they say about assumptions, it makes an ass out of u & me. —Hanuman Das 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, HD, I am not your "hun". This attempt at belittling another editor, and your calling other editors "asses" violates WP:CIVIL. Of course, you are free to call yourself whatever you like. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that Hanuman Das screwed up the joke, Biff Tannen-style. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this meets WP:BIO. All the cites sources and media apears to be trivial in nature.--Isotope23 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above and per nom. Mattisse 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was interviewed along with other notable neopagans in RE/Search special edition on Modern Pagans: an Investigation of Contemporary Ritual (Re/Search) by V. Vale & John Sulak. This is a litmus test for notablity in the neopagan community. Notability is not an issue, regardless of what other issues there may be. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree. Modern Pagans is representative of "pop-paganism" and the commercialization and co-opting of neopaganism by profiteers and people with political agendas. Comparing Rosenbaum along side the lives and works of other personalities in the book like Isaac Bonewits, Ronald Hutton or Margot Adler, I'd still have to conclude that he is not notable. He holds a BA and his claim to fame is being a venue promoter - as per his own autobiographical entry. - WeniWidiWiki 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been involved in the Pagan community since the early '80s, and know many of the people in the Re/Search book (ironically enough, I'm also in it), as well as some of the folks involved in its production. However, I have *never* heard *anyone* refer to the book as any sort of "litmus test for notability". Vale and John interviewed a number of people they met at Starwood, and those they knew through friends in California. It is very focused on the West Coast and a particular subset of the Neopagan community, and while interesting for what it is, I never heard anyone involved in the project refer to it as an attempt to focus on those who are "notable". Some in the book are quite notable, others are simply people they thought were interesting or who were friends of theirs. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The litmus test for notablity is this AfD. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobiography from a serial spammer. If the subject is genuinely notable (possible) we can wait until a neutral third party decides to write an article. It's going to be virtually impossible to have a rational debate about the thing until after the RfArb closes, and in the mean time this is vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per JzG. Not all that notable to begin with, and the self-authored vanispamcruftisement ain't helping matters. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, started as an autobiography, but notable. Fred Bauder 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user is a member of ArbCom. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per Fred Bauder. Frater Xyzzy 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well researched, well referenced, and goes far beyond any bio existing elsewhere. The references include books, newspapers, and well-respected journalists like Paul Krassner. There's a discography and a list of media appearances. The attempt to delete is not, IMO, based on the quality of the article or the notability of the subject, but is part of a multi-front attack on the author during an ongoing mediation. If someone else had written it, these calls for deletion would not have been made. Rosencomet 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:AFD "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." --BostonMA ^talk 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you this nomination is not an attack on you, but an attempt to gather consensus on what I feel to be an article not meeting our standards. If someone else had written it, it wouldn't be in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeff Rosenbaum is a MAJOR part of the neopagan scene in the Northeast (and, because of the size of Starwood, nationally); his work for the last 3 decades holding Starwood together is a huge contribution to that scene. He is responsible for putting together MANY notables who would not otherwise be working together. As a regular Starwood and WInterstar speaker, I write from experience. Rosenbaum's work is one of the main reasons the Church of the SUbGenius relocated from Texas to Cleveland, and (just as one example of hundreds) my current work as an instructor with Robert Anton Wilson's Maybe Logic University would not have happened had Rosenbaum not invited both RAW and myself to events in the past. Although Jeff is not known as a writer, especially, he is most certainly known very widely as an organizer -- not just a promoter. He is as important to the neopagan community as any of the (hundreds of) speakers and writers he has brought to the ACE events. If Larry Harvey is notable for Burning Man then Jeff Rosenbaum is certainly notable for Starwood! I do not understand why there is so much resistance to listing a person who is definitely one of the primary movers in the East Coast neopagan movement. RevStang 09:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the above user's 9th edit. [47] --BostonMA ^talk 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep This subject should not be deleted as I think it is notable enough to stay Nialofbork 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Nialofbork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, user is notable... regardless of the fact who originally wrote this, it needs NPOVing and some clean up... not deletion. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per various keep arguments above. Jefferson Anderson 17:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote due to unexpected harassment. Clearly I've stepped in something smelly. Going elsewhere to hose off my shoes. Jefferson Anderson 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006 --BostonMA ^talk 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, a quick look at usr's contribs will indicate that this account is not a single purpose account and could not be a sock intended to sway the vote since the account was created before the article was nominated. Therefore the above comment was made in bad faith merely to attempt to discredit my opinion. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short look at usr's contribs seems to indicate that the statement The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006 is correct. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is meaningless to this AfD as this is not a single-purpose account! I request that admins warn User:BostonMA about trying to discredit another editor's position. I have done nothing to deserve this editor's hostile action which amounts to a personal attack except to vote theother way in this AfD than he or she did. Jefferson Anderson 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I think it is inappropriate for BostonMA and HighInBC to try to discredit or trivialize the votes of some of those above with comments about how long they've been editors or how many edits they've made, and I think these comments should be taken down. Rosencomet 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Single purpose account, this is a common practice accepted by the community. Neither of us has said these people are not credible, but simply have pointed out they are very new to the project. Any inference drawn from that statement is unrelated to the post that the user is new. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Except that this is NOT a single-purpose account, see my contribs. Jefferson Anderson 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nobody said you were, BostonMA only said The first edit for the above editor is 4 Dec. 2006, which the logs show as true. Saying something that is true about another editor is not some sort of insult to you. Nobody has attacked your as a person, BostonMA has simple made a note to help the closing admin. The experience and history of those casting opinions should be taking into account. This is not a vote, but a discussion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not a technique one uses in a "discussion", not was it relevant regardless of it's technical "truth". There are PLENTY of "true" irrelevant things you could refer to about someone to discredit him/her: "The person making this statement is a Jew", or "a woman" or "has no college degree". Just because the statement is true doesn't mean it wasn't designed to denegrate the subject. This was an obvious attempt to trivialize Jefferson Anderson's input by IMPLYING that it should be given less note. I do not have any contact with this individual, nor do I know who he is. He may have a great deal of knowledge to apply to this issue, regardless of when his account was opened. I see he has been complimented by Pigman for his input elsewhere, but I don't see him saying anything now. I agree that J.A. should not be treated this way. Rosencomet 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid opinion, however, the community has reached a consensus that admin's should take into account a variety of factors when closing and AfD. The religion, gender, level of education etc should not be taken into account. The level of experience the user has in Wikipedia and the level in which the argument takes into account our policies are valid things for the admin to consider. I once again say that this is not personal. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - user is notable, article could use some clean-up, but subject is plainly worth including — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.211.13 (talk • contribs) 11:42, December 21, 2006 (1 edit in contributions)
Weak Delete on a gut feeling. Seems spammish, notablity seems borderline. Just H 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Auto and WP:COI and because it fails WP:Bio per Isotope23. In particular, note the statement above by Rosencomet (Jeff Rosenbaum, as I understand it) that this article "goes far beyond any bio existing elsewhere." Wikipedia is not the place to write a biography about yourself, particularly one that goes far beyond the coverage you've received in independent reliable sources. --TheOther Bob 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. What policy says that the Wikipedia article on a subject can't be more complete than other articles? Are you saying that no Wiki article can be anything but derivative of other articles elsewhere? Rosencomet 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia is not for original research, and articles must be based on reliable external sources. An article based on someone's own perceptions rather than external sources violates Wikipedia's official policy (no original research), and one of its most central guidelines (use of reliable sources). So the answer to your question is, yes, that's precisely what I'm saying - articles must be derivative of external sources and not be original research. I think this article fails that test. --TheOther Bob 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree on this in several ways. First, a Wiki article can combine several sources and thereby become a more complete bio than any other single one that you might come across, partly because the others might have been created to fulfill a specific purpose rather than be a general article abut the person. Second, most bios DON'T require references and sources, which is why I originally said (as you can read) that this one goes beyond others. It is not just a bio, which has been done before, but an ARTICLE with references to interviews, written works, and a discography which has not been assembled in such a form before. I expect this is true of many Wiki articles. There is a difference between original research and the results one can get by gathering existing information and assembling a more complete profile than anyone has done before, and linking it with relevant other pages. I think the subject is notable and the article is worth keeping, and I'd appreciate help improving it rather than shooting it down. Perhaps some of the material is not sufficiently important, and/or the copy can sound more encyclopedic. Fine, please advise. But the tone of this discussion has not been one of an attempt to be helpful. Rosencomet 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address the last four sentences of your response, which I think are off-topic. (Sorry, that's how they look to me.) As to the rest, articles require references and sources. If this were, as you say, an article that was pieced together from many different reliable sources, it would be fine. But I've seen no evidence that this was pieced together from external reliable sources. It seems instead to be an autobiography that goes far beyond any sources, and that therefore violates WP:OR and WP:RS (and WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:Bio). That's why I think it should be deleted. --TheOther Bob 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like they established notability, and I see lots of non-trivial media coverage and interviews. What more do you need? Keep based on all that and the other arguments here... Moscatanix 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit by the above account was made 13 December 2006 --BostonMA ^talk 13:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence I also think the media coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Note that the media coverage does not merely mention the subject in passing, but mentions him as being notably related to the main topics of that coverage, such as the Starwood festival. With regard to the arguments about original research: yes, there is certainly a problem with original research in this article. These problems would need to be cleaned up if the article is kept. My big concern is that if all of the unpublished material is removed, would there really be much left to say, other than that Rosenbaum is a moving force behind ACE, Starwood etc? --BostonMA ^talk 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article was created not only as autobiography but as part of a spam campaign. Wikipedia already has enough systemic bias through the inevitable demographics of legitimate editors. Letting articles made as spam stay in the encyclopedia tilts Wikipedia's contents too much towards their interests regardless of whether the individual article subjects actually meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is the whole-encyclopedia version of the WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy that applies within individual articles. Articles created this way should be deleted and temporarily salted until attention is no longer focused on them. After unsalting, it should be left to unconflicted editors to possibly eventually recreate the article, unbiasing the selection. See also Foundation counsel Brad Patrick's remarks on the issue:

We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. [48]

-- 67.117.130.181 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First edit by the above IP was made on 14 November 2006. --BostonMA ^talk 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason this has not been closed? As the nominator I should not be the one to do so. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lin[edit]

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

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

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

This looks like it is either a self-grandeurising autobio, a joke, or otherwise a hoax. Googling for "Stephen Lin" gives nothing of relevance, the article is unsourced, and the "references" section is a list of academic papers which seems to have nothing to do with the subject (they're not even authored by him). The external links speak for themselves. The article article starter and image uploader are both accounts used only for this article. Clayboy 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage. He would have been in grade school when he claims he invented Cipro. Fan-1967 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Encyclopedia Dramatica link ends up on a sex page. Fan-1967 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Autobiography and/or apparent hoax Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 20:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. (Don't most people wear suits to medical conventions?) Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep helped promote gene replacement therapy, was keystone in those times. --68.126.1.203 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work is obviously important to the Health Community and Humanity as a whole. Puntme 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you people think this isn't credible. You can contact him yourself at Emory U. I am a colleague of his and a fellow staff member on board of information. We strive for accuracy in the information publicly posted of our staff members. I would be glad to give you any information you want to deem this a "credible" article, but as far as I'm concerned, it already is. Rasburried — Rasburried (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per WP:HOAX. 19 year old genius and inventor of Ciprofloxacin. 1 Ghit. Wikipedia is not myspace. Ohconfucius 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only apparent source seems to be Myspace. No relevant hits on Google Scholar or Google that I can find. No luck finding any relevant hits on Infotrac or other services, yet. Luna Santin 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per this legal filing, Bayer filed the first patents on Cipro in 1980-81, years before this kid was born. Fan-1967 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In regards to your note, Luna Stalin, there are a lot of dates on that page. And filing a patent does not mean that it was created that year. They can reserve the rights to it. Moreover, no where in the Stephen Lin article does it say he invented the drug, but rather worked on it. You know there are different methods of producing drugs? Who's to say he didn't find a more efficient way? I contributed to this article with the impression that the information given to me, and that I researched was accurate and I stand by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.240.26 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment We don't keep articles because somebody claims it conceivably might be true. We only keep articles that are Verifiable from Reliable Sources. No sources have been produced to support any of this, and every search indicates that this kid is a nobody with a myspace page. Fan-1967 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a Hoax!!! --Escondites talk 05:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMr. Lin is a very intelligent man. His contributions to the medical field are, while not widely known, very important. He can be contacted at Emory University in Atlanta.- LOWAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.249.45 (talk • contribs)
Delete Clearly a hoax. Just in case anyone really was wondering:

The MySpace page directly contradicts information in this article which states "At the age of 7, Lin skipped High school entirely and went directly to UC Berkeley". Where-as according to MySpace, Mr Lin attended Thousand Oaks High School from 2002 to 2005.
Nothing on the MySpace page mentions anything about Mr Lin's genius or his work. It looks like a fairly typical adolescent kid's MySpace page.
It says he works for a non-existant company (Ramos-Loch Pharmaceuticals).
The article clearly states he is the "co-creator" of Ciprofloxacin, a drug that was around (and manufactured) long before Mr Lin was even born.
His father is named as Kim Jong Nil (sound familiar?) who came from "Americatown" in China (a non-existant Chinese town, which is a play on our own Chinatown term).
And finally, nothing in the page is verifiable anywhere. Yay unto the Chicken 11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doc^g 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precocious[edit]

Somewhat checkered history for such a small article. Was created by User:Precociousone with a C&P from a dictionary,then tagged for speedy as a copyvio. The original editor then rewrote it, removing the copyvio, and I prodded it, as a dicdef. User:86.134.221.85 then blanked the page (removing the prod)& rewrote it again. None of these rewrites have substantially addressed the real matter here, which is that this is a dictionary definition and can never grow beyond that. The same editor has also created Contumely and removed the speedy tag under similar circumstances. Dina 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hope that Wikitionary already has this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Dicdef, copyvio Bwithh 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Wiktionary instead. --Metropolitan90 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. TSO1D 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro - WP:WINAD Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 20:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Precociousness would be a better article title, and the article could talk about the prevalence of precociousness, its effects and causes, etc. And once you conjure what the article could contain, it seems intuitive from the term's relative broadness that this does not belong to an encyclopaedia. —Goh wz 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social and Vocational Skills[edit]

I think this article should be deleted because it seems to lack any importance or notability whatsoever which is highlighted by the fact that only one other article links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Large Barge (talk • contribs)

Keep - lots of references in Google, seems to be a standard subject in schools in Scotland.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavern Nagger[edit]

Non-notable minor character. Otto4711 20:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

Ida Lee Nagger, his fictional TV wife.
Delete as minor character from the skit show Hee Haw, or alternately create a list of Hee Haw characters and merge/redirect. -- saberwyn 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Essjay (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Batty[edit]

Delete - character is already mentioned in the article Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine, does not warrant a separate article. Otto4711 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So merge and redirect, no need for deletion.--Sandy Scott 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Pathlessdesert 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. None of the other characters have their own articles. I also think she'd count as a major character, for whoever does the merge. Tevildo 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as there's nothing different from her entry in the character list to merge apart from an unsourced comment on battleaxe housewives being referred to as Nora Batty. QuagmireDog 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, redirect to the list of characters. QuagmireDog 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 10:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Lampone[edit]

Minor character from The Godfather films, that has an entire page devoted to him. The article cannot be expanded beyond a stub and is barely worth mentioning in the Godfather film articles. The Filmaker 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A redirect to The Godfather would serve, but I'm not completely sold on the uselessness of this page. Danny Lilithborne 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with other minor character articles (and brief blurbs about major characters) into a List of characters in The Godfather series, per WP:FICT. — TKD::Talk 09:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton P.S.[edit]

Sub-stub offering no information of any value. Unsourced. Not mentioned in any of the articles about the region or district, so may be unverifiable. Has been tagged for at least 6 months as needing cleanup and expansion; none has occurred. A prod back in April was disputed on the grounds that expansion and cleanup would occur, so I'm bringing this here rather than prodding it again. Shimeru 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has a prod (with poor rationale) in its history, and a deprod (possibly with explanation on talk, which just says that the prod had a bad rationale). This directory entry has been marked for cleanup for long enough. There is no sourcing, so there is no use of independent sources to establish notability. GRBerry 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. Titanium Dragon 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Essjay (Talk) 10:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licio Lucchesi[edit]

Article is barely even a stub. Even still it can barely be expanded as the character, while important to the plot of The Godfather Part III, lurks in the shadows and rarely says anything. The extent of his characters baring on the plot of the film is covered in The Godfather Part III, therefore to keep this article, even it was expanded, would be redundant and pointless. The Filmaker 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Godfather Part III. Useless as an article. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Danny Lilithborne, or merge and redirect with other minor character articles (and brief blurbs about major characters) into a List of characters in The Godfather series. — TKD::Talk 09:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr-Reno[edit]

Who is this person? How do we know he is 12 years old when we do not even know his name? Aleph-4 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, no relevant ghits. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's either a hoax or just non-notable, but whatever it is, it needs to go fast. TSO1D 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX-DE SU 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though given the state of CAT:CSD, doubtless the speedy tag I just put on the article won't matter. Moreschi 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon major themes[edit]

The article consists of one hundred percent original research, making interpretive claims about a primary source. — coelacan talk — 21:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yuck. Painfully obvious OR. Moreschi 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, pure OR. TSO1D 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, full of original research-DE SU 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Just H 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (cannot merge to non-existant page). Essjay (Talk) 10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fanucci[edit]

Article is a stub and cannot be expanded beyond it's current state without useless trivia. The character and his baring on the events of The Godfather Part II are already covered in the corresponding article. So there is no point to keeping this article. The Filmaker 22:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 22:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important character, and the article is fine the way it is right now. Wikipedia is not helped by deleting this article. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's important....... and? He's covered in The Godfather Part II. The article is not fine, it has no references, no external links no information that is not covered in other articles. It brings nothing to the table or Wikipedia. It's just taking up space on Wikipedia's server, that is why deleting it would "help Wikipedia". The Filmaker 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with other minor character articles (and brief blurbs about major characters) into a List of characters in The Godfather series, per WP:FICT. — TKD::Talk 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect per nom. Just H 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. Essjay (Talk) 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New old stock[edit]

Delete - article is duplicate of inventory. In accounting there is no such term as "New old stock". Just use #REDIRECT to "Inventory". Octopus-Hands 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not be a formal accounting term, but it's in common use. A google search comes up with 565,000 hits. Among the top few are [49], [50], and [51]. There is nothing in inventory which discusses the concept, so a plain redirect would be inappropriate. It might make sense to merge the two articles, and then leave a redirect behind, but I think it's a reasonable enough topic to stand on its own. Full disclosure: I'm the article's original creator. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an accountant I can vouch that this group of words is not "Accounting Terminology" Octopus-Hands 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the problem is just that somebody put it into Category:Accountancy. If the objection is that it's not an accounting term, then the solution might be to just re-catagorize it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recategorized this to fall into categories of auction terms rather than accounting. Tubezone 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, it's not an accounting term, but it is in wide use, and sort of a point of controversy as with really old stuff it's sometimes difficult to tell what's new old stock and what's just used and cleaned up. If there's an objection to this the objection should be that without some expansion it's basically a dicdef. Tubezone 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge and redirect to Inventory. I have already merged in the first paragraph (the rest fails WP:OR as unsourced but can be added if sources are cited}. This was always going to remain a stub as a stand alone article. BlueValour 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, but I don't see the need for speedy action. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 by Chairboy. Tevildo 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication C.C[edit]

This is a hoax article and is pure invention, probably by schoolboys; it completely fails all WP tests of notability BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Tubezone 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 22:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There's no serious assertion of notability, nor any references, even if it's true, it was an informal one-shot team. Don't understand why speedy tag was pulled on this, except admins are loath to pull the delete trigger on anything tagged as a hoax. Tubezone 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be only a little bit of fun mate, with these boys only looking for a laugh. It seems the tournament runs until 30th December so it may be deleted after that....Are you the WP master or someone fed up with the admins? Get over it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Del horno15 (talk • contribs).

Strong Delete or even Speedy Delete per comment right above. Also, this team doesn't meet any notability criteria. Might meet WP:HOAX or WP:NFT though.--Hús ö nd 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Glowacki[edit]

Delete WP:BIO - The article is extremely short, and the subject does not meet the Notability requirements. Cyrus Andiron 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual is simply not notable enough. TSO1D 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Because he is a paralypic athlete, this entry meets the following guideline; Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by National Speaker (talk • contribs).

keep I have seen Matt Glowacki and he is incredibly articulate and gently holds an audience like no other speaker I have heard in years. I am excited that someone finally made an entry for him and placed it on Wikipedia.

Matt dispalys pure genius in his presentations that touches us all with insight that disarms and tares down the walls of separation so he can weave his witty but factual tales that connects us all. Not everyman but the man that speaks to everyone about everything making all relevant and bringing all of us into the mix. In late 2001 just a few months after our national disaster his presentation on the commonality of man left not a dry eye in the house and not a laugh unused. A social commentator with rye humor and a compassionate soul with love to share he spoke to us each with what we required. The best, the very best! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.35 (talk • contribs).

Abstain as Matt's father was one of my teachers. I can't condone the apparent WP:COI violation. On the other hand, notability guidelines for athletes state, "played in ... a competition of [professional] standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports". As a systemic bias point, I believe that Paralympic athletes should be accorded the same guidelines as Olympic athletes. The article would have to be substantially revised to meet Wikipedia standards. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:N - multiple, non-trivial independent publushed references. Notability is not subjective and this article should stay. Ccscott 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob callahan[edit]

The subject of this article is a non-notable science fiction and fantasy author whose books are self-published and rank in the hundred-thousands at best on Amazon. NatusRoma | Talk 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish notability - no book reviews by reliable sources, no articles about the author. Mytildebang 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What ain't self-published is trivial. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also suspect WP:AUTO. DrKiernan 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'zShadow[edit]

Non-notable software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. No references. Article creator has no other notable contributions to the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. —ShadowHalo 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom --tgheretford (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; notability appears to have been sufficiently demonstrated for this to be covered somewhere; those supporting moving and/or merging the content to an article with a different scope are free to pursue that in the usual way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Rape in Cyberspace[edit]

The tone of this article is terrible, but more to the point it's ultimately a recounting of a single newspaper article. Maybe if there were multiple reliable sources we could have an article on "cyberrape" (whatever that is, exactly), but writing an article about a specific incident on a MUD and a specific newspaper article... it's just not notable, and not particularly verifiable either. Therefore delete. SCZenz 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my views on this, in the face of new information and significant improvements to the introduction of the article. I would still like to see the rest cleaned up, but there's no reason to delete. My new "vote" is below. Thanks to Dhartung for the hard work! -- SCZenz 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly sourced and really non-notable. TSO1D 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs sourcing. This was an enormously influential article that has been reprinted numerous times, e.g. by The Independent[52]. The article influenced Lawrence Lessig[53], who eventually published work citing it[54], and it continues to be discussed a decade later[55]. There are book citations as well.[56] --Dhartung | Talk 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any articles about the article that would help establish it's "influential," or just reprints. Also more info about book discussions would be helpful. -- SCZenz 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there any articles about the article that would help establish it's "influential,"" That's what Dhartung just gave you. Not reprints, but third-party citations and citations of citations. This is a clear instance of the first criterion of WP:WEB. Notability established beyond doubt. Dhartung, if you have the time, please add those citations to the article so that evidence of notability is preserved. — coelacan talk — 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread somewhat what he said. Sorry about that. -- SCZenz 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coelancan, thank you for your courteous request (alas, on AFD that usually comes in the form of a scold!). --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I just found 132 hits on Google Books for "dibbell rape.in.cyberspace". --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and 260 hits on Google Scholar (some overlapping GB). --Dhartung | Talk 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. — coelacan talk — 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the WP article and browsed through the ext linked article and it's still unclear what the person actually did. All I can tell is that one person hacked some other people's computers and controlled their characters. The original article externally linked is so vague you can't tell if it's a dream, real life, or someone teleported through someone's computer, or someone broke into a woman's house, or what. Anomo 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an argument for improving the readability of the article, not deleting it. — coelacan talk — 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anomo, you got the gist of it. Dibbell has received criticism for his "immersive" or melodramatic approach to the article (I'd like to find some that's citeable). He was a participant and new to online community and you could say he was drunk on the experience. Then as now some people are dismissive of the event itself, but the importance of the article is a different matter.--Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Either delete or move to Cyberrape~~. It doesn't make much sense to keep an article on the VV piece if we don't even have an article on the concept. And I'm sorry, even if it is supposedly relevant I still can't tell what it is. ~ trialsanderrors 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a particular publication. Moving it to cyberrape would make no more sense than moving The Selfish Gene to evolutionary biology. It doesn't matter if cyberrape isn't already an article in its own right. This particular publication is notable on its own. — coelacan talk — 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T&E:FEQ ~ trialsanderrors 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per changes to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down, move to new stub for Julian Dibbell This is a quite widely cited case study in cyberspace studies, though the article does exaggerate its significance ("it is considered by some to be an important part of science and technology studies" - that's over-egging the pudding rather). I am very surprised that Julian Dibbell does not have an article yet. He's not really a major cyberculture commentator - sort of middling, but would be notable by wikipedia standards I believe. The rape in cyberspace story was his big breakthrough, and he's done other interesting work. I don't think this case deserves its own article (the actual events are not very notable at all), but would be fine as cutdown part of a Dibbell article andor an article on cyberspace crime as trialsanderrors suggests. (the academic context is somewhat notable... but we should address primarily Dibbell not a particular short article he wrote). Bwithh 00:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no clarity, and it's poorly written. But these are not grounds alone for deletion. I can't see anything in this that meets WP:WEB, so delete. --SunStar Net^talk 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a website, so the website criteria are inapplicable. Regardless, if it were, verifiable and scholarly citations would meet WP:WEB in any reasonable interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See withdrawn nomination above. -- SCZenz 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz, I commend you for your open mind, and appreciate the kudos. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The externally linked article is well just horridly unreadbly written. The article appeared to be an improvement, but still a long way to go. What it gets down to appears is just more of a hacking/prank and not a rape. That is, if someone did that to a man, a man wouldn't be in tears, just angry. I'm not sure all women would consider that rape either--hardly embarressment since it's anonymous online. It might be good to rewrite it by referencing notable sources that refer to the article. Anomo 12:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, Anomo. The debate over the meaning of the incident -- and Dibbell's comprehensive (although imperfect) treatment of its implications -- are why the article remains relevant today. There are people who read this and say it was just a prank; some of the participants were hard-pressed to explain why they experienced a prank as if it were sexual assault. That's the crux of Dibbell's essay. In any event, our article isn't here to explain the incident, but to explain the content and context of the essay. --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cybersex or LambdaMOO. Wasn't this a pretty famous article? Still, I'm not sure if an individual news article needs a Wikipedia article of its own. It's points are better discussed in WP articles that discuss the topic of the news article. But either way, it should be discussed in some form. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a "news article", it is an essay. You yourself just called it "pretty famous"; isn't that notability? --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I admit I never read the essay/article/whateveryoumaycallit in full, and it's been time since even looked at it, anyway. =) Anyway, I'm not questioning its notability; What I'm questioning is whether it warrants an article of its own. We don't (last I checked) have an article on, say, "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" (but we have GOTO, and a redirect to Considered harmful), and we don't have an article on that Codd's paper, but we have an article on relational model which points to it. Similar principle could be used here. Books (IMO) warrant articles, essays and individual articles are better off merged to the subjects they cover, unless they're really really REALLY famous and influential. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more (okay I probably could but still). A couple of hundred years ago, it was common to print very long pamphlets instead of books, and there is always the question of what to call a book-length essay that hasn't been published with two outside covers. Articles and anything else that are both notable and verifiable can have their own Wiipedia article. If you're feeling sympathetic toward books, just to balance that, ask yourself, would this essay be notable enough for its own article if it were a book? If the answer is yes, then it should have its own article no matter what format it is published in. Let's discriminate purely on notability, not on format. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Okay, I really wouldn't like to argue about this, but my answer to whether or not an essay needs an article of its own would be a resounding "That depends, but probably not." If I'm saying essays aren't article-worthy and books are, that's just a rule of thumb - like most of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as interpreted every day. We're meant to look at the spirit of our policies rather than the letter; likewise, I can't say my ideas of article merging are universal and unbreakable. In this case, I'd say this is merge material. However, like I said, I'm saying this should be kept in some form. I'm not annoyed if someone elects to just keep this as a stand-alone article for now, and I can't bother to change my boldfaced recommendation because it's probably inconsequential considering other peoples' recommendations. All I'm saying is that please don't turn this into "Article sizes: Wikiality vs. Lutheranism" thing along the lines of "We don't have an article on Codd's relational model article, which has only been described as the most important computer science paper ever published, but we have an article on this cybersex incident." We're also meant to use common sense here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I don't want to argue it further either, but thanks for listening as well as making yourself clear. — coelacan talk — 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collegial discussion is good. ;-) Wwwwolf, the question comes to whether there is sufficient material for an article on a specific essay. A merge recommendation is also problematic as there is no obvious article to merge with such as "cyberrape" (which may not even deserve its own article). The essay touches on aspects of cyber law and digital culture, but also postmodern concepts such as individual identity and the power of language. I know when I read it in the Voice so many years ago, I had no idea it would have this kind of longevity. --Dhartung | Talk 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The sources are fine, it's notable, and so on. Please don't unnecessarily nominate articles for deletion. --Ultra Megatron 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the nomination was reasonable (based on the state of the article), and the nominator was reasonable and has already withdrawn. No scold necessary in this case. We just need a closing admin. --Dhartung | Talk 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it does need some rewriting for the reader (like me) who never heard of any of this before. Dhartung says above that "our article isn't here to explain the incident...." In the abstract, that's true, but one can't really understand our article about Dibbell's article without being clear about what transpired in the underlying incident. JamesMLane t c 10:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanophile[edit]

Made up Internet Insult Slang Duhman0009 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After someone on a message board called me a Japanophile, I decided to Google to see what that meant. Of course, one of the first link proposed on Google was Wikipedia. I was shocked that a made up Internet insult slang had it's own article here. Japanophile is a made-up word with no positive background, it was obviously made up as a last defense resort for debates Japanese Vs English language in Anime and Games.

I would like to nominate this article for deletion since the background of this word holds no water. I would bet $10 that a slang such as Americanophile would be removed from Wikipedia if it was created, so there's no room for Japanophile here either. Duhman0009 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Please list in your comment, if you as an individual is considered by others to be a Japanophile and why. Duhman0009 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles such as Anglophile or Francophile exist, so why shouldn't this one. Besides, it gets about 100k hits, so it isn't that obscure. TSO1D 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so they did make others, I stand corrected. Bah, either way, Wikipedia is no place for made up slangs, that's why we have UrbanDictionary. Duhman0009 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a lot of hits because it's used a lot on message boards, which is the main reason why the Google test doesn't establish notability. Also, the article itself states that the term is derogatory; Anglophile and Francophile are not, so that is apples and oranges. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the term always being derogatory seems incorrect. For instance look at the results from a search for the word on Google Scholoar here. As you can see, Japanophile can also be used in a neutral context, simply describing one's admiration of Japan and its culture. TSO1D 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought this was a common term, but after reading the article, it appears that it has no reliable or verifiable sources in it. Anomo 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up to remove the Internet slang. The word is in Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary (see the entry for Japano-), and Encyclopaedia Britannica uses it (see the article on Kumamoto). "Japanophile" is not a made-up word; it has a positive background. The Internet slang synonyms, by contrast, have no place in this article. Fg2 01:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to a Weak Keep per Fg2's edits. I'd like to see more sources, though. Danny Lilithborne 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legit term Alf photoman 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sbfj 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Japanophile is a legitimate English word, listed in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Dec. 2006) - subscription required. Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry:

Main Entry: ja·pan·o·phile

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): -s

Usage: usually capitalized

Etymology: Japano- + -phile

: one who especially admires and likes Japan or Japanese ways

--Endroit 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember first stumbling over this article a while ago and being shocked to find that a legitimate, neutral word had an article where it was described as merely a synonim of otaku, wapanese, and yellow fever, all of which are derogatory. A great deal of the shock was of course stemming from the fact that as a scholar of Japanese studies, I consider myself a Japanophile, in the neutral meaning of the word, of course. The article is much improved, and if it manages to stay the way it is now, does not merit deletion. However, I do think that if the word has gotten a negative connotation in certain circles, this should be clearly stated as well. No use turning a blind eye to a fact, painful to the "real" Japanophiles among us. TomorrowTime 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I read through the talk page and flicked through the history of the article. Seems there is a lot of interest in this article and a lot of people out there relentlessly trying to push their own understanding of the word as purely derogative and/or trying to enforce some silly vanity pictures. Maybe the article should be semi-protected? TomorrowTime 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Anglophile, francophile, &c. are all valid terms and are not considered slang.[57] (On the other hand AfD hasn't always elected to keep all of the [otherwise valid] -phobe articles.) As always, It's not what you say, it's how you say it that makes the word an insult. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This has nothing to do with the Internet, although that may be the main place it is used in a derogatory way. Is this a good-faith nom? Dekimasu 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a good-faith nomination. When nominated, the article had some pretty questionable Internet stuff in it. Fg2 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be in the dictionary if anywhere.ER ^Talk 07:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it is a pejorative term or used as a pejorative is irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. Since the term has found its way into several respected dictionaries, it is a notable neologism. And finally, if the term is to be transwikied to Wiktionary, then so should all of the other -ophile terms for consistency. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my view, it isn't presently a dictionary definition, and it has plenty of potential for additional encyclopedic content. The caption of the photo of Hearn hints at the possibilities. Japanophiles influenced painting and museum collections, spread ideas and history, popularized food and religion. This takes it well into the realm of the encyclopedia. It's now a stub; Wikipedia encourages stubs to grow. Fg2 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. To date there have been no delete !votes and several speedy keep ones. The keep votes also cite a number of reliable sources to establish its notability. Viridae ^Talk 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PornoTube[edit]

This page was deleted several times, most recently by User:Zoe. Several people have felt that this most recent speedy deletion was improper, per this discussion on ANI. I am putting this up for AfD so it can be decided on once and for all. No opinion. Grand master ka 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Highly notable website. Alexa rank of 205. [58] An indepedent article claiming that the website is very important. [59] Dionyseus 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the creator has actually made a later version here which cites [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] FIVE reliable sources as to its notability, including CNN. Alexa.com ranks it as the 200th most visited website on the planet. Glen 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- multiple, external articles with PornoTube as the subject satisfies WP:WEB. Dylan 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious KEEP no opinion? Maybe you need to to tell us again why this is on here I can't see any reason why? Its meets the criteria? Plenty of outside reasources? Is this a typo why its here?--Xiahou 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that Grandmasterka just wanted to put it through AfD so that a final, consensus decision could be established on the status of the article -- it's been speedied and {{prod}}ed multiple times, and so if AfD sees fit that it stays, it can kind of put to rest the debate over it. Dylan 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Xiahou, it's a procedural nomination via deletion review, which is only supposed to determine whether a deletion process was properly followed. If an article has never had an AFD, or there is a new reason why it should, an administrator makes the nomination without stating an opinion. It's just a procedural handoff.--Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not DRV actually, but protest over a speedy deletion at WP:ANI. Viridae ^Talk 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever the merits of the site, it has numerous independent reliable sources to show its notability, and over 400,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Glen S above. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, references prove notability per WP:WEB. No prejudice against earlier AFDs which were for a substub version of the article. Oh, and move to PornoTube. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, neutral article on a webpage with significant media coverage. -- SCZenz 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple indepedent verifiable sources. Catchpole 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Pathlessdesert 00:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per my comment on WP:ANI Localzuk^(talk) 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glen Mujinga 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a pagerank of 6. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established. No objection to a speedy keep. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 10:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wolfington[edit]

A vanity article that is mostly edited by Seanwolfington (talk · contribs), who also ran a spam campaign to get his name on a lot of articles. The edit history speaks for itself. Danny Lilithborne 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM plus notability not asserted. For me, he doesn't meet WP:BIO QuiteUnusual 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both comments above. Bytebear 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The self-editing/spamming is a problem, but that doesn't mean the subject is not notable. If the article is beyond repair (which I disagree with) but the subject is notable, it can be stubbed to restart. There is an obvious assertion of notability: the subject was one of the producers of Bella (film), a notable film. Please debate the inclusion of this article from first principles (notability, verifiability) rather than only who edited it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 01:56Z

I am Sorry I genuinely did not intend to do anything wrong and i would be happy to fix anything you want me to fix or provide back up information that shows that my biography is accurate. Please advise me on what you would like me to do. Here is a summary of what has happened: First, i did not creat the article about myself. After i found that i had a page i added truthful facts and reviews on the film i made. I did not have the intent to create a "vanity" article. I did add content to other people's articles that linked to a film we made and i am sorry because i just learned that is spamming. I just read the "spamming" link you added to my page and now i realize that what i did was not right. I am genuinely sorry.

Thank you. Sean. User:Seanwolfington / User:76.18.54.173

This excerpt explains what happened to me: "Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it."

I made the recommended correctionAfter discovering my page i updated a few missing facts from my bio and reviews of the film i made. One of the editors suggested that i remove the reviews of the movie i made so i did that today. As for my biographical information, it is all truthful and factual. All of the information on the page has appeared in many other publications and on the web. If you search Yahoo you will find alot of this info. Here is a link: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=sean+wolfington&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 I understand that i have violated some editing guidelines and i would appreciate your advice on how to avoid this in the future. Thank You.User:Seanwolfington / User:76.18.54.173

Keep. Seems to fit notability criteria, and article can be cleaned up without deletion. delldot | talk 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see multiple independent media nontrivial coverage in the Yahoo search - Hollywood Reporter etc. So, it appears to meet WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete the current version as blatant spam. Per discussion article can be recreated as long as it follows our guidelines, especially WP:NPOV, see also WP:COI. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Jones & Walker[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 22:55Z

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was neutral and intentionally had no justification. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 23:50Z
Keep. Russell Jones & Walker are a very prominent solicitors' firm; they are well-known for their aggressive work on behalf the Police Federation, trying to keep policemen out of legal trouble. I know the article at present reads like an advert but perhaps this could be cleaned up? Sam Blacketer 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, blatant advertising, fails WP:COI. Delete, unless this aspect can be significantly improved upon. Pathlessdesert 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Blacketer and Complete Rewrite. Very often in the news, as this BBC search shows. Incidentally, we have an article on Declan Swan but not on Claims Direct; something of an anomaly? Tevildo 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tevildo news search examples and Sam Blacketer. --Oakshade 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 10:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Park Elementary School (Bethel)[edit]

This school article was nominated before in AFD last year but was kept because of all schools are notable it's a school and i like schools reasoning which is mostly moot see here. The article hasn't improved since then and notabily still isn't established,, Merge per WP:LOCAL or Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, this seems non-notable. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge Weighing in as a self-appointed vandalism/spam/crap-reverter of, and occasional content contributor to, Maine and New England-related articles, especially individual-community articles and the like.... I'd err on the side of "all schools are notable," "its a school," and "i like schools" until a more clear standard is established. I took a look at WP:LOCAL and it isn't very clear, IMO. I think some type of (at least somewhat) concrete and objective school notability standard needs to be debated and established. I change my mind (can I do that?--slap me if I'm not supposed to do this). Merge with Bethel, Maine or with a to-be created Maine School Administrative Distict 44 article. Ripogenus77 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete and do not redirect. Frankly, what's the point of having this redirected? 1)Hardly anyone will ever type this exact name when searching for the school. 2)Even if they would, they already know that the school is located in Bethel. What use could it be in redirecting someone to the town article which they did not ask for? --Hús ö nd 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While there is a shred of an argument present, the fundamental questions are 1) should this information be shifted somewhere?, 2) should the stub be retained as a redirect? and 3) how should users be redirected to the target of the merge? In each case, the suggested choice of delete and do not redirect is fundamentally wrong, if not vindictively destructive. There is useful information in this article that could be and should be moved somewhere, and I'm suggesting ~~Bethel, Maine~~ Maine School Administrative District 44. While individuals are unlikely to go directly to the current qualified article, its retention as a redirect will allow any history to be retained in the not so unlikely event that a standalone article can be created from the existing shell at some point in the future. The Crescent Park Elementary School schooldis article should be changed to redirect to ~~Bethel, Maine~~ Maine School Administrative District 44 and avoid the double redirect that would result from a merge/redirect. While I am willing to accept that there are perfectly valid reasons that an article does not stand on its own -- including school articles -- I am disturbed that there are so many who are willing to destroy these articles without taking any effort to see how useful information could be retained via a merge/redirect. Alansohn 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My position is not vindictive, please assume good faith Alansohn. I just don't think that there's anything worth saving from this article and I expect a redirect to be useless. It irks me the notion of having the history kept for the sake of someone improving this article in the future, which I also find useless but there I believe we disagree due to our antagonistic views regarding school notability. Still, I have to express my view and I reiterate my position. But not vindictively, really.--Hús ö nd 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3, which agree on very little, are in agreement that articles that do not meet notability standards as standalone articles be merge/redirected (where possible) rather than deleted. It seems to me to be a staggering example of bad faith to refuse to consider a merge/redirect because it irks you. That one could be irked by the presence of a redirected article goes a long way to further demonstrating that there is a strong level of vindictiveness at work here. Alansohn 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I rest my case.--Hús ö nd 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Husond. Pete.Hurd 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS3 nor WP:SCHOOLS. Not sufficiently notable. -- Kicking222 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we had an article on Maine School Administrative District 44 we might merge it there, but we don't. It doesn't belong to the article on Bethel, because although the school is there, that is not the political institution of which this is a piece. The article doesn't have adequate claims of notability to merit keeping, by the standards at WP:SCHOOLS3. GRBerry 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now an article for Maine School Administrative District 44. Alansohn 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete, not convinced at all about the notability of this school. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge/Redirect to ~~Bethel, Maine~~ Maine School Administrative District 44. I agree that this article does not meet the notability standards set by WP:SCHOOL or WP:SCHOOLS3. However, there is no valid reason not to merge the contents of this article to the municipality. This will allow anyone searching for the school to find the article and allow an expanded article to be created, retaining the existing history, should additional information be available in the future to establish notability for this school on a standalone basis. Alansohn 05:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to bethel maine article makes most sense to me Yuckfoo 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all verified public schools are notable. Just H 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No such hideous policy.--Hús ö nd 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Essjay (Talk) 09:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only In My Dreams 1998[edit]

Delete, the page is redundant. All the information is already present at Only in My Dreams. - Tutmosis 23:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then do a redirect. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Put some note that there was a remix on the Only In My Dreams page (the infobox shouldn't be merged) and redirect Only In My Dreams 1998 to it. —ShadowHalo 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or in the alternative, redirect, all the information presented can be found at the other Only In My Dreams page. Radagast83 07:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as unsourced. Despite the pleas from the many new users the request to provide reliable third-party sources that establish the notability of this product remains unanswered. Keep in mind blog posts and articles on Wikipedia mirrors (Answer.com) are not considered reliable sources. To restore this article, I recommend finding such sources, for instance by using a news search engine such as Google News, Lexis-Nexis or Newsbank. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exif Harvester[edit]

Fails WP:V, nothing to write an article from except the company's website. Recury 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more. However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware. I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today! This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge." DigitalEnthusiast 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Recury 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being freely downloadable by anyone with an internet connection does make it verifiable, as per the scientific method. And if Wikipedia defines its mission as freely sharing "in the sum of human knowledge" when it needs money, there's no reason to go deleting useful human knowledge from Wikipedia. In any case, please hang on for a few days, and I'll either find third-party sources, or concede that they don't exist if I can't find any. DigitalEnthusiast 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use the dictionary definition of "verifiable" for its verifiability policy. It also does not aim to collect the sum of all human knowledge. Your being pedantic about language isn't doing your case any good. Find some third-party, reliable sources, ensure it meets WP:SOFTWARE or it's going to get deleted. Recury 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be pedantic or argue - I'm just explaining my reasoning here. It's news to me that Wikipedia doesn't use the dictionary definition of verifiable, with all the different templates, guidlines, and everything else, there' sa lot to learn and I would have thought that was a pretty safe assumption. Please don't be so rude, and assume good faith. DigitalEnthusiast 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - if this is a borderline case, I think the usefulness of the program is enough to make it notable, and forrest gump obviously has a long history of working to benefit wikipedia. More to the point, if the bloggers are starting to pay attention to a new software tool, it's only a matter of weeks before the major photography web sites begin to review it. Now I use this app every day and I'm starting to see the pattern for how my f number changes focus. It would be a real shame if good information was taken down. 71.216.188.164 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I use this program every day since I learned about it in my local/Seattle photography club. A lot of us use it, and it comes up at almost every Q&A. 24.22.182.212

Keep - I use this to figure out why some of my pictures work and some don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.226.247 (talk • contribs).

Weak delete per nom. Dar-Ape 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The software exists, it's free, and I use it for all my digital pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.106.26.120 (talk • contribs).

Keep - Why delete an article about a great little free program? It's helping me learn how to use my camera better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.227.29 (talk • contribs).

Please keep - my fledgling company built a product around the output for this program. We see a niche for digital photographers who could benefit from OLAP and other types of visualization technology, but aren't experts in IT. This page ( http://catalysticsoftware.com/Products.aspx ) really isn't ready to be viewed by the public, but it shows our intent to help the public use Mr Croce's software. FireWeed 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Note: user's first edit [reply]

Keep - It's free software, folks are happy, so why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.154.89 (talk • contribs).

File:TiogaLake.jpg

Tioga Lake

Strong keep That "Fireweed" has written software that parses the xml Exif Harvester produces, and that it's being picked up by the bloggers ( http://seattletourist.blogspot.com/ ) make this verifiable, although I hope Fireweed's software is free to the end user, as well. Also, the program has more than 1,200 users ( or at least has been downloaded this many times ), some of whom are obviously happy with it. Finally, the software is in existence, well liked, and fills an important gap in the digital photographer's workflow. Please have a look at my contributions here and you'll see I understand digital photography. I've donated all the photos on Tioga Pass, Woodland Park Zoo, Duotone, Yankee Boy Basin, and most of Golden Gardens Park, Red-winged Blackbird, Iron Horse State Park and many more. Exif Harvester plays an important role in my workflow, even with these images - that's why I took the time to write it. ForrestCroce 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That "Fireweed" has written software that parses the xml Exif Harvester produces, and that it's being picked up by the bloggers ( http://seattletourist.blogspot.com/ ) make this verifiable." Sorry, it doesn't. Recury 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The software is free, and I use it for my digital photos.131.142.144.107 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Found out about this on photo.net, and came to Wikipedia to find out more. I'm saddened to learn that someone wants to delete a good source of information like this. I always come to Wikipedia to learn more - it's where I start any kind of learning I want to do, then I branch out from there. And I can't see any reason but spite to take down an article that's useful to a lot of people. I started using the "Exif Harvester" program and it's the easiest thing I can find to shrink my pictures down so they'll fit in an email, but I can see how I'll also learn about how the manual modes work if I put in the time with this program. Plus, the program has a lot of users, who seem happy and vocal, both here and on photo.net. 71.216.188.161 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - For weeks I've been trying to figure out how to parse a exif jpeg with VBA for an Access database. Knowing that this software exists saves me an awful lot of hard work. But more generally, this is an very notable article about an important concept in digital life, filling a gap we face with digital cameras. I'm glad/lucky I found out in time. Knowledge in an encyclopedia shouldn't have an expiration date, though - it would be a disservice to wikipedia's readers to delete this article. 62.189.83.4 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Keep I've been using this for a month and a half. Came to Wikipedia to learn about it then, the article has improved since then, and I bet it'll continue getting better over time. But there are an awful lot of us users, especially for an application that's farely new. Leave the article, let it continue to mature, and let knowledge be available for free. Cult Of Personality 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO)[edit]

Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per G11 (spam). While there are indeed some pov/advertorial issues, I'm not sure they are enough to warrant speedy deletion. Note that the article was probably written by the subject, judging from the points raised on the talk page. ~~Also note that "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" doesn't get a single hit on Google and on Google News. Because of all these issues,~~ I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletions and in the list of Politics-related deletions. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with you. When you type "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" into Google there are seven entries. The ISCO directorate and its director are also both mentioned by name in the Wikipedia entry for Intellipedia. Every effort is being made to write the article in a non Point of View/advertorial way. It is what it is: an office within the US federal government that deals with approximately 100,000 federal employees conducting the work of the sharing information across the intelligence community.--Tom 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where the different results come from. "Information Sharing Customer Outreach" gets no hits, "Information sharing and customer outreach" gets eight. Perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I just made two similar articles (Program Manager Information Sharing Environment and Information Sharing Council). This article is related to it. I didn't start this article. I didn't even know that it existed until I started browsing the afd's. I think that the page should be named Information Sharing Customer Outreach without the trailing acronym. The reason that there are few hits on google is because this office is brand new. The PM ISE was just established in March. I am debating creating a new Information Sharing Customer Outreach article, and filling it with the information in this article. This one here looks like it needs a lot of work. While I was adding the "See Also" links to it, I got a chance to look at it, and there are a lot of <br/>'s to remove. A couple of "section citations" too. It's getting to my bedtime now, so I can't do anything about this at the moment. Umeboshi 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google is refreshed so often that I don't believe that the fact that there are few google hits is related to the office having been established only in March. That's nine months ago. Surely a organisation of the US federal government should be able to acquire some more google hits in nine months time. That doesn't mean that the organisation is non-notable though, google is not a measure of notability. I can't tell whether ISCO is notable atm. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of googling for "Information Sharing Customer Outreach", try "Information Sharing" "Customer Outreach". I got 481 links, with many on the first page referring to the DNI. This department is covered in the implemetation plan of the PM ISE here. Umeboshi 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In view of the google queries provided above, I have struck that part of the nom. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Gov't org. Probably has reasonable expectations of being notable. TonyTheTiger 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether ISCO is notable enough to merit its own article, but if we are going to keep this, I'd suggest we at least rename it to Information Sharing and Customer Outreach. The article is kind of confusing though...is this a separate entity or part of a larger organization (such as the DNI)? Gzkn 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are part of the ODNI. I have already proposed a move (see my comment above). I am going to propose that on the articles talk page. On second thought, after reading WP:RM, I'll go ahead and move it myself. I doubt moving it will raise any dispute, and the redirect will be there anyway. Umeboshi 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the name should be changed to Information Sharing and Customer Outreach to make it more clear. It is a part of the DNI but like the PM ISE, the Information Sharing Council, and many other components of the DNI which have their own stub or article it is notable and deserves its own entry.

From General Meyyerose's speech ~~today~~ to AFCEA (~~18 DEC~~ 24 FEB 06)- We in fact have a Senior Executive whose title is the Deputy Associate Director of National Intelligence for Information Sharing and Customer Outreach. And notice that it doesn't say anything about the intelligence community because we have customer outreach and information sharing responsibilities across the entire government, and that's an important thing to realize.

--Tom 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deletion

I just read the following wikipedia advice on deletions that I believe applies in this case: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." This article has clearly evolved from its original state and substantial additions and improvements have been made since it was nominated for deletion. It will continue to improve unless of course it is deleted.

--Tom 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's laws of combat[edit]

Prod was removed. My original rationale read "Joke page. And pretty unfunnny too." I never imagined the prod would actually be contested but it was and the opposing rationale was "merge with Murphy's Law". I guess I could be bold and redirect the page but I think it's important that the page be deleted and salted. We are writing an encyclopedia and 99% of people here remember this but this kind of page makes Wikipedia look less like an encyclopedia and more like a bad repository of popular culture. Clearly this article violates a number of core policies like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR. More importantly, it degrades the overall image of Wikipedia as a serious project. Note that Murphy's Law already struggles to stay encyclopedic (since people keep adding their own oh-so-funny examples so merging should certainly not be an option. Pascal.Tesson 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A contrast of the original Murphy's law canon with this military-inspired variant would be beneficial to the Murphy's law article, as to provide context with it's impact on people in various walks of life. Merely because the article itself is humorous in nature does not mean it is not notable or important. Pumeleon^T 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with you both - Pascal, it Is notable, lots of google hits, and apparently its mentioned in Apocalypse now, it is therefore verifiable, and im not sure which WP:NOT rule it violates. Pumeleon, why merge it with Murphy's law? They're only related by name, very different content. I say keep with its own page. Thedreamdied 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say merge because it is an extension of the original Murphy's law. Beyond that, it is born of the same humorously nihilistic attitude, and therefore related. However, I advise against a keep, as it is merely a list of humourous sayings. Pumeleon^T 01:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources. If a reliable source cannot be found (which seems unlikely) then delete as WP:OR. Pete.Hurd 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge as a descriptive subsection (NOT the whole list) to Murphy's Law. This is not really a set or established list of humorous aphorisms. It's a particular style or format of humour which is based on coming up with variants of the logic of Murphy's Law - which itself apparently originated in the United States Air Force. These style can be found in many areas outside the military as well[65]. I think there are enough references to this in military books[66][67] to warrant a subsection in the Murphy's Law article that describes the phenomenon. However, Wikipedia is not a funny email or aphorism archive so I don't think an article just on the list is appropriate. Bwithh 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the Murphy's Law article - its not in good shape and needs cleanup - there's this large original research section for instance. I'll try to work on it some later. Bwithh 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from my entry on the Murphy's law talk page: "I know the proposed article is large, but taking notable examples from it (Such as 'Friendly fire isn't friendly') and discussing it in context with Murphy's law canon would not make the article too large." Pumeleon^T 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just need a couple of illustrative examples (I don't see any which are particularly more notable than the others.. so I would select ones which reflect the historical period they come from) from the Gulf War (~~The friendly fire one would date from this period~~ correction, the phrase "friendly fire" apparently goes back at least to WWII) and from Vietnam (if a couple were cited in Apocalypse Now and can be sourced, use those or there's "Body count math is 2 VC + 1 NVA + 1 water buffalo = 37 KIA" which is not on the article list - but then the article list is not a master list or anything) and that's it. The length issue of the Murphy's Law article really stems from the original research section Bwithh 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sounds like some OR by some guys around a water cooler. (But I'm quite willing to be proven wrong with a good reference!) WVhybrid 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See links 2 and 3 in my main comment above Bwithh 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant references in the article. It is still without any. WVhybrid 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bwithh 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murpy's Law. Add external link to the Murphy's Law page, do not merge full content. -- Infrogmation 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any un-OR to Murphy's Law. Just H 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the problem here? Yes it is unsourced, but if we deleted all the unsourced articles we'd be hella smaller, the solution is to tag it as unsourced or source it. Does anyone believe that the author of this article just made these up? Of course not, I've heard several of them. So it's not like it's not true; it's not like these sayings aren't extant in the military; it's just a matter of finding a good source. Herostratus 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would recommend that this be kept in some form. It is relatively rare on line. Although it may not seem funny to some, soldiers get the joke. It grows from time to time, as new events occur to the unsuspecting. If sourcing is a problem, I'll pull the original list that I was given in the early 1990's as a source. Jimjim401 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not relatively rare online[68], and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a humour archive Bwithh 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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