Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 23

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

Sardar Sarovar Dam

Sardar Sarovar Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

Where did the beginning article on a dam in India go? I was just starting it. Mattisse(talk) 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to sdd this:

India suffers from widespread water scarcity. Rain comes in one seasonal period of deluge. Dams allow the deluge to be impounded and stored so that it can be used year-round in the same area or transferred to a water-short area by pipeline or canal. Opposition to dams – especially that of the Narmada Bachao Andolan – is representative of wider resistance to 'development gigantism'.

Please restore article. You let so much junk through. Whay delete a valid aticle? Wikipedia is irrational. Mattisse(talk) 03:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A full explanation is available on this AfD's talk page. Grandmasterka 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Article forked from 9/11 conspiracy theories due to length of that article, but since the split, this article has become a hopeless quagmire of conspiracy theory nonsense, and even simple demands that the article try to meet NPOV have been met with further POV pushing. This is simply not what wiipedia is about...wikipedia is not for soapboxing, and is not an indiscriminate collection of misinformation. Delete.--MONGO 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin...the previous discussion has nothing to do with the current one.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The previous discussion can be read here:[1].--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - since the split article has only become more NPOV, and better sourced (it almost hasn't grown in size and putting it back is out of the question). Simple demands you mention: well everyone can check on the talk page that your demands were very simple (Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT) and quite short and not explained and you made them yesterday. This is not what wikipedia is about... Check below for other arguments.SalvNaut 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...the article is huge compared to when it was on the 9/11 CT article...when it was there, the complaints were that adding more nonsense then would make that article too big. After forking, conspiracy theory folks have made this a repository of junk science. I asked to get the known facts about Steven E. Jones put in the article and was essentially laughed off. Misuse of Wikipedia to push conspiracy theory propaganda such as this makes folks like yourself nothing but problem editors. I mean look at the singular focus you and the rest of the cruftists have...a blind man could see that your agenda is to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense...you hardly edit anything else. You're not fooling anyone.--MONGO 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: MONGO laughed off?? - the facts about Jones you asked for are already in the article since yesterday (were added witihn hours you asked)... maybe you should concentrate on its content not your personal POV on this matter? What I edit is my personal thing - is it ad hominem argument you just brought on? To make this even I'll say that you make yourself look like a problem admin. No offence. SalvNaut 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit histories are transparent...yours are solely agenda driven.--MONGO 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of lying? Mine histories are true and real: Revision as of 23:58, 22 September 2006; Thomas Basboll - at the end of The hypothesis (since then has been moved to Conflicts with official explanation) there are sentences about Jones paid leave. You asked for it on the talk page at 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC). 2.5 hours - I feel offended by your groundless accusation. SalvNaut 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were lying, so don't put words in my mouth. I stated, and looking at your entire editing history this is obvious, that you are here solely to advance conspiracy theories. So far, you have not demonstrated that your purpose on Wikipedia is geared in any other direction. Those links do not demonstrate that Alex Jones has been adequately debunked as would be completely mandatory for this article to ever be NPOV.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Our job is not to debunk anything. Our job is to make articles on any and all notable things reported by secondary sources for a free encyclopedia. Those here for anything else need to leave. · XP · 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, MONGO, no - stop putting your words into my head. I am here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and gain knwoledge about 9/11. I won't discuss anymore with you, because it's got ad hominem and has nothing to do with the case. I can't find any source that would show that Steven Jones has been debunked (he was dismissed-its a big difference in science).SalvNaut 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic. Per nom. Vote Early, etc, etc. --Tbeatty 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and severely undue weight to a minority viewpoint as well as synthesis of facts in order to support a hypothesis in violation of WP:OR. A minority viewpoint("hypothesis") does not require a full article explanation and this current treatment goes way afield of WP:NPOV's dictum on undue weight and POV fork. The prime contributor to his article has admitted it is a vehicle for presenting his POV[2]., in gross violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Delete with prejudice. --Mmx1 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article violates no wikipedia policy and is a legit, well written, and sourced article about a extensivley argued theory. If there is an issue with specific content then address the specific content, don't AfD the entire article. NeoFreak 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's hopeless. efforts to get a NPOV in this article will be impossible.--MONGO 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why are you, as an experienced wikipedian, totally giving up on an article both now and in the future? Ansell 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "extensively argued" if at all, on the internet. If that were a criteria for inclusion, we would have an article on every crackpot physics "hypothesis" posted on usenet, and articles on which of the Manning brothers is a better quarterback. --Mmx1 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis. Do I believe it? No. That doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Because it is a touchy subject and is prone to POV doess't qualify the article for deletion. This article needs work, not a all out deletion. NeoFreak 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis" I see; it's an essay? --Mmx1 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The main reason the article exists is because folks were unable to get this nonsense in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article...it is a definite POV fork therefore.--MONGO 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just making a case in the sense of debate but its continued existence on wikipedia which is really what I meant. An article talking about a POV or a established hypothetical concept has to do that. Which I think it does. I'd hate to see a article get deleted because the POV is covers is unpopular. NeoFreak 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary...I believe the POV it covers is popular...the problem is the ability of this article to be neutral, which I see no prospectus for.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case it only helps the case for keeping it in an encyclopedia. Besides NPOV issues is not and never has been grounds for deletion. NeoFreak 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not if it is a gross violation of WP:NOT, which it is.--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The notion of an independent page for a minority POV is the definition of POV fork. --Mmx1 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This article is a black hole of POV forkery, and roughly half its references are blatant violations of WP:RS. --Aaron 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Keep Not sure what the other people are even reading unless they have a personal bias stake in this. WP:POINT afd nomination that appears trolling or disruption attempt? This is a fork that includes 95 sources, from nytimes.com to house.gov to all sorts of international coverage. The theory as a theory is notable, and 40% of Americans polled per CNN believe in theories. There is a criticism section and volumous sourced data. Why is this even nominated? Close afd as farcical--why is this even open...?
• This version of the article has 108 references. Of them, just at a glance, I count at least 70+ that meet all Policy requirements for RV and V. They range from a variety of US government documents that touch on the theory, to news sources ranging from live reports by Dan Rather to the NY Times to the BBC. Seems notable enough to be an automatic keep, and rereading AfD policies we do not delete for POV reasons, nor neutrality reasons. We rewrite the article together, which is the only reason, and the only reason we're here: write free encyclopedia about notable things that are reported on by secondary sources. Closing admin: this article therefore per RS meets all qualifications that I can see. · XP · 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trust me that I am not a troll, so I'll assume your commentary must be. The farce is when people misuse Wikipedia to POV push nonsense

such as this.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the theory isn't notable based on the mountains of media coverage? Or that it's too big for the parent page, and per policy shouldn't be forked off? Those two policies say that this article has legs and stays. Policy is on it's side, at this time, from what I've read. If you can cite in policy with examples why it shouldn't be, I will reconsider my opinion. · XP · 05:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Efforts to have much of this information in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article failed, so it was then built up on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This was split, and retitled and technically survived a different Afd, but this article has now developed into a repository of misinformation deliberately designed to give credence to something that has no basis in fact...it is an article that will perpetually masquerade as a scientific treatise. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article is...a soapbox to promote conspiracy theory nonsense. Furthermore, I see no chance the article can be a neutral one and will ultimately be a battleground, further violation of policy. I rarely nominate articles for deletion, so when I do, I am most serious about my reasoning.--MONGO 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it will be the community that decides if it stays or goes 5 days from now, with no one getting their points attacked I should hope. · XP · 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then best you don't refer to my nom as trolling?--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

True, fair point and struck. However, please justify and explain the comment you added then removed however of:

"The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of WP:NOT."

Also per policy do not refactor others' additions to AfD or (I see your an admin now) be the one to close this--so, regretfully, it's not "your" decision for anything directly. Thanks! · XP · 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the first paragraph, demolish the rest - That's all that's needed. Of course, the conspiracy theorists would never allow such an edit to stand. Sigh. - Richfife 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Such a summary already exists in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The question is exactly whether or not the rest of the article should exist. --Mmx1 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic per nom. Pull it. Dual Freq 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article passed an AfD at 09: 42 on 22 on September.[3] This nomination for deletion appears to have been made under 24 hours later. The phrase "since the split" should be read with that in mind. The requests to establish an NPOV and an encyclopedic approach have been met with friendly assurances that "we're working on it". The problems with this article had, as the nomitation notes, previously been problems with the 9/11 conspiracy theory article (which is coming around nicely) and (though this is before my time) the article on the collapse of the WTC (which is in great shape now - in part due to the efforts of editors who are working on this article). At this stage it is clear that the sections need to be trimmed in its "collection of information". As the closing admin on the recent AfD said, "it is clear that [Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center] needs to be made more neutral etc, but this is going way outside the area of AFD.".[4] I agree with that judgment, and it is too soon to say that the challenges have not been met. Anyone who reads the articles last few days of history will see it is going in the right direction. Anyone who reads its talk pages will be able to see the spirit in which the changes are being made.--Thomas Basboll 07:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a seperate issue, so no it's not too early. Now we can directly discuss the reason why we should allow articles like this to be on wikipedia...since the focus is now and always will be an advocacy platform and a gross violation of original research in that you have a "hypothesis" and then deliberately seak out sources to support that hypothesis. Sorry, but misuse of Wikipedia for this purpose is not to be condoned.--MONGO 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While Mongo's reasons to nominate may technically differ from the original AfD (though it is unclear to me exactly how), it is clear that the editors who are voting here have interpreted the issue in similar terms. Again we talking about "POV pushing" on the one side and "a notable theory" on the other. Importantly, the basic justification for this article is that merging it back into 9/11 conspiracy theories would undo some substantial recent improvements to it. Splitting it has offered a way to make progress on the presentation of both 9/11 conspiracy theories in general and the controlled demolition hypothesis specfically.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Was this article up for AfD? This seems like a separate POV fork from the one that was deleted although it contains the same information. Tbeatty 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the result was to keep it.[5]--Thomas Basboll 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)ø

• Keep - Notable theory on a notable event. Sources are clear that this theory is asserted by a number of people. Cleanup concerns should not be dealt with through an AfD. JASpencer 07:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like its the same old group of people who are proposing deletion of anything that doesn’t fit the 9/11 official story and the same people are against it. Gee, I wonder if that’s a coincidence. I'd bet not. Shortfuse 07:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, it seems like the usual POV pushers of nonsense are all lining up to vote keep...I wonder if that is a coincidence? I'd bet not.--MONGO 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this hypothesis exists and has been widely publicized. Article is no less encyclopedic than Nazi UFOs. Gazpacho 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• That article does not advance a position; it in fact makes it clear that it is a fictional theme. --Mmx1 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and fictional or a dumb CT, it's still notable however, and thus an automatic AfD pass. · XP · 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, I don't think you read very far into the article. Gazpacho 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (1)

• Keep the hypothesis is nonsense; however, it is notable. the article is a good place to document the nonsense. if the article is poor now, the solution is to fix it. if that is too difficult, npov tag it. Derex 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm really troubled by the idea of "documenting the nonsense". If the article is nonsense, as you suggest, wouldn't it be appropriate to just WP:CSD:G1 it and move on? alphaChimp^(talk) 09:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep we want to honestly present in this article the status of knowledge about the hypothesis, which already caused quite a mess in the world. It's very notable among Internet users, it's made its way to the media, it's been considered among engineers (NIST, Bazhant - then dismissed) and there are academic papers promoting it (Jones,Cherpanov, Greening, who considers thermite reactions). There are voices form experts abroad (Swiss professor of structural engineering; Dutch, Danish demolition experts) agreeing with it. We want to present most notable points of this hypothesis (and there is a lot of them, they are mentioned in academic papers, summaries of researches, on thousands of blogs), present a critique of them (it's already done in many cases). There are secondary sources presenting this hypothesis, there is a critique of it, so the article can be very encyclopedic.

Proponents of deletion bring following issues on: WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:OR. My opinion:

• Propaganda,self-promotion, advertising, or advocacy - it's not propaganda cause the hypothesis lives its own life and this article only presents it. It's not advocacy because article is written in NPOV language and criticism is already there and more is very welcomed.
• publisher of orginal thought: the article presents thoughts which are on minds of millions of people(many scientists) - such thoughts deserve to be described and discussed, criticised.
• WP:OR:the hypothesis has been published, has been engaged with (NIST discussed it,FAQ). There is no drawing conclusions in the article, no orginal thought (please work on that more if you wish).

Proponents of deletion, instead of working on the article to make it better, would prefer to delete it. They're using this tactics very often with regard to 9/11 articles - I agree that in some cases they're correct - not in this one, and recent AfD voting has shown that, too. Again - strong keep per above, per Thomas Basboll, per XP about quality of sources. --SalvNaut 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Derex. People (including some Americans) seriously believe it, made a DVD out of it, etc. --Storkk 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete - This was split from the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think this material needs to be put back in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It can be shortened by cutting OR, unreliable or non-sourced material, etc. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think the name of the article is really insane (jeeze), but given the enormous list of references it certainly appears to be notable and not original research or indiscriminate information. If there are POV issues, those can probably be dealt with independently. Might need to be shortened a bit as well. ~ lav-chan @ 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a publisher of original thought, and not a free web space provider for conspiracy theorists. The sources the article has are mostly self-published conspiracy sites — unreliable, systematically and purposefully unbalanced sources. The phenomenon of conspiracy theories can be covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the point-counterpoint argumentation (the bulk of this article) is utterly unencyclopedic original research soapboxing. To improve the article: cut down the soapbox part (vast majority of it) and roll it back to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Weregerbil 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Weregerbil above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NeoFreak. // Duccio (write me) 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Mmx1 --rogerd 15:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant soapboxing, and as such unlikely to ever meet WP:NPOV. Many of these "secondary sources" aren't exactly reliable ones, either. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While clean up is certainly merited (a number of the sources I've managed to go through so far are, at the very best, barely capable of satisfying WP:RS), no one is arguing that this theory's existence is unverifiable, and it's certainly notable. I assume that the majority of those who have responded here have heard about the theory at some point. In my eyes, if the theory has gained enough credence that even my own government is taking the time to respond to it, it's also got enough to warrant a WP article. The article itself is not inherently POV, and the "blatant soapboxing" everyone is referring to can be cleaned up by clearing the worst cruft and citing the rebuttals where possible. POV is always going to be an issue with articles on controversial topics, but AfD isn't the place to resolve it. Philodespotos 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This collection of minority viewpoints will never achieve a NPOV, will never have reliable sources, and will never stop being a soapbox (which Wikipedia is Not). It's also entirely unencyclopedic. Delete it now. alphaChimp^(talk) 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep perhaps speedily as a repeat AfD so close to the previous one. Like it or not, this is a noted crank theory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Alphachimp. -- I@n 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am trying very hard to assume good faith, and am not really succeeding. WP:NOT a soapbox, and these continual AfD nominations appear to be part of a soapbox. The article passes all the critera for inclusion. We should not care that the conspiracy theories are good theories or bad theories. We should simply document them as being a phenomenon that we record in an encyclopaedic manner. Our role is not to judge the theories in any way except to document that which is notable. The theories are patently notable. If the article requires editing that is a different matter from nominating it for deletion. Time to get back on message, guys. It's an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. The theory is complete BS, but that's not the point. The point is that this article will never achieve a Neutral Point of View, has no reliable sources, and serves as a soapbox. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  No. that is not the point. Diligent editing can remove non neutral point of view items. We are not here to look into a crystalk ball, we are here to edit. We can flag disputed articles to suggest that they may not be neutral, we can do a great deal. The sources that are quoted to illustrate the theories are, usually, acceptable sources in that they pass the relevant tests. Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm a bit perplexed about how this article can ever be made NPOV. As for the sources listed, the only reasonably reliable one I recall is Popular Mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong). The majority are conspiracy sites. I suspect their content is just as POV as this article. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Per AfD policy none of your cited reasons are valid Deletion reasons. Why would this article because of subject matter some disagree with be exempt from established policy? · XP · 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's not quite so much disagreement as it is the absolute inability for this article ever to become anything beyond POV and hoaxcruft. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I count 60+ unrefutably reliable sources that no one can contest. The theory exists. It is reported on. It is notable. It is not a hoax that it exists, and either way none of this is a valid reason per AfD policy/procedure to delete. I think it's bullshit, but my view does not matter. Popular will cannot trump policy for what is meritous, and 60+ RS is certainly meritous. I want to AGF but the fact that this was nominated 24 hours after the last AfD on the same content is just the height of hubris, and as Jeff mentioned should be tossed on procedural grounds. This is already clearly going to be a no concensus or keep--this needs cleanup, and does not qualify for deletion, as AfD is not a vote (thankfully). Anyway, the sudden and premature AfD will at least insulate this from future premature AfDs as any new early ones will be certainly considered a disruptive WP:POINT vio of some sort. · XP · 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I really think that it's in poor form to come out with allegations of bad faith and WP:POINT here. Let's stick to the topic at hand and save the ad hominem comments for other venues. As to your sources: of course, there is some wheat amongst the chaff. Yet those few good links only reference the unreliable hoaxcruft put forth by crackpot authors, personal websites, and other unacceptable sources. In essence: pull the unreliable sources and you get one POV--leave them in and you get another. Either way, it'll never be NPOV. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wait, wait--so for some reason, because some of us consider it a dumb theory or disagree with it, valid RS reporting about the existance of a thing being espoused by possibly unreliable people means that we shouldn't have an article on it? That makes absolutely zero sense and I'd like for you to demonstrate where/how in policy such a thing is justifiable. Unless I'm misreading what you just wrote, your saying that is 1. I announce I am heriditary Emperor of the United States; 2. I post it all over the Internets, all over print media, and buy a TV spot Ross Perot style to espouse this; 3. I am a certifiable crackpot. 4. The NY Times and other international and domestic media cover my nonsense reliably; 5. I shouldn't have a wikipedia article because it's not provable that my statements may or may not be false? That makse zero sense and following that logic I can apply it to virtually any article on any fringe subject matter that I disagree with to get it removed from Wikipedia. That is wrong and not how the system works. · XP · 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Ironically, the same people whom this article cites as reliable sources would probably buy into your announcement. Fortunately, there are precious few. This isn't a matter of sanitizing the site for "my opinion" or "MONGO's opinion". It's a matter of removing an article that will always be a cruftish soapbox for an extreme minority of people. It's not our place to advertise theories and breed disdain for the US government, we're here to present the facts in the most neutral unbiased way possible. I do not ever see that happening with this article. alphaChimp^(talk) 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Ironically, I think my point was missed. It's not our place to decide if something is meritous based on it's virtue, and it's neither our place to breed disdain for the US government nor is it our job to prevent it. This is not the American Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. American POV, pro or con, has no more relevance than English, Scottish, Canadian, Jamaican, Austrailian, South African, or New Zealand POV. Neither has any more intrinsic value than any other. If something is offensive to some Americans, that's of no relevance, and if the subject matter leads to people clucking their tongues at the US government... well, that's not our concern. Also, have you not noticed the constant surveys that says 1/4 to 1/3 of all people believe in 9/11 related Conspiracy Theories? Hardly an extreme minority, there are scores of such reports all over. From a major Aussie news source.. Basically, what I'm saying is that whether or not it's appealing or insulting to some Americans--which seems to be the implication for many of these delete votes--that's their issue, not Wikipedia's. · XP · 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there are plenty of reliable sources that report on the theory, and also thoroughly debunk it, covering both sides of the coin. Here's one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The Popular Mechanics article is one of the few somewhat decent, reliable sources that I've found in the entire reference list. The majority are conspiracy theory sites. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a unencyclopedic POV fork. Since the forking the article has grown into a massive OR synthesis. The small amount of usable content should be remerged into the original article. --Wildnox 19:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Weregerbil. Morton devonshire 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This absurd and fantastical hypothesis is more than adequately covered elsewhere. Guy 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate conspiracy theory. As always, such an article needs to be monitored constantly for POV and OR, but that can be said of just about any article on a controversial subject. I've seen TV documentaries on this topic, so it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. 23skidoo 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Thomas Basboll, who has done an amazing job with organizing and condensing the significant amount of existing information and continues to keep it relatively NPOV, allowing the information to be seen, and not packed in on all sides with POV labels and opinions from the other side at every turn. bov 04:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV? How is it NPOV when 10% of the article is criticism and the rest is a WP:OR violation citing evidence in support of this hypothesis? It is wiki's place to state the hypothesis, it is not wiki's place to argue it, even in part. --Mmx1 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Agenda driven AfD nomination. If the article has problems, deal with them, but the subject matter itself is notable and there is too much info to merge it into the larger 9/11 conspiracies article. SchmuckyTheCat 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Agenda driven? This article is the one that is agenda driven.--MONGO 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Alphachimp and Mmx1's comment above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alphachimp and Mmx1's statements; whether or not people believe in it is one thing, the fact that it cannot be reliably sourced or conform to a neutral point of view is another. Ryūlóng 08:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the hypothesis exists and is notable, while also being of interest. Semiprotection would be highly advisable, to limit bad-faith IP edits. Ace of Risk 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and reconstitute. I think there's a good case for saying that the controlled demolition claim (hypothesis is too kind a word) is notable, as it's been tackled by some quite reputable sources in an effort to refute it. However, the sourcing of the present article is awful. I suggest deleting the present article and reconstituting it from scratch, using only reliable sources instead of the conspiracy cruft that infests it at the moment. -- ChrisO 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Hypothesis" is the word that both the official report on the collapse (NIST) and the most detailed statement statement of it (Jones) uses. This is very clear in the present article, which cites both Jones' emphasis on its hypothetical nature and NIST's use of the same word. As for the sourcing, yes, it is uneven. But the hypothesis itself is easily located in a handful of detailed conspiracy theories and mainstream media coverage and the official investigation (brief mention) and the scientific literature (very brief mention). We need to filter out some noise in the article, not start from scratch. (Though the thought has also occured to me.)--Thomas Basboll 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (2)

• Strong & Speedy Keep This article is fair, balanced and detailed. It has 108 references! It is a controversial topic, but it deals with both side of the issue fairly. The nominating editor, Mongo, is a well known POV pusher and abusive deletionist who has been frequently and recently blocked for numberious violations. I belive it is infact the article's fairness and lack of bias that this user objects to. This a a bad faith nomination.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I once again appreciate Seabecan's personal attacks and odd linking to an arbcom case which has already resulted in two of those who were harassing me now being indef banned...and this is before the voting has even commenced. Seabhcan claims this article is balanced. The only fact based citations are those from mainstream science, not from non peer reviewed conspiracy theory websites. This article is clearly not capable of ever being neutral, except to those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition is what really happened on 9/11. My guess is that, as usual, this kind of comment from Seabhcan is deliberately designed to provoke a hostile response...kind of the thing I deal with when he posts edit summaries such as these:[6], [7], [8] and of course there are more. Seabhcan's presentation of a barnstar to an indefinitely banned editor was also, well, strange, especially when done after he that editor has been banned.[9].--MONGO 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again we behold the wonderous miracle of MONGO logic! Mongo declares above that the article is not 'neutral' on the one hand, yet complains in the previous sentence that the article presents both "citations ... from mainstream science" and from "conspiracy theory websites". Presenting both side of the issue is balance, and I stand by my assertion that it is this very balance that is mongo's main peeve. Mongo wishes wikipedia to contain only his version of truth. If this policy were to hold sway, we should presumably be deleting "Islam" next. Even if the ideas and theories in the article are untrue, the fact that they are notably discussed and believed by many, even by "those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition", even if Mongo disagrees with these beliefs, this topic warrants an article. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me, are you calling him a bigot? Citing "both sides" is not sufficient for NPOV, as Thomas has stated so clearly below, the purpose of this article is to present his "sense" of the theories, a gross violation of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, regardless of how many citations you put in.--Mmx1 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use terms of abuse on wikipedia. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hum....care to remove your personal attack above. If not I guess the next step will be some further conflict resolution.--MONGO 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack it is a statment of fact. If you can show it to be untrue, I will remove it. Your record of personal attacks and abuse are well known on Wikipedia and there is no need to repeat it here. You deletionist tactics are documented in the dozens of AfDs you have stated, solely against topics you personally disagree with or you feel should not be discussed. And is it not true that you have been repeatedly blocked for policy violations? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually vote in a lot of afds, but I rarely nominate articles to be deleted, so that is an incorrect statement. The most recent block for 3RR was of about a hour only, and the other fellow had himself violated 3RR on two different articles on the same day. The 15 minute block I got was from another wikipedian that has left the project and was villified for performing that block, the third one was from well over a year ago. Your linking to my arbcom case is ridiculous, and surely you know that...I have been blocked for nothing on that matter and two others, including the one who initiated the arbcom is now permabanned. Besides...your commentary about my editing in general on an Afd has nothing to do with the Afd itself and is a personal attack. If you don't know how to argue the merits of the deletion without pointing fingers at the editors, then you should abstain.--MONGO 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For God's sake, put this unsalvagable POV fork out of its misery. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nomination offers two criticisms of article: (1) the article has become increasingly mired in "conspiracy theory nonsense" and (2) suggestions for improving it have been met with "POV pushing". The accuracy of the second claim can assessed by looking at the article's talk page under "Unencyclopedic"[10] and the associated edits (see especially[11] and compare with Mongo's "demand" in the talk pages.) The vast majority of the alleged "miring" and "pushing" has taken place over the last couple of days, working very quickly (note the cautious tone in the edit summaries). We have been trying to convert a list of curiosities into a coherent prose presentation. Of course, people who think that the views presented are incoherent will consider any semblance of coherence an act of misinformation. Many of us, however, who have looked at these theories in some detail, have come to concede that, even if they ultimately may prove to be false, they do in fact 'make sense'. It is the sense we have made of the controlled demolition hypothesis thus far that we would like to present on its own terms to other readers of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to you to "make sense" of these theories by presenting evidence in support of it. That runs afoul of the "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" part of WP:OR. You are not here to present your interpretation of the facts, merely the facts as the sources state. --Mmx1 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A hypothesis is very often presented along with the prima facie evidence for it. This evidence is of course provisional and does not constitute proof; it merely informs subsequent investigations and (importantly in this case) it helps us to understand the content of the hypothesis. As with any other article, we are here to help each other understand (i.e., make sense of) the topic. A synthesis of, say, three presentations by conspiracy theorists, along with official responses and mainstream media commentary, without any intention of advancing either the truth or falsity of the proposition that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition runs afoul of no policy I am aware of. It does look like this AfD is testing your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. And mine.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of precedent ("very often"), the WP:OR policy is clear. "A and B, hence C", is inadmissible if only A and B are citable. The entire statement must be made by a RS to be included. Synthethizing the arguments of multiple theorists is a gross violation of that dictum. --Mmx1 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OR only refers to presenting a NEW synthesis of events, not reporting on theories published elsewhere. The CT theory has been published outside of Wikipedia. OR doesn't apply. For example, The theory of Evolution was a new theory by Darwin with was Original Research. Had he published it on Wikipedia it would violate WP:OR. However, as it was published eslewhere first, wikipedia may then have an article on evolution with isn't OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

However, synthethizing the various individual conspiracy arguments into some "grand unified theory of controlled demolition" as Thomas Basboll has done, is a violation of WP:OR. It is no longer Jone's theory or Hoffman's theory, it's Basboll's interpretation (see grandparent post). And that is gross OR.--Mmx1 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If he had done that then yes. However, I strongly disagree that Thomas has written any new theory. The article doesn't violate OR. Check the references. Anyway, even if there are small localised violations somewhere(I don't see them) they can be edited, the article shouldn't be deleted because of small content errors. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been my intention to emphasise the claims that overlap in the presentations I know about. I have then tried to correlate these claims with mainstream media coverage wherever possible. There is, to repeat, a lot of work to do. The schema "A and B, hence C" might be a useful guide when we go through an ensure that our own interpretations and reasonings haven't snuck in along the way. I look forward to any help in pointing out such places. But most of the thinking here is being done by the sources we are citing. We're just trying understand what they say.--Thomas Basboll 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that this AfD is especially interesting to me as a relatively new editor. Not only has my judgment been called into question by the nomination (obviously in a sense, since I created the article), so too have my motives for being here. I should point out that my edits here were made in the same spirit (applying the same sort of synthesis) as the edits that I made on the "official" collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they were met with what I took to be approval. One of the things I will discover is whether my edits are generally considered acceptable, tolerable, or, well, cruft. I, of course, believe they shine.--Thomas Basboll 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; agenda-driven POV fork. Gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory of no significance. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The controlled demolition argument is one of the strongest and most well known among those who argue that 9/11 was an inside job. The fact that the 9/11 commission report didn't even mention the collapse of building 7, a collapse NIST admits is fundamentally inexplicable, is a red flag to Americans that there are significant unanswered questions concerning the events of 9/11. Those American currently number over 100 million. To say that a discussion of this on wikipedia is "unencyclopedic" is a pure POV play by User:MONGO and others. If he can't edit articles in a way that fits with the desire for information of a large minority of wikipedia readers and editors, then perhaps he should recuse himself from this debate. The base 9/11 conspiracy article is already overloaded and this is a logical expansion of one of the larger subsections. I don't see how this discussion can get any simpler than that. Kaimiddleton 21:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or a Redirect Its one of the major conspiracy theories, but there's so much nonneutral point of view and OR in the article I can see why it needs deletion. Articles which cannot become NPOV are often deleted. Would suggest a protected redirect, however. There has to be something that's not junk in this article that can be merged back into 9/11 conspiracy theories over time. --Kevin_b_er 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why should we be judging what is "nonsense" and what is not? That in itself shows the POV of the nominator. The article references its major claims from outside sources so it is not OR. Absolutely no reason why "indiscriminate collection" applies here. Possibly because it is one of the more vague statements on WP:NOT people are not sure where to apply it though. How is this a "soapbox" if it is what commentators are saying. Propaganda in the "soapbox" sense is usually put up by governments as single official stories of what is happening... Why should we follow that definition by deleting this article? Ansell 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There should be an article here. I don't think this resembles it, but that's no reason not to keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. SalvNaut and Basboll's reasoning is entirely persuasive.--JustFacts 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The subject is notable and widely known about. It is wiki's sole reason for existence to provide information, which we should do without fear or favour. This article does a very good job of NPOV, by stating and contrasting the competing views, making it quite clear which is the minority and majority take on the subject. I find it difficult to find any relationship between some of the delete reasons on this page and the contents of the article. Tyrenius 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  The article is forced to rely on unreliable sources to counterbalance the known evidence that is supported by virtually every structural engineer and the majority of the world's media. These sources are unreliable because they are under the control of one or a few webmasters and are outside the peer review process of engineering journals and the normal scientific community. It is wiki's sole reason to exist to provide information, not misinformation. There is no reason this article needs to exist when it can be easliy summarized with reliable sources that meet WP:V and then returned to 9/11 conspiracy theories from which it was split without consensus to do so.--MONGO 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the CD hypothesis is acknowledged by the very engineers (Sunder, Bazant) who have qualified opinions about the subject and has been widely reported in the majority of the world's media, although as a minority view. There is no evidence to suggest that the hypothesis is being vetted by "one or a few webmasters". There are, for example, several books that present a version of it, all (as far as I can tell) by independent small publishers [I'm actually not sure how small all of them are]. We must keep in mind that this article is not about the collapse of the world trade center, but about a hypothesis about that collapse. That is why the subject of most of the sentences is either the hypothesis or its proponents, on the one hand, andor the mainstream explanation and its proponents, on the other. In a few cases it presents a fact about the collapses directly (most often with a qualifier like "there were reports of..."). It should of course only do so when the fact is not controversial (the date and time of the collapses, the amount of buildings that collapsed, etc.) My point here is that the article is only "forced to rely on unreliable sources" if it claims controlled demolition brought down the buildings. It clearly doesn't do this. It says that there are people who suspect it was brought down by controlled demolition, and it explicates the main tenets of this suspicion, which, as Time magazine has pointed out, is no longer simply part of a "fringe phenomenon" but of a "mainstream political reality."--Thomas Basboll 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand most of what you state...but to present this "hypothesis" (if that is even an accurate word for such a matter), then ultimately we rely on references that are not WP:RS and oftentimes fail to meet WP:V. Synthesis of information to advance a position using sources that are tending tremendously towards disqualification for failure to be reliable is not an effort to build a better encyclopedia, but instead one to advocate a position. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV for this hypothesis is enforced on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, yet here, the minority viewpoint is now the point of advocacy. Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias when we allow this type of article to exist as a fork advocacy article of information that fails to meet policy for inclusion in the main article. Mainstream political reality is meaningless and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia which exists to advance the known evidence that can be referenced by reliable sources.--MONGO 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to cite which of the 109 sources do not meet RS in your definition here, or in a sub page of this AfD to avoid clutter? Many people have mentioned this that are supporting deletion, and I think it will help a lot to illuminate this point, as it seems to be the main point of contention. · XP · 06:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we think of this article as being about "political reality" (i.e., culture) more than about "physical reality" (i.e., engineering). Again, that's why the subject of most of the sentences are people and ideas, not buildings and physical laws. It refers to something people are saying, and only indirectly to what they are talking about. (Unlike the main collapse article, which talks about the facts of the disaster.) None of this is obscure in the article, though the occasional sentence may not quite pass muster. In this sense, the idea that "mainstream policial reality is meaningless" and not of interest to an encyclopedia is of course simply wrong. And that's obviously the sense in which Time mean[t] it.--Thomas Basboll 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As of this edit now, link numbers 7, 12, 15, 16 (not working for me), 17, 19,20, 24 (not working for me), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36 (both), 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 59, 67, 68, 70, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 104....are all links to websites that are unreliable for supporting the information presented, or are here to advance this minority viewpoint in the form of advocacy.--MONGO 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not this article is good, there is adquate evidence that there should be an article under this name. Also I believe the concept to be WP:NONSENSE, there are a sufficiently notable minority that believe the concept deserves recognition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, as Arthur just mentioned, and also you've also just demonstrated links from a wide variety of global, international sources, highlighting how prominenet in the current world this theory is, and you've also thus demonstrated perfectly it's notability--all those links are talking on a huge array of websites, and also foreign news sources especially, about the theory. Again, as mentioned, international coverage of this is significant, and as Wikipedia does not rely only nor does it apply any special weight or value to any American view or lack of adequate American view... notability and merit for inclusion again demonstrated. Thank you. · XP · 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 43 is a good example of one that is actually quite good but could be improved to be more informative. The sentence claims that some researchers make use of the oral histories of the events. It links to a researcher (Hoffman) who uses them (straightforward correct citation). Hoffman, in turn, has properly referenced his selection of quotes to the officially released oral histories, which have been published by the New York Times, a reliable source. That is, in this case we can say more than just "researches draw on oral histories", we can source those histories themselves to a reliable source.--Thomas Basboll 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How completely wrong the keepers are when they state that the links I menetion demonstrate notability...it only demonstrates that there are a ot of unrelaibale sources. You guys are weren't able to get this information in the factual based article, so you create this farsical one, which is a POV fork. Shame on you.--MONGO 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might make a good section in a more general page on 9/11 theory but this is not encyclopedic. It's a agenda pushing advocacy page, most of the sources come from a tiny handful of people and the rest is original research. I've looked at this and it's a hand waving mess of a POV fork, which we don't do here. This piece of blue sky can be expressed in 9/11 conspiracy theories in as few words as it took to say this. The keep !voters are not convincing. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - absolutely z-e-r-o doubts the subjectmatter is notable.

1. It is a hypothosis like many theories finding third party proof is near impossible (and then it becomes "fact")
2. can someone point to me the WP:V citable proof of God please (another hypothosis)?
3. Article is well referenced, could be tidied but hell with the emotions flying here "good luck", and finally
4. "Kooky" does not equal unencyclopedic (Pee-wee Herman anyone?) Glen 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. POV fork, WP:NOT, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (3)

• Keep. A valuable article, being a lucid synthesis of conspiracists' claims counterpointed with real engineering. I particularly loved: "which were not open sided car parks". But this article obviously needs serious on-going editorial time to prevent it deteriorating into a free for all. I ain't volunteering, so unless someone is I agree it would be safer to, erm, pull it. JackyR | Talk 10:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Most/nearly all of the material in the Controlled demolition (CD) article previously existed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Now we have a section, 9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center that discusses CD in brief, with mentions of details (e.g. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote) in both articles. The editorial time commitment to keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories and the CD article both saying the same consistent, NPOV, RS things is arduous. The better solution is to put the CD material back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and get rid of material that is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RS). That would take care of the article size issue. The time it takes to keep tabs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories spin-off articles only detracts from the goals of the Wikipedia project. At least, it has taken significant amount of my editing time away from working on other articles, and bringing them to good/featured status. It would be better for Wikipedia to have CD in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, rather than having this spin-off article which would likely be a soapbox venue. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The official theory about the collapse of the WTC was unclear. --Trek00 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JackyR, XP, etc. You may not agree with the theory; I sure don't. But that's not a reason to delete the article. I also agree with JackyR that this article needs constant editorial oversight to keep it from degenerating. --Myles Long 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is ONLY unsalvageable for those who don't have the patience to make the effort to keep it NPOV. TruthCrusader 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Wikipedia has articles on Flat earth theory, Phrenology, Marxism, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, The Mismeasure of Man and other such nonsense, reporting on what large numbers of deluded people believe. In that spirit, this article deserves to be kept. However, if it is irredeemably a POV fork, and can't be fixed (or if fixing reduces it to a section-sized article), then it should be deleted. Argyriou 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edited Argyriou 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

And we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so we are providing space for this "nonsense". --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and ballance. From WP:V Verifiability, not truth so whether this is "nonsense" does not come into the equation. What is perhaphs a more appropriate policy is WP:NPOV Undue weight. Firstly is having this article giving undue weight to a particular conspiracy theory? Seeing as how it seems to be the domininant alternative account, covered by a wide varierty of mainstream media I would say not. A second question which does not relate to this AfD is whether this article gives undue weight to the pro controled demolition advocates against those who disagree with this theory. Jones and Hoffman raise several important questions: namely why were the collapses so neat and tidy, none of the references in the critisim section really address this question. --Salix alba (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This was already decided when the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was written. The consensus there was that few if any websites that document the controlled demotion "hypothesis" were reliable enough for inclusion in that article, so they were not allowed. This article is a POV fork of the other one, and uses the same websites that were deemed by consesus to not be reliable witnesses. Thonas Basboll, Seabhcan and others weren't able to get the Collapse of the WTC article to look like this one, so this was split, without consesus to do so from 9/11 conspiracy theories and enhanced. The article makes a passing mention that Steven E. Jones has been placed on academic leave for possible misrepresentation that his work on the controlled demolition theory had been properly vetted, yet this article cites Jones work as if it has been deemed reliable. Several articles already summerize the basic arguments of the controlled demolition argument, including and following WP:SS, the article on Collapse of the WTC...it folows the undue weight guidelines of NPOV policy, which is in accord with reliable references. It doesn't matter how many people believe in controlled demolition...if virtually every structural engineer, implosion expert and the world's major media do not support such evidence, then it is a minority viewpoint that deserves, at best passing mention, and/or no mention at all. This POV fork needs to be deleted.--MONGO 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo is right, we do have a place for this type of stuff, but this article is a POV fork. We are not deleting the place for this information, only removing the bad info that we can't include anyways due to policy. -- Ned Scott 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is by far more than enough media coverage of the theory now to warrant the stand-alone article. POV is not a valid reason for deletion per policy. Notability, however, is valid for inclusion per policy. · XP · 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article, once stripped of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations, would be large enough to warrant a split. Article size is a reason to split, not "importance". -- Ned Scott 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is incontrivertable that the theory exists, is believed in to some degree (according to constant poll results) by a significant portion of both American and international populations, and therefore "exists". So therefore the question is whether the article content is significant enough size wise to warrant a split. MONGO referenced approximately 1/4 of the listed references. However, many are primary sources about the theory, so they can be linked to as explanations of the theory. That does leave a possible portion of them up for debate--but thats not a deletion clause. For arguments' sake, if neutral, uninvolved individuals were to delete "in contest" content simply to see what was left, the existing article would be roughly 60%-70% of it's current size--altogether too big to merge into the original parent or grandparent, and therefore under policy due for a split. As the theory's notability is also established beyond a doubt, closing admin should thus close this as a pure Keep. · XP · 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I listed almost half the references as being unreliable and yes they establish notability, but they are all from websites that are unreliable for anything other than to be able to say...there a lot of websites that discuss controlled demolition. The problem is simply that no reliable websites, published engineer reports or even the media support the notion of controlled demolition, so since nothing reliable can be sourced, it isn't encyclopedic except to say that a lot of people believe this issue of controlled demolition. I have made it clear...this article is a POV fork of content that was disallowed for the very reasons of lack of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other guidelines and policies from the Collapse of the WTC article, so it now resides here...that is the definition of a POV fork...look it up.--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have and I strongly disagree with your interpretation and reading of this. Established, incontrovertable facts: 1) The theory is notable in and of itself now due to the massive array of media coverage of it, the 911 Truthers, Jones, Scholars, et al. 2) Many, many people believe in the existence of these theories and their basis, based on the various polls that constantly go around these days. 3) The content simply is notabable enough for coverage on WP, and this seems to revolved around one camp saying x links aren't valid RS, and the other saying they are. 4) #3 is not grounds for deletion. 5) This was a pure fork of the parent, which then expanded--that's not a POV fork, thats what articles do. 6) The parent is already too large. 7) Proper procedure is to clean up this article as it is, not delete it. 8) If the resulting article is too small, then it can be AfD'd for a merger. 9) There is overwhelming concensus here for a keep, as displayed so far, based on all these facts. 10) Above and beyond all these, for procedural reasons this AfD should be tossed as a close. The 1st AfD was 11 September 2006, this one was 22 September 2006. That is highly inappropriate as AfD is not to be reran until a desired result is reached. 11) AfD is not a shortcut for editorial process. · XP · 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

XP...have we met before? I see you're new editor for the most part, but I could swear we have run into each other somewhere else on wiki. The previous Afd did not discuss this article directly...so this on does. There already is an article at Collapse of the World Trade Center that uses reliable sources and facts...that's why this one is a POV fork. I don't see what further discussion the matter between us will do...time for some super sleuthing.--MONGO 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently discovered that the guidelines on forking say that "since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as 'POV' — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." Mongo, of course, does believe that this case constitutes an exception. The troubling thing is that he has now included my work on the collapse of the World Trade Center in his (somewhat implicit) history of the (presumably) "repeated vandalism" that allows him to refer to this article as a "POV fork". I encourage everyone to have a look at my edits on that article, and especially this [12] talk archive to see how a consensus for the most controversial of them was built. If I understand Mongo's insinuation here then my work on the article between, say, July 20 and 26 (see[13]) constitutes an extreme case of POV-pushing, which despite the sweeping changes it brought about, left me so unsatisfied that I had to create another article to get all the things in there that were reverted by other editors. Obviously, there is no basis for that insinuation: the article's form and content is very much in line with what I was after and I have come to be very happy with the outcome. Like I say, I am really curious to see what the community's take on Mongo's arguments turns out to be. If they are taken to hold water then Wikipedia is something very different from what I thought it would be. It would mean that this extremely hostile editing environment is indicatitive of the norm, and is not an unfortunate (and hopefully temporary) lack of restraint on the part of what appears to be a perfectly good editor and administrator when working on topics he has a real fondness for and interest in.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, it seems very apparent from my previous workings with you, that had you been allowed to violate policy on the Collapse of the WTC article and create an article such as has been done here, you would have originally done so. You did seem to understand at that article why you couldn't have the links you want in this one...what better definition do you want of POV forking?--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clearer. As I understand the guidelines, you need to identify a set of edits to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that constitute vandalism, and repeated vandalism at that. Though it would not be sufficient, you need to identify the edits by which I tried to get those links into that article. (Like you say, I made no such attempts, because I had read the previous discussion and understood the consensus for that article.) You need to identify my attempts to violate policy, or retract your accusations about my intent to do so. Sources are reliable relative to the claim being made. Finally, sources that are not suitable for one kind of article may be suitable for another (obviously, I would think). But all this misses the main point: all these links were already in another article. The article was split because the WTC stuff was way too long, not because attempts to insert links were meeting resistance from you. The "extreme" conditions under which the guidelines allow you to accuse a split of being a "POV fork" don't seem to exist. Except in your peculiar interpretation of your "previous workings" with me. Again, I encourage anyone who wants to know about those workings to read our exchanges.[14]--Thomas Basboll 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Mujinga 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete If you want people to take this encyclopedia seriously, get rid of this POV pushing nonsense. I believe two planes took down the WTC. (but that’s just my belief). Trash this. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, you seem to contradict yourself, are you saying that it is POV pushing to put down evidence for and against a theory, simply because it has its own page. And then you state your personal POV and use that as your reason to delete? And if a significant portion of the worlds population has tendencies toward the theory, as referenced by polls about the subject, then would they take it seriously if they thought americans were holding back information just because of their POV. Ansell 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My input on this is not up for deletion, just this nonsense article. Please… Have you ever watched a controlled demolition being organized and documented on TLC or Discovery? Did you know that the WTC had a car bomb go off in it many years ago, and it survived. Those two planes were loaded with jet fuel. But believe what you want. Have you ever noticed that if you "chip" away at the word believe, you can get the word lie? Keep on chippin'. Why should Wikipedia be a platform for this crap? Yes, Delete. Thanks for your input. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

* Procedural request: This AfD for some reason was *NOT* listed on the log page for the past 48 hours -- why is this? This AfD needs to officially run at least a minimum of 6.5 to 7 days before closure review is allowed, as this has been quited from wide public review. I am adding it there now. · XP · 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bizarre, nevermind. It was cacheing from two days ago; Firefox is possessed. · XP · 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to 9/11 conspiracy theories So many "strong" votes on this. Let's turn off the emotions, folks, and look at this like robots. Let's read WP:POV and WP:NOT and try to personally turn off your thoughts on the subject and judge it according to WP guidelines. There is nothing about this article that should warrant its own page. Guyanakoolaid 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep For all the many good reasons already cited on here. My comment: It's amazing to see how many people shout out on this page to delete because they see it as "nonsense" and "cruft" and other derogatory descriptors. I expect most have never looked closely at the issue, but "know" to reject anything from the tin-foil hatters which they see this as a part of. They can't bear the thought of such information "spreading," as though it could "infect" more people. But what does any of that emotional bluster have to do with a neutral presentation of information? Seeing such a furious response to this topic makes it all the more clear how threatened most people who are calling for deletion actually must feel about this issue. Most don't calmly cite logical reasons, they are actually furious, and that comes out in their angry retortions. Why do people get that angry? Because the demolition hypotesis is a powerful threat to their perception of the world and represents something that most people would far prefer not to ever consider -- "please just make that idea go away!" -- so that their lives can go on as normal. This is a natural response. If it were indeed only "nonsense," say, a stream of letters which contained no meaning, there would be no such level of vicious statements about it as we see here. There would be annoyance, maybe the average blow up over a detail, but not such a level of war. Unfortunately, this makes the task of admins on this issue all the more superhuman -- to literally rise above the massive emotional response that all Americans have to the issue of 9/11 and examine the issue as though a living robot. Best of luck to you. Locewtus 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, for obvious reasons. The day that even ONE liscensed SE will put an accreditation on the line for this garbage, it can have its own article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the validity of the theory scientifically as a criteria for inclusion, and calling delete based on that is not a valid deletion reason. We don't get to decide if the theory is valid, that's not our business here, our role, or anything else. We just present the facts as neutrally as possible. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is asking licensed SE's to put their accreditation on the line . . . no one is constructing a building, afterall, but rather, examining theories about a collapse -- SE's aren't the only ones who examine forensic evidence when things go wrong. Failures involving fires and explosions involve much more than just how a particular steel assembly behaves under a load. But sad to think what would happen if even one SE were to get out of line and actually consider the question of the issue, in such an evironment. Locewtus 01:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Torturous, just to make sure I understand, you will change your vote to "keep" if I cite for you one licensed SE saying CD is the likely explanation? --JustFacts 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Afd isn't a vote. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No I would not change my vote, but I would be interested in seeing it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, XP. Torturous, since this is not a general discussion page, I don't think it would be appropriate for me here to provide links just for our private edification. If it's not an issue that would actually change the view yuou express here, it's probably not appropriate. --JustFacts 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOT:

• "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia."
• "Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this."
• "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
• Guyanakoolaid 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, still a PoV fork, still gives undue weight.--Rosicrucian 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (4)

• Keep
  • I've not studied the article in detail, but every sample I looked at seemed to meet wikipedia standards — Xiutwel (talk)
  • It seems such a waste to delete the result of so much hard work, controversy, and solutions — Xiutwel (talk)
  • the people (MONGO, at least) proposing delete: you seem to not even have bothered being specific in your criticism. Just some general remark about a soapbox. — Xiutwel (talk)
• Comment I think we need a general debate on this: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes — Xiutwel (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have about 200kbs of commentary here in detail that clearly explains my rationale for deletion beyond calling the article soapboxing. I can't see how much more detailed i can get when I make it clear in my dicussion that the article is a POV fork...I said that repeatedly.--MONGO 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That your argument is the length of a dissertation does not make it correct. Precision and brevity is far better, but that does not make it correct either. Put very simply, if the text is no longer in the original article, except a summary paragraph, and if it has been split out into this article, there can be no fork. Instead it is a clerical exercise to split a lengthy article. You need to separate your thoughts on content of the article from the clerical exercise of splitting it. Fiddle Faddle 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is flawed. I have summarized why this is a POV fork, so I'll do it again. Half the links in this article were disallowed for not meeting WP:RS of which they failed to meet WP:V in themselves from the main article Collapse of the World Trade Center. So instead, it was put in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article is a POV fork of the main article because this is the information that was disallowed in the main article..it just resides here now. Had some editors been allowed to put these unreliable sources in the main article, it would have looked a lot more like this one. You need to to understand what is a POV fork and what isn't. If this article were to have all the unreliable sources removed it what remained could then be reinserted back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article needs massive reduction of unrelaibale sources itself...all those sources are good for is to demonstrate that the theories are notable becuase their are a lot of websites out there, but those websites are controlled by only one or a few webmaster and are not relaibale witness since they are based on fiction.--MONGO 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that reasoning is not flawed. The rebuttal you have just made is based on an incorrect starting assumption. It is very simple in reality. Split the article. No fork. Edit the split article down. Still no fork. Reduce any uncitable POV in the article, but not the aticle's commenary about the POV in the theeories. Still no fork. If you were correct I woudl agree with you. And for the recod I have no interest in these articles per se, no emotional connection with the atrocity, and simply think it was a sad and unwelcome event. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• 200 kilobytes per second? I'm impressed :) Seriously, I've missed it on the talk page. Could you please just link to it instead of saying "here"? About POV fork, I was not aware of this term but I think it is not right to believe that some articles would be subject to different guidelines than others. I think the forks are not to allow for cruft theories, unsourced, but to keep the main article readable, because elaboration of every doubt would destroy readability. To keep wikipedia consistent, however, the main article should be formulated cautiously where the Fork article would dig deeper into the specifics of the doubts. (Hey, I'll copy this.) — Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of see what you're driving at here, Mongo. What you're saying is that the stuff in the 9/11 CT article was a POV fork from the WTC collapse article and that was somehow acceptable until it was split out for clerical reasons. Is that right? The move from Collapse of WTC to 9/11 CT was before my time. But the article we're discussing now (as many have noted above) could also have been reasonably created from scratch, at least today. It's a popular idea with notable proponents. But, like I say, I can see how the history of this problem might blind someone to seeing that. I think we will get this article onto a footing of RS, but I don't think it will ever get down to a size such that merging it will be the right thing to do. 9/11 CTs have many components, and are so broadly recognized today that presenting these components in detail and in their own articles does not give them undue weight. It just gives them the attention they deserve. I think the backstory you bring up here, while perhaps unfortunate (if accurate), may be obscuring the real reasons that this article is necessary. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.--Thomas Basboll 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record, but if you take out the unreliable sources from this article and the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, you end up with maybe a 60kb article...which is bigger than the recommended size but smaller than many featured articles of which I have edited...if things are disqualifed from one article, they can't simply be placed in another due to them being POV and unreliable without it then becoming a POV fork...that is the definition of POV fork. Not being able to examine "closely enough" or whatever in the main article, evidence which is deemed unreliable, doesn't allow the creation of an article, even under a different name, that follows different rules than those that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Content forking, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." Please understand this guideline.--MONGO 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You remind me of my best defense: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Since that was my not my intent when I created this article, this is not a POV fork. The intention is to produce an NPOV article on the controlled demolition hypothesis. Nothing about the split from 9/11 CTs to a separate article will avoid consensus building. On the contrary, its creator (me) is currently trying to build consensus for a focus and acceptable sources. Lastly, the CDH article will have much more information than either the 9/11 CT article or the WTC collapse article.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to have a separate article to cover the subject in detail. This is quite normal. It is not a POV fork, because it does not advocate a biased interpretation of another article. It gives a balanced interpretation, but a fuller one, of a small part of another article. It's a subject that's known about worldwide, so wiki needs to be an authoratitive and accurate source on it (as on anything else) if it is to be a leading work. To do anything else, is against the interests of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Tyrenius 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (I do not believe the US govt is responsible for 9/11)

No, it is not necessary to have such an article, and the proponents of this theory are pushing for a separate article simply to boost its importance. Given that the only major external direct treatment is in one New Yorker piece (which, incidentally, goes into far less detail than it does here), and some allusive references in some rebuttal pieces, it is not at all clear that this subject warrants an individual article. Moreover, absent a reliable secondary source, saying "the New Yorker mentioned this guy, and Bazant alluded to another, so we should synthethize them into one theory" is a patent violation of NOR. --Mmx1 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid speculation about people's motives and ad hominem comments, unless you can prove what you allege. The theory of controlled demolition is well known about. I've certainly heard about it, and I'm not particularly interested in the subject. Haven't you heard about it, prior to reading this article? Wiki is a source of knowledge. Provide that knowledge without prejudice. Tyrenius 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (5)

• Comment: Googling for "controlled demolition" take me to page 70, and 691 - 698 of about 3,670,000. "controlled demolition WTC" is 68 pages, 671 - 677 of about 702,000. "controlled demolition world trade center" is 64 pages, 631 - 636 of about 895,000. "Controlled demolition 911" is 63 pages, 621 - 629 of about 1,270,000. [controlled demolition 9/11 "controlled demolition 9/11"] is 71 pages, 701 - 708 of about 934,000. A simple Google News search for controlled demolition turns up 278 news sources. Keep in mind that's only recent stuff--the past 1-2 months. "controlled demolition 9/11" on Google News is 146 sources--again, the past month or two only there; lots of older stuff is obviously about. The idea of the theory is clearly notable, and there are clearly MANY sources out there that have not been accessed and used yet. That includes "off line" sources such as books, magazines, print journals, newspapers that don't archive online (or indefinitely), slews of foreign media and books as well. Basically, the point is that the topic is clearly notable in and of itself, and *more* than enough data is out there online *alone* to give this enough content and sourcing to be on the level of a Featured Article. To delete, in the face of all this coverage online alone--keeping in mind the Internets are still a microcosm only of the real world--would be an affront to our goal of being the sum total of human knowledge, as Jimbo Wales put it. · XP · 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's just a couple from esteemed UK paper The Guardian. [15][16] If it is covered internationally in the press, it is by definition not "cruft", which is trivial material of interest only to afficianados of a topic, so can we please have a bit of objective intellectual rigour brought to the matter. Tyrenius 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)(I do not believe the US government is responsible for 9/11)

Ditto, for the curious--I argue because I honestly believe it's notable enough and with enough coverage to merit a standalone article, and the previous arguments of delete for lack of validity can be discounted utterly: if we delete unprovable theories/ideas, then all religous articles are gone. For deletion based on NPOV/POV--this has been demonstrated as not a fork, and POV editorial issues are never a deletion reason anyway; it's a reason to edit and do the only thing we are here to do: build the encyclopedia. Questions of no interest, lack of interest, etc., are dispelled by these simple searches, proving notability. And for what it's worth, I think the towers were brought down by 15 radical terrorists that both the current and previous US administrations did not do enough to counter ahead of time, simply from organizational complacency. "They don't do things here", and so forth. I think the only valid conspiracy is that a young John F. Kennedy together with future enemy Oswald covered up the Roswell incident to further Halliburton's oil profits (I'm kidding, obviously). · XP · 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Google is not a 100% litmus test. Search for my user name, I am the #2 hit. Wow! I need groupies! Second, isn’t Google an active webcrawler? (I am not an expert on the internet or computer jargon). If this is the case, isn’t this dispute and more talk here with the combination of the "time of residence" that the article has on this respected encyclopedia have an effect on Google searches? You know, when I do Google searches, I bet 75 to 90% of the time Wiki has covered whatever it was. Are we having that type of influence??? After all It’s Google! (BTW… I would like to have groupies!) JungleCat talk/contrib 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any topic which has an "article" will have significantly higher Google search response over time for any search matching the name of that search. This is due to WP's massive Google ranking, and the fact the interconnected nature of the Wiki boosts it in turn. Any page that has few wikilinks into it will do worse; those with more into it do significantly better. It would be a violation of WP:AGF to assume or say that people want the article gone to keep general public access to the information that may or may not be in the article minimized in terms of public exposure, due to this. That unsaid, anyone even considering such reasons for Keep or Delete are both (either side) wildly abusing the principle of Wikipedia and the encyclopedia itself. No personal bias or reasoning in any or all directions can be allowed in article name space and will be stopped. · XP · 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that bias needs to be stopped and that's one big reason to delete this article. Notability of subjects like this that require reliable references from the engineering community and other experts demonstrate that aside from a few that have yet to publish a scientific treatise on the issue, it completely fails notability aside from a bunch of POV websites that have no editorial review from outside parties. These websites can produce whatever nonsense they wish. We have an encyclopedic article at Collapse of the World Trade Center...and this one has a lot of the "references" that failed notability there, so they do so here as well. When the consensus doesn't agree to having some information in one article and then it shows up in another that looks at the same issue, that is a POV fork...it's very plain.--MONGO 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a touch flabbergasted by your non-policy based reasoning above. Let's go by WP:DELETE, which is the only thing that matters here. Hows this for RS sources? When clicking that Google News link--yes, some are not RS-qualifying, but the vast majority overwhelmingly are. And that's just recently. Also, where in policy did you determine that we need "notable" structural engineers to validate the validity of this theory to have it be an article? The topic of this article is WP:V: the theory exists. We have mounds of WP:RS qualifying sources discussing it. Newspapers. Magazines. News shows. Books. Independent films. Also, from the Deletion Policy:

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.

Therefore, WP:OR comments are not applicable--per AfD policy, that is an editorial matter, not grounds for any deletion, period. WP:NOT is not applicable for the subject itself--all those statements can be tossed by the closing admin. Issues with internal content are addressed by editing, not deletion. I and others have established amply simple and robust notability for the theory. Ergo, it counts on that mark. Again, we have WP:RS talking about it, and we can WP:V facts about the the theory. Any comment implying, suggesting, stating, or demanding that the theory itself be validated to count for an article are irrelevant personal opinions which have no bearing on policy or how Wikipedia works. We have many, many, many articles on things which empirically cannot be scientifically confirmed, in any fashion. As mentioned above by others, anyone wish to stand by the courage of your convictions and AfD God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? This is clearly now a resounding and overwhelming Keep. Also, this is likely the last gasp. Each year as this eventually even becomes a facet of folklore (if it isn't already) the yearly increase in coverage of this, each year, every year, will make this a permanent article. After all, people (especially in America) are still talking about the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate all these years later, and the JFK theories. · XP · 06:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add any Lexus-Nexis (or similar) search by those with access to such systems for "controlled demolition 9/11" would also beyond any shadow of any doubts establish validity to the existence of this article (in likely epic fashion, being a search of all published news articles...). · XP · 06:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What we are saying is that the premise of the article is OR. There are a few self-published sources (Jones and Hoffman) making these claims, who blatanly fail WP:RS. The New Yorker article mentions such a hypothesis, but does not treat the elements of the "hypothesis" in detail. Just because these people and their beliefs are ALLUDED to in reliable sources DOES NOT open the door to using them as primary sources. There is no collective "Controlled demolition hypothesis"; there are merely a number of theories and questions foisted by members of the conspiracy theory (or truth) movement which can be discussed. If you wish to collect these theories together, great. Blogspot's got plenty of webspace.

There is no "Controlled demolition hypothesis", not as advanced by any reliable source. There are people who believe "Controlled demolition hypotheses" of one sort or another, but they do not collectively make fodder for an article.

Reliable sources state "there are people who believe the building was brought down by controlled demolition". There are self-published sources that explain the reasoning and rationale for such a belief. The synthesis clause of NOR prevents us from using the former as a gateway toward inclusion of the latter. It's that simple. The 9/11 conspiracy article is the natural place to explain the former; nobody is saying that there aren't people that believe in controlled demolition. That's as far as the reliable sources go. None of them advance the theory and there is no place on wiki for delving into self-published and other such sources to fill that gap, which this article is an invitation towards. --Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)--Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For you: What do you think about deleting these articles: should they go too? God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? I can't prove them, either, and no RS really pushes them, but lots of people believe in them. · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... your stock examples. Do you look at the sources? Just a sampling, each has numerous reliable sources.

• God: ""God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995."
• Love: "Helen Fisher. Why We Love: the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love"
• Ghost: "Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal by C. G. Jung and Roderick Main (Paperback - Oct 5, 1998)"
• [17], [18]. Seems to me that the RS's point to the Loch Ness being a hoax or meme and the wording ofthe article should be changed; but one edit dispute at a time.
• Illuminati: "The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson"
• You've got me on reptilian humanoid, I fail to see any RS's (unless you consider Icke one), and I wouldn't really care if it went away. But, again, one dispute at a time.
• I'm not of the inclination or training to judge whether the cited sources for Marx's alienation are RS or not, and it's late. But yes, if they're all his students citing him, that would fail to be notable enough for an article independent of Marx. --07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

XP, I can see you simply don't understand the policies of this website. Last time...I'll make it easy to understand: Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article..so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork...hello. The policies you cite above are indeed applicable in any and all deletions, so that's bewildering that you would think they aren't. Yes, WP:NPOV...the undue weight clause...clearly applies...it is a non notable subject since no reliable references are available that support the controlled demolition issue...so it gets a passing mention in the Collapse of the WTC article...in keeping with NPOV undue weight....the number of folks out there that "believe" in CD of the WTC are meaningless...because that is just an opinion. If you take the nonsense out of this article, you get about 5 kbs left...and that's about it (of course the mainstream references in the article that are only there as refutation of the CD argument wouldn't be needed hardly at all). Mainstream engineers don't address the CD argument usually, because it is an obvious waste of their time.--MONGO 06:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'm understanding them, and I regret that I begin to believe my Google comment above is actually playing a role here based on seen editorial histories. Anyway, shall we AfD Bigfoot as no RS can confirm the big lug exists? Lots of people believe in him, but that's not enough? · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Appealing to other articles as some sort of "precedent" is a false argument. But in case you're preparing such an AfD, Bigfoot has an abundace of reliable sources that directly address the subject matter, not just allusory comments. If all that were available were Simpsons references and CNN news snippets, yes it would be worth deleting. What would there be to say? "CNN reports alleged sightings of bigfoot; the Simpsons parodied it"? The bigfoot article itself seems to have some reliance on non-RS, but we aren't discussing Bigfoot. --Mmx1 06:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting anaology, but of course we don't delete Bigfoot or anything like that...we follow the policies and guidelines, and if that was done here, we wouldn't be dealing with a "Hypothesis that Bigfoot is real" article which would be a POV fork.--MONGO 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Hypothesis of the Existence of Loch Ness" would be a gross violation of NPOV, and even the current article that states "Lochness is a mysterious and unidentified animal or group of animals" is unsupported by RS and should be changed. --Mmx1 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article," says Mongo, "...so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork." While I'm not sure Bigfoot and Nessie are the best analogies, keep in mind that much of the information in the articles that cover them would not be allowed in the articles on the Rocky Mountains (or bipeds) or Loch Ness (the loch, not the monster.) Bigfoot is a legitimate article even given the existence of an article on cryptozoology (the study of "hypothetical creatures" as the article puts it; compare: 9/11 conspiracy theories). Patterson-Gimlin film article is legitimate despite the existence of the Bigfoot article and it would not be allowed in any of the articles that cover the fauna of Northern California. That said, I do appreciate the critique of the title (Bigfoot hypothesis and Loch Ness Monster hypothesis would not be great, but simply calling it "Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center" would go too far in the other direction, I think. Maybe I'm wrong about that.)--Thomas Basboll 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (6)

• Comment on "self-published" sources: It is false to suggest that Jones is "self-published". His paper has been published in a book edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin (Olive Branch Press/Interlink). There is plenty of non-self-published material to work with, BTW: Griffin's paper on the WTC was published in The Hidden History of 9-11 by Elsevier. Tarpley's Synthetic Terror is published by Progressive Press. One may not like the editorial policies of these publishers, but these books are not "self-published".--Thomas Basboll 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was talking elsewhere about this. I see a lot of POV pushing on both sides based on people's beliefs. Some think these conspiracy things are non-sense and unpatriotic. Some think that the government did this and that the people who want to delete it work for the government as CIA/Homeland Security/Majestic 12 at Area 51. Basicaly my reasoning is simple. To some extent the conspiracy stuff is notable. How notable and to which article I don't know. But the main thing is that if an article gets too long it should be split. This one article itself is HUGE (I didn't read it). The voting page is HUGE. The references on it is 105. If it could be slimmed down to a stub, I would vote to have the content moved to something else. But it is so freaking LOOOONG the article itself probably should be split into two articles just so it's not too long. Anomo 10:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a couple of observations and a summary at this late hour. The concensus in pure concensus terms is significantly more in the Keep side rather than any other (yes, AfD is not a vote, but yes also that the much larger majority clearly believes the article has merit and legs based on this). All the delete reasons seem to be one of four points: 1) That the article should be deleted as non-notable (beyond disproven); 2) the theory itself needs validation from qualified sources to merit inclusion (absolutely inappropriate deletion reason--many articles in scientifically unproven theories ranging from God to Bigfoot exist); 3) POV fork (this is highly disputed and refuted); 4) various scattered reasons which it is not a violation of WP:AGF to say are clearly based on personal reasons, rather than policy (all of them can be safely discounted--I respect ones' personal beliefs, but they are not appropriate for consideration or discussion relevant to Main article space matters). And again, this already passed AfD once as a keep, exactly 10 days before this AfD. You cannot rerun an AfD until you get the desired result, and subsequent AfDs before at least 4-6 months after this one should be closed immediately on disruption grounds. WP:CCC is not applicable or appropriate either as concensus cannot trump or overrule the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, and the notability and validity of the article under policy has been established already once. · XP · 15:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is an argument that the "theory" in this article is nonsense, or that it cannot be proved scientifically, and therefore there should not be an article about it. This is not a basis for not having an article, if the subject itself is widely known about. As I've pointed out above it has received mainstream UK press coverage. If it is nonsense or unproven, that is a basis for an article that communicates these things, and therefore serves wiki's purpose of being informative and authoritative, as is done with other possibly comparable subjects. See List of conspiracy theories. There is no reason to treat this subject any differently. Tyrenius 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having some coverage of controlled demolition on Wikipedia, and not arguing that Wikipedia should not cover 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, "controlled demolition" is a central, key aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories is the article that covers "controlled demolition" and properly puts it into context of the other various theories. --Aude (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's your opinion, as opposed to the majority, and its down to the closing admin to decide now... · XP · 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is covered in accordance with the undue weight provision of NPOV already over in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. The reason undue weight applies to this subject is that there is indeed a scientifically and correctly evauluated body of research that completely refutes the lack of scientific evidence that controlled demolition happened...it doesn't do this in a direct rebuttal format but it doesn't need to since there is no evidence to refute. It makes a passing mention, in accordance with undue weight...this article therefore, which has information that was unreliable is a POV fork. Should this article be erroneously kept, all mention of this nonsense will have to disappear from the main article aside from a link to be in accordance with policy. XP keeps talking about the majority, what majority? I see some people who want to violate policy and keep this article, but I see no majority anywhere, and if fact, the majority, definitely demonstrate either a desire to delete this article, or have weak reasons for keeping it.--MONGO 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You've ignored my comment above. The truth or otherwise of this theory is not the reason for its being kept: it is the widespread knowledge of it that matters. If this article is kept, then there should be a summary in the main article, and a link to this, as is standard procedure. Please AGF and realise that those who don't agree with you also have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. Tyrenius 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Afd is not a vote", but-- Keep: 34; Delete (or clearly thus): 25; merge/middle ground: 3. Simply labeling as where my barometer of concensus was based on. That is as of 12:00pm New York time. I will add this is almost an identicle ratio of support for Keep that the last AfD enjoyed 10 days ago, and is actually more ratio-wise in favor or support on this AfD, indicating concensus has moved more still to the Keep side · XP · 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument left is a vote tally then? I see 29 delte, 33 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 weak delete...so 30 delete to 34 keep...so based on the tally, the consensus would be to keep, but that means we end up with an article that is a POV fork of several but mainly one other article...an advocacy platform for information that is not supported by any fact based information, only some websites and other material that is either out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales.--MONGO 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything you cite that falls under policy is reason to edit the article into a shape you feel falls under policy. And "out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales" is not relevant (I'm sorry to say). Our opinions on any subject matter do not matter, mine, nor yours. · XP · 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We already did that at the Collapse of the WTC article...that's why this one is a POV fork. WP:NOT is clear on this issue as well, since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of the interpretation of policy, and again, neither your nor my final decision now. It is strictly for a neutral admin now. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote: I can't think of anything else for any of us to cover at this point, barring new, original comments or thought by new people being added for the rest of the day. Everything else is just going to be a circular rehash of all already debated points. · XP · 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought", so people should not express their personal opinions, including the opinion that these theories are nonsense. That is what the article should examine from a NPOV. Tyrenius 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Baloney...any opinion can be expressed in comments, and if they are in article space, they only need a reference...where did you hear that people couldn't express themselves? This article is a POV fork, whether you wish to believe so or not and gross mischaracterizations of policies is not something I am impressed with when done by an admin.--MONGO 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My quote is from your comment earlier. We don't delete articles on the basis of personal opinions, I hope. Please steer clear of the ad hominem. Thanks. Tyrenius 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions if sourced/compliant with policy can be entered if the source reported them. Your take/opinion, nor mine, is acceptable. · XP · 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...so very wrong you are. The purpose of Afd more so than anything else is the points made so points stated as to the worth of an article can and will be made as that is the purpose of discussion. Trying to silence your opposition when you have no valid arguments is not an effective way to achieve your objective here. The fact that no one can demostrate that this article isn't a POV fork and keep harping that it is some great value to Wikipedia fail to see the fact that the issues are covered already in accordance wioth the undue weight clause of NPOV...read the policy and educate yourselves.--MONGO 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While a demonstration (of a negative) may indeed be impossible, I think it's pretty easy to see, if you look at the split and the justifications offered for it on the talk pages, along with the recent edit histories that pertain to the WTC section (of the 9/11 conspiracy article at the time), that it was not carried out in reaction to any POV conflicts. It didn't try to avoid such conflicts; it was simply an attempt to clean up. So I think the burden of proof is on you Mongo. You've tried to identify possible motives by going back to something that happened on the WTC collapse article long ago. But you have not successfully shown that those were my motives, or that those motives will guide the development of the newly split article. In fact, everything since "controlled demolition" was introduced in the WTC collapse article in its present form indicates that you're dealing with reasonable people doing their best to present controversial material in an NPOV manner. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, you essentially rewrote the Collapse of the WTC article, unfettered for the most part, and evn endorsed by myself and others. It was made clear then that most of the questionable references I have listed previously here, we're disallowed in that article, yet now they are here, a repository of links that were unacceptable there. The controlled demolition "hypothesis" is a fabrication that is only supported by these questionable links and the basis of the information was originally on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, yet was moved here, re-termed as a hypothesis (which is isn't) and then the article goes on to use, multiple times, the work of a gentleman who is currently under adminstrative leave pending a review of his work, which, as evidence supports, has not been adequately peer reviewed or published by a reliable and neutral third party organization...it was published by an unreliable and biased organization as it helps them to promote their conspiracy theory. This article is a POV fork of the main one which you rewrote. Once the unreliable info is taken out of this article, you end up with a stub. About all you can say on the matter and be reliable is: Controlled demolition issues regarding the collapse of the WTC were examined by NIST and the conclusion was that no evidence exists to support the hypothesis. There have abeen several engineers and one phycists that have stated that the collapse of the WTC could have or looks as though it was due to controlled demolition, yet this has not been sanctinoned by the engineering community as a whole and no relaibale published material has been produced regarding the issue....that ;s the whole ballgame, and trying to stretch it out into something is isn't by using unreliable sources is not in keeping with policy. It deserves a passing mention, at best, and that is what it gets in the article you yourself rewrote.--MONGO 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(shifting left)

Mongo, you seem to be conflating two different editing conflicts. The rewriting I participated in on the WTC article did not involve this "repository of quetionable links". Look back at the discussion that introduced my edits, and later led to the foregrounding of NIST's collapse mechanism. They all involved solid sources.--Thomas Basboll 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. To say that my work on that article was "unfettered" and "endorsed" by you demands that we ignore the part that took the most time: the rewriting of the "conspiracy theory" section into the "controlled demolition" section.--Thomas Basboll 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely...we argued there about these references and the consensus was that they not be in that article since they failed to meet policy and guidelines...now, here we are again, arguing about the same thing, but this time it's in the POV fork version...deja vue?--MONGO 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Mongo: those references were not at issue. If you thought they were you were not reading my proposed edits. I suggested using the mainstream news source that was already in there when I started, the NIST report, the New Civil Engineer, and an engineering paper [that came later].--Thomas Basboll 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have I heard that before? :) · XP · 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that Thomas wanted to use links to variuos websites that had previously (before he started editing) not been considered to be within policy for inclusion, on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am probably wrong in that assessment. The effort that Thomas made to bring the Collapse of the World Trade Center article up to standards is indication that he probably has the ability to produce featured quality articles if he so chooses.--MONGO 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (7)

• Procedural Comment Correct me if I am mistaken, but tallies during AfDs are deprecated, are they not? This AfD requires a wholly uninvolved, totally disinterested and highly experienced Admin to close it. One who will read the monotonous argument, counter argument and repeats thereof, and will sort out the wheat from the chaff calmly. Since emotions are running high on this it might even be wise (assuming procedures will allow it, and using the spirit of WP:IAR if they do not) to close the discussion prior to considering and posting the outcome. Were I an admin, and were I to be stuck with the task of closing this monster I would look not only at the arguments made in this discussion, but at many surrounding circumstances and naturally at the article itself, knowing that this was also likely to be taken by either "side" to deletion review. And I would write a small treatise on why I reached the conclusions I reached. I am pleased I am not in this position. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My count was simply to explain my current concensus position. EDIT: Also, I like your idea of closing admin detailing at length the reasoning, so no one comes away with hurt feelings on either side. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeps don't have a review process such as Deletion review.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So they don't. Silly me. But those who wish to delete do have the option of further nominations for deletion, which, in some ways, amounts to the same thing. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided ample time has elapsed from one AfD to another (any repeat of this one should it be a keep sooner than 6+ months would likely be inappropriate--two keeps in two weeks is ample proof of worth, if this is a keep). Repeated AfDing quickly can be seen as a disruption/POINT violation. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen a number of "Keep" results taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer to close it. Grandmasterka 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I support having this admin close this dispute. I feel he will be impartial and will act in an unbiased manner.--Shortfuse 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If shortfuse thinks Grandmasterka is the best candidate to close this Afd, then I would prefer to have someone else. Thanks.--MONGO 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you questioning Grandmasterka's neutrality in evaluating this AfD? If not, what's the issue? Sparkhead 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am now in the process of closing it. I think I can be unbiased. If you wish to make additional points, do it in the next few minutes, I will check the history. Grandmasterka 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your volunteerin to close this and th support to do so by two folks that voted keep makes you a bad candidate to do so and may lead to a sitaution. I don';t like to make threats, but being over eager in this fashion, I doubt you understand that this article is a POV fork. Afd is not a vote.--MONGO 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that this article is a content fork from 9/11 conspiracy theories as a result of that article becoming too long. Such content forks are indispensible tools for organizing large amounts of information, and in no way violate policy. --Hyperbole 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is realy simple. We have an admin who has not been involved in the discussion and who has volunteered to close this discussion. Since no-one would take on this task lightly it follows that the result is likely to be based on sound assessment of the Wikipedia policies together with the content of the article itself, the various arguments put forward here, a judgement about content fork vs POV fork (valid and desirable vs deprecated and deletable). Since the closure of this nomination is subject to scrutiny at so many levels the closing statement is likely to be more than a single "keep" or "Delete". And it is most unlikely to be based upon a "vote". I think complaining about our volunteer because one person has said "Seems impartial to me" is probably human nature, but is not wholly helpful. After all, we have so many systems in place for scrutiny that it would not matter, except transiently, if this person were biased as biased could be, though I have every expectation that is not the case. Let's just wish them luck and give them space to work, and not expect results for a reasonable period of time Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am aware of the person who has stated that they support this admin for the closing, otherwise I would agree. Whatever is decided by the closing admin will get no response one way or the other from me. Their decision will be accepted as final.--MONGO 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the article has links that were not permitted by policy in the Collapse of the WTC article, and the split of this article from 9/11 conspiracy theories was not supported by consensus to do so. If you remove the same unrelaibale links from this article that weren't permitted in the other one, you end up with a stub, nicely rolled back into the 9/11 CT article, where it belongs. --MONGO 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think there are inpermissible links in the article, that's an issue for the editorial process. It solves nothing to delete the article - the debate over whether the links should exist would simply spill back to the main, now more bloated, 9/11 CT article. --Hyperbole 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We already did that, over at the Collapse of the WTC article...why do it again? If we eliminate the sources that fail WP:RS due to problems with them meeting WP:V, then we have no need even for the factual rebuttal of th eremaining links from NIST, FEMA and the rest of the sources that meet policy...you then have a stub...that's all.--MONGO 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The body of this article originated on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page. Thus, saying it's a fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center is completely without merit - the fact that a parallel argument exists on this article that existed on that article does not create a "fork." Why have the argument in both places? Well, because it exists in both places. That's pretty common when you have a topic big enough to encompass many articles. --Hyperbole 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories was far, far too long, and branching off this theory - arguably the most notable of them all - was the proper remedy. The theory is obviously notable; it is obviously verifiable as the article is well-sourced. It is in no way unencyclopedic. Every reason given for deletion appears to me to actually be a reason to continue the editorial process. --Hyperbole 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes it could use a bit of cleanup but links mentioning the theory, including at least one link from http://usinfo.state.gov/ seem notable and reliable. There have been some changes (diff here) since the fork, but nothing to say the article has degraded beyond repair since the fork, which passed keep the last AfD (or whatever that double-AfD was). By the way, for an admin to make the statement The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of WP:NOT. is outrageous. Seems he acknowledged such by removing it from this page. Sparkhead 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is outrageous is those that fail to see a POV fork when it is staring them right in the face. I removed the comment myself so what's your point? Afd is not a vote and not one person who has voiced keep has understood that this article is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center.--MONGO 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not, MONGO. It's a content fork from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. A great deal of the text is simply cut-and-pasted from that article because it was too long. Thus, if you're arguing that this article is a POV fork and must be deleted, you're necessarily arguing that 9/11 Conspiracy Theories itself is a POV fork and must be deleted. --Hyperbole 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that the CD issue should not be covered, I am stating that it doesn't need it's own article...the 9/11 CT article needs a lot of trimming too as a matter of fact...--MONGO 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like an argument that it's an unnecessary content fork - something that may be subject to deletion if there's a consensus that it's unnecessary, but is certainly not a violation of policy. I'd urge you to respect the result of this AfD: it's clearly not showing any consensus on that issue. --Hyperbole 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a man of science, it is sad that so many wish to misuse Wikipedia to push their far out POV and create POV forks like this one. Shame on those that do so. Afd is not a vote, but a discussion and the discussion that this isn't a POV fork is weak and without a basis in fact.--MONGO 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"POV fork" is perhaps the most misused term on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that you're misusing it here. We both know that this article came into being because 9/11 conspiracy theories was too long - which makes this a content, not a POV, fork. Look, it's inevitable that 9/11 conspiracy theories, and anything forked from that page, is going to have a different POV from other articles about 9/11, and anything forked from those pages. But the existence of articles that present different POVs about the same material does not imply the existence of a POV fork - because if that were true, no mention whatsoever of alternate viewpoints about anything would be allowed on Wikipedia. You couldn't have Judaism's view of Jesus or Shi'a view of Abu Bakr or Kennedy assassination theories. Is that how you really want to interpret the term "POV fork"? --Hyperbole 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous...how many articles does this seies of conspiracy theories deserve? I feel that one is enough and that one si the one we have at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Collapse of the world trade center had a redirect to the 9/11 CT article section on this article. Basboll did a fine job rewriting the Collapse article, but consensus was to not have all these links (link farm) in that article, so now they are here...that's a POV fork.--MONGO 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is the idea that a group of editors carrying a content dispute from one article to another pre-existing article would retroactively make the latter article a "POV fork." If those editors started adding those links to, for example, 7 World Trade Center, should we then delete that page as a "POV fork"? Simply, content disputes are solved through the editorial process, not AfD. Yes, we're aware that you think there should be only one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories; it also seems plain that the community does not agree with you. --Hyperbole 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the recent deletions of 9/11 cruft articles indicates that this isn't the case at all. I'm glad to see it happening as for too long we have been dealing with this shameful effort to misuse Wikipedia for advcacy of nonsense. Simply put, the bar of notablity is simply too low.--MONGO 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Rewrite This article could be really good if someone took the time to rewrite it and many users actively patrolled it as with George W. Bush, butMONGO seems to be trying to get it deleted at any cost from what I have read (up to the third arbitrary line break). I have seen a lot of evidence for a controlled demolition and a lot of evidence against. This article could cover both equally if we would just take the time and effort.--Acebrock 06:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of peace

POV, unnotable as compared to other demonstrations that have occured against U.S. actions related to the War on Terror, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Controversey articles over the 9/11 Attacks, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq can handle this just fine, thank you. --Kitch 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Last I checked UPI and the Washingtonpost [19] [20] were major news outlets and wikipedia can handle this just fine, thank you. grazon 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A mere news event can go into WikiNews. Unless this does something notable, merely existing does not mean it should have its own article. --Kitch 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Washington Post coverage is a local city news article. See this link for the "Metro" category market in the top left corner. That's why the story is filed under the "Metro" section and not the "National" or "Politics" section. Remember, the Washington Post is not just a national newspaper, it is also a local and regional newspaper. There is no coverage of this event in the New York Times at time of writing[21].As for United Press International, this is a newswire service, and like its rivals, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse and so on, it carries many minor stories as it primarily services news outlets (its main customers) with as a great a choice of news as possible, and is not primarily driven by editorial selection of stories. A Newswire is not comparable to a major newspaper in terms of news selection. Bwithh 13:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a week long event and the arrest of jim winkler alone makes this important enough to be on wikpedia. grazon 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs serious work, but seems to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS. Article should be focusing on the organization, rather than the demonstration, as that what the title reflects. eaolson 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's no limit on amount of storage space we can use. Other marches and events like this get coverage, and it hurts nothing to have an encyclopediac article on it. You going to Afd Million Man March in 10 years as no longer relevant? · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, enough coverage for notableness. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but wikify and clean-up. --Ineffable3000 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. The cites are to small, "news-in-brief" sorts of articles, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to conform to Wikipedia standards. It's just another demonstration that will be forgotten in days. --Aaron 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, not encyclopedic. Tbeatty 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. As an added bonus, the article is unwikified, written in first person ("our"), and references are not inline. Andjam 06:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete press release. Gazpacho 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I suppose, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote things before they are noticed. Gazpacho 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have just formatted the article to help wikify it; however there needs to be a section added for against the Declaration of Peace as well as for. -- Casmith 789 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It needs some major TLC, but I think we can salvage it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article is preliminary, because notability is still a bit questionable. however, the event is being covered in major newspapers, so it's not a clear-cut delete case and it may end up being clearly worthy (by my standards). deleting the article right now tends to close off options, because there is a strong bias against re-creation of deleted content. there's no harm in waiting a week to decide.Derex 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 2420 references to this in the news today. Clearly has crossed the notability threshold. Even more notable than Lauren B. Weiner was (inside joke for T). Derex 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You got to use quotation marks and targetted terms when searching google or google news or google whatever. Otherwise you get lots of false hits like this. If you use quotation marks for "declaration of peace" and add in term "iraq", you get only ~81 hits - mainly local news coverage, including local city news coverage from the Washington Post (notice that it's filed under the "Metro" section rather than "National" or "Politics"[22]. I didn't see any other major newspapers. Zero coverage in the New York Times for instance Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply fair enough. with quotaion marks, it still gets well over 60 newspaper articles, including the washington post and several major city dailys, and is carried on the upi wire service. (it also gets +400 unique non-news hits). that meets my standards. i frankly don't see what's bad about providing information on what's clearly a reasonably large event, as indicated by the geographical breadth of the coverage). isn't that what we're supposed to do: provide neutral information about things people care about? people seem to care about this, as evidenced by widespread coverage. Derex 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, if you want to use my notability standard on Weiner, I voted Delete--Tbeatty 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war or Delete if not Merged Event has only had local news/small newspaper and independent internet media (e.g. indymedia coverage so far (about 81 hits on Google News). Special week and special day declarations are a dime a dozen. If this gets any major traction sufficient for major news sources, than promote the article. Otherwise, its just another protest event. It has some national organization, so ok to include in the main protests article but not for its own article. Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Johnbrownsbody 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete By itself it is a local news story. As part of a greater whole, it might be notable. Either way it does not stand alone as its own article. Maadio 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotion. Perhaps in a few months it will be possible to separate hype from fiction. Guy 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Protests against the Iraq War. Of the other protests described in that article, the most recent one to have a separate article, September 24, 2005 anti-war protest reported an attendance of 150,000 people in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post's coverage of this event reports 75 attendees at the "kick-off" event for this protest in D.C. on the 21st. I think the difference in scales is compelling evidence that this is insufficiently notable for a separate article. Choess 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note of order: By precedent, and I invoke the deletion of George Allen Smith, which stated that routine publicity is not enough to make a subject notable enough for an article. --Kitch 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war What Bwithh said. Edison 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:05 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Stilgar135 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- GLGerman 10:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Melrose Bickerstaff

More ANTM models - these ones haven't even finished competing yet.

Also nominating:

• Megan Morris
• Eugena Washington‎ -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. - Joshua Johaneman 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all...realitycruft. Kill them before it spreads. ♠PMC♠ 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. 99% of reality show contestants are not notable. TJ Spyke 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Premature. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - all of them heavily violate WP:N --Ineffable3000 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Needs more information and notability
• REDIRECT all to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 7 and protect. This is all very crufty. The girls have hardly started the show yet, and here are fans making entries. Please do not allow any more wasting of anyone's time. I had already redirected [some of these] to ANTM7 before, but some crufter keeps undoing these redirects. Protect until the show is at least 9 or 10 weeks in, when they will be whittled down to the last 3, or someone has signed a notable modelling contract. Ohconfucius 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all for now but keep open for recreation when there's more info about them. All the other girls from past cycles have pages, and we just went through a huge discussion on whether they should be deleted, and they all ended up being kept. HurriKaty 11:50 PM, 27th September 2006

Comment I think you've got your facts wrong there. Not all the girls have articles, and in the last AFD batch the articles were either merged or redirected to the relevant cycle. See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Cassie Grisham. Looking at Template:America's Next Top Model, it appears that about 2/3 of the girls have articles, but I don't think I'd be stretching it to say that some of those articles are stretching it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. — NMChico24 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Ogonga

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [23] — NMChico24 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A well-known figure in African Art circles, notable. - Joshua Johaneman 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep "Well-known" needs verification... but I'll accept on a preliminary basis that this guy is encyclopedically notable from the google search. The article was created very recently and should be given time for better referencing/context. And its especially deserving of leeway with the need to fend off systematic bias (WP:BIAS) in mind (both in terms of his regional background and his profession Bwithh 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bwithh; we aren't going to get accurate information on the notability of a Kenyan artist from Google. The ghits system is useful for garage bands from Michigan, not this. :) Anyways, establishing connections with a Brussels organisation, installing a large art project in Mozambique, and founding some sort of East African art organisation are all pretty good indications of notability. I wouldn't have worked on wikification if I didn't think the article had value. Picaroon9288 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's true. I hadn't really thought about that. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Thanks for the input! — NMChico24 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by InShaneee. (aeropagitica) 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exile and the Kingdom (Lyrics)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not to mention that this is likely copyrighted material. If it can be speedied, go for it. -- Merope ^Talk 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Joshua Johaneman 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notice that it was written by a single, very new, pageless user.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per MER-C. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom · XP · 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete due to copyright infringement. --Ineffable3000 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Copyright Infringement, not part of wikipedia - there are plenty of other sites for this --bdude Talk 05:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- contains no encyclopedic information, just a collection of maybe copyrighted material. -- Casmith 789 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

The sole purpose of this article seems to be to draw a distinction between the definition of the word "religion" and the word "mythology". Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide, so this seems dubious. Of course there are huge variances in opinion on that issue, especially because "myth" has the connotation of "false" for many people. There are complaints on the talk page that this page does not treat this topic in a neutral fashion, and that it was created as a POV fork of the explanation given on mythology. Given that both religion and mythology are defined or at least explained in their respective articles, and can refer to each other as needed, this third article seems spurious. Beland 00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Joshua Johaneman 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with religion and/or mythology --Ineffable3000 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the similarity or differences between religion and mythology are a live debate. Perhaps it could be better named, but I've no suggestions. JASpencer 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, i think. It might need some help, but it does have references and it does seem like a valid topic. Maybe needs POV work, but that's no reason to delete it outright. Merging might be a good idea, too, although i'm not sure how that would work (adding it to both mythology and religion seems redundant to me). ~ lav-chan @ 11:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the academic references establish parallels between religion and myth as a valid topic. Cleanup maybe, but I don't see why it should be deleted. Leibniz 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The relationship between religion and mythology is complex and certainly a valid subject. Even if the article as it stands now is flawed, it remains helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and clean up where necessary. Yamaguchi先生 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article coul do with some referencing from Freud's Totem and Taboo - same sort of area. Prickly topic which will be hard to avoid POV tags.Cas Liber 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Mythology is one component of any religion. It outlast other components due to its literary value & recordability. So people get confused & imagine its a seperate thing. But Dante's Inferno, for example, will far outlast christianity. Maybe we out to merge to Mythology and explain that all religions consist largely of mythology in the religion article. JeffBurdges 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteAll rekigions are in some way revealed. Mythology is not.--Anthony.bradbury 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Boccaccio (nightclub)

This page appears to contain little information not already listed under New Beat. The independent notability of Boccaccio appears to be limited. Ortcutt 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but expand and source better. The Boccacio was the first and for a few years most important mega-discotheque in Belgium, and the origin of a new music style. It was located in Destelbergen (near Ghent), not in Ghent as the article states, and even though its fame was before the boom of the internet, searching for Boccaccio + Destelbergen still gives 23,200 Google hits, though only 164 in English, e.g. [24]. A French language article calls it "le temple de toute une génération" (The temple of a whole generation"), which indicates the impact it had in Belgium and the surrounding countries):[25]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 September 2006
  • Comment this seems like it may be notable, but sources establishing that must be added before I can vote that way. Tewfik^Talk 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with sources and expansion —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks notable enough for Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability asserted in article. JASpencer 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. Yamaguchi先生 18:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. Brz7 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability. Guy 23:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CGMA

Non-notable independent "association" operating from a PO Box in Missouri. Google searches bring up mainly hits related to a different, more well-known, Country Gospel organization of the same acronym: the Canadian Gospel Music Association (cgmaonline.com). Also hits for various other groups called CGMA, but not this one. Fails all notability tests. wikipediatrix 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see where this article does not meet the notibility test? This is a viable and ligitimate organization. I am sorry Wikipediatrix, but you seem to rely on Google for an aweful lot of your resourcing and Google has not been found to be the most reliable source for information. There are plenty of references to this organization and I do not feel it needs to be deleted. Would deleting this article make it any less true that this organization exsists or has a rightful place in the field of Christian music? Hmmm. We might want to ponder that. Thank you for your time. Junebug52 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability proffered. Nandesuka 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as it stood at the time of nomination, it fit the deletion requirements, with the additional edititing, it still does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG and the only sources provided are fromt he organization's web page, which fails WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't seem to find much online referencing this org. Fails WP:V and WP:RS, and doesn't meet WP:ORG criteria for inclusion. eaolson 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:N, and WP:ORG --Ineffable3000 04:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert notability. JASpencer 16:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per above. (Though perhaps create a page for the Yodeler of the Year Award !!) -- Beardo 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although it should be noted that, if I recall correctly, the Wikimedia Foundation received mail at a postal box of sorts as well for many years. Yamaguchi先生 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pacifico Student Cooperative Housing

This is an article about a housing co-op for students and it's about 4 houses that house like 100 students. That isn't even close to notable enough for an encyclopedia. WP is not a directory. Giant onehead 01:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Wikipedia is not a free advertise site. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. It does have a claim for notability in that the article says it is "one of the only student housing cooperatives in the United States that was specifically designed and built for students". I've asked for a citation. If none appears then I'll change to delete. JASpencer 16:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Keith Lipinski

I believed I have unearthed mother of all vanity pages. Subject is a minor internet commentator on pro-wrestling, his "radio show" is more like a podcast (albeit a somewhat popular one), and if he was somehow able to pass WP:BIO, I would bet that only one sentence would make it past cleanup, maybe three. Prod was removed by User:Dr Vader with the comment "Article improved as requested. Objection to potential deletion due to the cult popularity of the show, and the major contribution Keith offers to the Dave Meltzer Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Thanks". hateless 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I've heard of him, but he doesn't deserve an article. Possible vanity. Just because a wrestling figure has a "cult following" doesn't mean it is a big one, usually is more like 50 fans. Giant onehead 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete it as fast as you can. Not every internet personality is worth an article, clever as they might be. ♠PMC♠ 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete opening paragraph is painfully vain and borderline nonsensical, and it doesn't get much better from there. Nuke it from orbit. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Danny. It's the only way to be sure. Bwithh 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WOW; He really took some time on that. Arbusto 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Danny Lilithborne and Bwithh. You can bill me. --Satori Son 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Umm, yeah, Delete Obvious vanity. Resolute 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and disturbing pics.--Húsönd 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --MaNeMeBasat 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He is known in wrestling circles, but only a small part of the page is salvageable Gretnagod 12:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that the Dr Keith show is either "vastly popular" or "highly regarded". JASpencer 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hopeless vanity, grossly POV, and I for one cannot be arsed to clean it up to the one sentence whihc is probably all that can be sourced. Guy 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think we should waste any more words on this article. Em-jay-es 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a big bellyflop. --Charlesknight 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... he is certainly not a Mustache Pete - Alexbonaro 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. What a load of rubbish. Jeendan 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw nothing which verified notability, and the tone of the article is appallingly non-encyclopedic. --Elonka 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be rewritten I agree, but it seems there's some amount of personal bias going into the nomination and all of the "vanity" attacks. In wrestling circles he's just as well known as the people he interviews, and a majority of them have Wikipedia pages (I won't list them all because then they'll be proposed for deletion too). BronzeWarrior 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is, whether he's well-known by word-of-mouth, or whether there are verifiable print references from credible sources, which prove his notability. If there are, then by all means, please provide links. But simply saying that someone is well-known, is not sufficient. You may wish to review the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability for more info. --Elonka 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The page itself lists his credentials - Pro Wrestling Torch, Figure Four Weekly, Puroresu Power Hour, and so forth. If print is the key aspect of this debate, it should be noted the F4W newsletter is printed and delivered to tens of thousands of subscribers all around the world every single week. I'm not saying Dr. Keith Lipinski is as famous as Dave Meltzer or Bryan Alvarez, but I am saying he's more than Joe Schmoe on the street and the caliber of guests on his radio show (top wrestlers from Japan to the US to Europe) speak volumes about how known he is. I still think much of the debate here is an attack on wrestling rather than a true judgment of his notability. BronzeWarrior 08:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but needs to be rewritten (and shortened) Igbogirl 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing says notability like having your article's photo taken by yourself via an outstretched arm.Vic sinclair 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Novastatic

Tagged as an nn-band, but Talk:Novastatic claims BBC Radio 1 coverage, so doesn't really make the PROD grade. AfDs love, care and attention is thus needed. Also note the (now) redirects at Redfalls and Skipping Beats. -Splash - tk 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless User:Novastatic can cite independant and reliable sources so an article can be written. Wikipedia is not a promotional site. Gain notability first, then have your entry on Wikipedia, not the other way around. Equendil Talk 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note. Links to Redfalls [26] and Skipping Beats [27] before redirection. Equendil Talk 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page. MER-C 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:AUTO. arj 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Slacked

Contested prod that asserts the non-notability of its subject, e.g. "small, independently-operated" and "about 50 to 100 users during peak hours." MER-C 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rl 07:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article updated to show notability. - Article author Shadow16 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a subject that should do well on Google if it was indeed notable or "well-known", as the article now claims – but it does not. Two or three outside links in some discussion board. I suggest the author provide references that might establish at least some notability besides their own assertion. Rl 10:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, despite the 'Z' security device the article mentions. If 'Z' is so well-known, perhaps someone should create the article for that and just mention Slacked there. ~ lav-chan @ 11:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Z security system may be notable enough for an article. JASpencer 16:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. arj 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable; the terms Z Slacked IRC in conjuction get 387 google hits, so for anything internet-related this is way below the bar. >Radiant< 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge within the Haverford College article. RFerreira 05:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Haverford Review

Nomination for deletion I'm sure this publication is a worthy showcase of Haverfordian artistic talents. However, as a free student arts publication localized to the Haverford campus and without much history, it lacks encyclopedic notability (compare e.g.The Mays) - and Wikipedia is not a campus activities directory. Also, the creator of the article[28] is the web manager for the Review[29]. Bwithh 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable publication, and no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nice for them but not notable. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge on reading the discussion that follows --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Haverford College. Only assertion of notability is "The magazine is the only of its kind at Haverford". Not good enough. JASpencer 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as a short menetion, at Haverford College.-- danntm ^T _C 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Arbusto 17:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Anonymous User, - This article serves a purpose. It is interesting to users who do not attend Haverford College. While not more than slightly notable, many articles are about subjects that are not noteworthy.

• Note Above comment by first time anonymous IP account user User:165.82.172.172 [ip165-82-172-172.haverford.edu] terminates at the Academic Computing Center at Haverford College according to WHOIS check. Bwithh 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note While I don't necessarily agree that the Review is not a notable publication, and did in fact recently learn that it's been going on for a lot longer than I thought (I will add this and further information to the page if and when the AfD is removed), if the overall feeling is that this article serves no purpose, I wouldn't be against its deletion, or someone else's merging it with the Haverford College article. On the other hand, having looked over the terms for deletion... it's not clear, in my opinion, and moreover I think this argument would be better-served on an article that serves considerably less purpose than this one. Poesian 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Luna Santin 03:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Donald M. Kendrick

A choir teacher, no sources, created in April. I tagged this with {notability} because it lacks sources, WP:V, and notability. Then the creator of the article removed my tag and left a rude message on my talk. A choir teacher fails WP:BIO, that's assuming that this article is accurate even though it lacks sources. Arbusto 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also delete: Donald M. Kendrick/Temp. --Arbusto 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Asserts notability, but does not provide citations. Subject is more than a mere "choir teacher," but this article must provide evidence of the claims of international renown.Johnbrownsbody 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely lacks sources. Possible vanity. Resolute 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Asserts notability in article. Should come back to AfD if no citations ready. JASpencer 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that is exactly why this article is at AfD now. the creator was given plenty of time to cite sources and failed to. Resolute 16:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the uncited text before bringing in an AFD. JASpencer 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't do that because it'd look like bad faith if the nominator removed the reasons for keeping the article. Arbusto 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - appears to be notable, simply lacking references. (I have added some). I can see nothing on either the main or talk pages about lack of referencing or lack of notability until tagged on 22 September. Just because an editor removed the tag, doesn't justify AfD. We need more articles on subjects like this, not less. -- Beardo 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you added was to confirm he started and directed a children's choir. How does that meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC? Arbusto 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually added five sources. I suggest that you spend more time trying to improve articles rather than just AfDing them. The CSUS bio could be used as a reference for much of the bio - but we need better references. It seems he was conductor on a recording of the Boston Philharmonic included in their 20th Anniversary Box set, but I am not sure a link to the Amazon listing for that is enough. -- Beardo 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You added links that don't assert anything to pass WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 02:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country"; does the Canadian Encyclopedia count as reputable media ? -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source for a tour? I see claims that he played 5 European cities. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I count 17 unique hits outside Wikipedia. I ahve never heard of him, and I am a listener and occasional performer of classical and church music. I don't see any evidence that this guy reaches the level of notability of Stephen Darlington or Barry Rose, to name two I know personally. Proper sources, please? Guy 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which 17 you mean, Guy - but there seemed a lot more than that to me. (Not all references include the M.) -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one "Donald Kendrick". Narrow your searching to music or you'll get this Donald Kendrick [30] professor of psychology in Tennessee. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-documented article shows that Kendrick has achieved international exposure conducting choirs on world tours and in leading concert halls such as Carnegie Hall [31]. Characterizing him as just a "choir teacher" is misleading and insulting. --JJay 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Well-documented"? Which sources and how does he pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The article asserts he played Carnegie Hall once, however, your link does not make that claim. It claims he is at CSUS and "director of music at Sacramento's Sacred Heart Church and co-founder and previous artistic director of the Sacramento Children's Chorus." He fails WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• This was already answered above: How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country". Not to mention the amazon albums, major concert halls, etc. Not bad for a "choir teacher" --JJay 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source that one of the albums he was part of sold 5,000 copies-- if so that meets WP:MUSIC and the article will be saved. Once again the claim that he played Cargnie Hall not only isnt cited, but is moot if WP:MUSIC isn't met. I agree with what another user said about your voting in AfDs.[32] Arbusto 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Music at your earliest convenience. Please review the article for the Carnegie Hall link - or are you contesting the NY Times as a valid source?. Otherwise, while I wasn't aware that Mr. Kendrick was a Norwegian ski jumper, I do value your opinion of my AfD voting at the same level as your AfD nominations. --JJay 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your miscite on this afd page. So your basing his notability on an article from 11 years ago, which said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." And the performance concluded "only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive. "[33] The NY Times even said his group WAS NOT DISTINGUISHED! Do you have a NY Times article from the last ten years to prove otherwise? Arbusto 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The one Times review of the Carnegie Hall performance is largely sufficient for me. Furthermore, I didn't have to search very hard for the link since despite your denials it was a source in the article. And while your selective quoting of the review is interesting, the Times does go on to say that "The chorus -- a combination of the Wayne State College Choir, the Donald Kendrick Chorale and the Long Island Masterworks Chorus -- produced a reliably robust, polished sound". --JJay 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great so he played one time with a bunch of other performers and sounded good with Wayne college, and Long Island performers. The issue is notablity and the source said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." That is an article from 11 years ago. Anything current to prove notablity? Arbusto 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are sincerely interested in Mr. Kendrick's career, please read the article and follow the links. You will see that this "choir teacher" is far more accomplished than you are willing to acknowledge and has been actively touring. In the meantime, by repeatedly selectively misquoting a bolded passage from the Times - that was actually attributed to a musicians union protesting the use of foreign performers - you are seriously demeaning your argument. --JJay 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Follow;

1) The article states "Mr. Kendrick debuted in Carnegie Hall with the Verdi Requiem in 1995" with a NY Times article linked.

2) The NY Yimes article says "Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians challenged the orchestra members' visas, contending that Mr. Tiboris hired the ensemble because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished."

3) Then the article continues: "The performance of the Verdi Requiem on Saturday evening showed that the union may have a point. Although the orchestra's strings produced a unified, warm sound, its winds were lackluster, and its brass players muddled their big moment at the start of the Tuba mirum. The performance, conducted by Donald Kendrick, was surprisingly leisurely; only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive."

4) Got any sources from the last ten years to dispute this "not distinguished" claim? Arbusto 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep even the most distniguished musician can get the odd bad review. Bio also asserts performances on CBC, it would be nice to see direct proof of this, rather than via the university biog as this would then allow assesment on the following WP:MUSIC grounds:
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

JzG, I could also name a number of current and former English Cathedral Directors of Music (see the article I wrote on Stanley Vann for a start), but would struggle to do the same for cathedrals outside England I don't think that necessarily means that they are non-notable. David Underdown 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. I'm not sold on the case that has been made for this subject's inclusion. PJM 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there simply isn't enough here to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Meets the notability criteria suggested at WP:MUSIC on several counts, such as radio network features and international tours. He has performed at Carnegie Hall at least twice. Even one hit wonders survive AfD, so if we delete this we would reinforce a systemic bias in favour of popular culture. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Alas. Carnegie Hall is available for all to rent. There's a New York company that specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there - for a fee. It's essentially a vanity tour. (I've paid my money and done the same thing, and so have performed in CH.) The booker of these tours is mentioned in comments above. I don't think notability has been established. Bpmullins 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. PJM 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do these vanity concerts regularly get reviewed in NYT ? -- Beardo 12:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ours was, but I can't speak to the general case. Here is the current lineup for these Carnegie concerts. There are notable names as conductor (Rutter, for one) but the character of the choirs singing shows what the series is about, IMO. When we went, our director conducted because we'd brought along enough singers. -- Bpmullins 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional consideration: International tours is, like the Carnegie gigs, an overstatement. I've been on these tours as well; you pay for your tour (usually it's 2 weeks or so on a summer vacation) and sing several concerts in churches in various cities. Tours like this are a staple of the volunteer choral singer's life - most of us have been on one or more of these. The more I read the more convinced I am that the subject is NN, even though I'd probably love to sing for him. -- Bpmullins 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unconvincing notability.--Húsönd 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are sources, but they do not establish the subject as meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, unless we're seriously considering every person who has traveled with a choir on trips around the states as going on a major trip, in which case I'll start the bio on my middle school choir teacher soon. GassyGuy 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Does your choir teacher takes choral tours to Eastern Europe and China, and release records sold through Amazon from the tours ? -- Beardo 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's also not part of the guideline being cited as reason to keep. The keep votes say to keep because of the concert guideline of WP:MUSIC, and I made my reply to that. This issue is tangential at best and we can address it when that article goes to AfD. Also, it would be best not to refer to her as my choir teacher, as I haven't been in a choir for many a year.

• Comment I'm confused. This is AfD. This is it. The article will be deleted today if the consensus is Delete.

• I'm well aware of what this is. I was referring to the hypothetical AfD of my hypothetical article of my real former choir teacher. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Minor pop bands survive AfD by WP:MUSIC; there should be more conductors on WP.

• It's a fine ideal to hold, but the conductors still have to fall within some sort of policy. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC for a musician says one tour of a medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources, or one half-hour network radio broadcast. The sources say he has several of each of these. If you disagree with WP:MUSIC, that is fine, but if you do cite the guideline, please try to do so correctly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I made that quite clear within my response when I introduced the segment being cited in my attempt to show why what holds true for a band or musician might not necessarily be the best arrangement for a conductor. Please don't be patronizing. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For me, he fails the academics test. Batmanand | Talk 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Though in fairness I should note the creator has not left any messages on my talk page. Cedars 05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton)

Unnotable church, lacks independent sources, looks like vanity for Donald M. Kendrick. I tagged this with the notability tag hoping to see improvement, but the creator of the article removed it and left a rude comment on my talk. This church lacks historic notability and fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). The one "news link" is from the Anglican church, which is tied to the church itself.

I searched "'Christ's Church Cathedral' Hamilton oldest" and got 40 hits none of which claim it is the "oldest".Arbusto 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator removed afd tag four times.[34] Arbusto 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest to you that if this happens in the future with another Afd, warn the user using the right template from WP:WARN, which is a menu of warning templates. The creator has been warned now about not removing the template. I'm going to check this out because this page was one I was tracking as one that might require an AfD myself. My "vote" will be listed once I have reviewed material. Erechtheus 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. I've inserted a demand for a citation of that statement. Hornplease 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's true and notable, it'd be on a historic registry. Also you'd think their website would mention that, but it doesn't.[35] Arbusto 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. An important ecclesiastical centre for the Niagara Peninsula, Christ Church was erected in stages, its form altered as the size and prominence of the congregation increased. Begun in 1835 as a parish church, the frame building was expanded in 1852-54 with the addition of a stone chancel and nave extension designed by the renowned Toronto architect William Thomas. The present nave, fashioned by Henry Langley, a specialist in church architecture noted for his masterly High Victorian Gothic designs, was completed in 1876, a year after Christ's Church was designated the cathedral for the newly-formed Diocese of Niagara. Although the building has undergone various alterations and renovations since then, notably the extension of the chancel in 1924-25 it retains its handsome 19th-century character. Source: http://www.waynecook.com/ahamilton-wentworth.html Johnbrownsbody 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That link doesn't say its the "OLDEST". Thus, the lead sentence that "Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada asserts notability" is deceiving on two accounts. There is no source for the oldest catherdal claim, there is no source this is on the Canadian historical registry. If these links are supplied it would be an obvious keep, but its lacking WP:V now.Arbusto 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about oldest Cathedral congregation or building? In the former case, it would be Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (St. John's) in Newfoundland, which dates to 1699. In the latter case, it would be hard to say, since so many have been renovated, have burned down (or in the case of St. Jude's Cathedral (Iqaluit), destroyed by arson]], and/or have been rebuilt/expanded that it's a tough call. Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched for something that would cement the "oldest" status and couldn't find anything. If we can get a citation on that, I'll happily reconsider. Erechtheus 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Keep as a nicely documented article that demonstrates the subject's notability. Erechtheus 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's another Cathedral of St. John (Saskatoon) "first Anglican parish" (this one of Saskatoon) created by the same user. Arbusto 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep ...as a historical site. · XP · 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I want to keep historical site articles. What event or people are tied to it to make it historic? Arbusto 05:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a historical site; being the oldest Anglican cathedral in all of Canada suggests notability. Yamaguchi先生 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Source for claiming it is the oldest cathedral? Arbusto 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per XP. Resolute 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per XP. --Ineff a able3000 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to fail WP:RS. --Aaron 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - though it should be tagged "Unreferenced". There are less than 30 Anglican cathedrals in Canada - List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada - I think all deserve articles. -- Beardo 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is according to a list made by the same creator List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada a few days ago. You are saying because its one of 30 on a WIKIPEDIA list of a sect of an episcopal denomination it gets an article. Perhaps you can cite that? Are all List of cathedrals in Canada getting an article? Arbusto 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So? The United States is 300 million people, should every government building get an article too? Arbusto 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) -- How many of those were built in 1835 ? But even so merge, not delete. -- Beardo 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican Church in Canada has between 800,000 to 2 million members - I am not sure what "sect of an episcopal denomination" is supposed to mean. The Anglican Church in Canada is clearly notable - the question is on what basis do we decide which of its places of worship deserve separate mention. If not, then this should be merged into Anglican Diocese of Niagara not deleted. But I think it should remain. -- Beardo 18:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic Hanover Courthouse was built in 1735, was the site of a significant case Patrick Henry was involved with, and was also the site of an important battle. The battle has an article. The locality has its article. Are you suggesting that the building itself should have an article?Erechtheus 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not ? -- Beardo 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that there are likely a good number of very old buildings in some European locations that certainly don't merit articles. Beyond that, there does seem to be an issue with the 1835 date due to the expansion of the facility. Thanks for answering my query. Erechtheus 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Cathedral church. Claims to be oldest Anglican church in Canada. Taken "notably" liberal stands within Anglicanism. That's three assertions of notability before XP's point. JASpencer 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment And the liberalism assertions is referenced, even if the other two claims were to fall. JASpencer 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Check the googles for "Christ Church Cathedral" Hamilton (46,000) or Ontario (~40,000). Sounds like the article is simply at the wrong title (or it's at the right title but the rest of the world doesn't know it!) Guy 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All cathedrals are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even the Stained Glass Cathedral? Erechtheus 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly preferable to numerous pages about minor characters in Japanese anime or towns in video games. -- Beardo 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment. No, because that's not a cathedral! It just calls itself a cathedral. A cathedral by definition is the seat of a bishop. -- Necrothesp 12:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The following are the dates of Canadian Anglican cathedrals apart from those of dioceses created in the 1880s and later on the prairies, the Arctic and northern Ontario:

• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Québec City — 1804 (first Anglican Cathedral to be built outside the British Isles; the designation as to Christ’s Church, Hamilton should be oldest in Ontario, oldest in anglophone Canada)
• Christ’s Church Cathedral, Hamilton — 1835
• St Paul’s Cathedral, London, Ontario — 1846
• St James’s Cathedral, Toronto — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Fredericton — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal — 1859
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, New Westminster — 1859 but lost cathedral status in 1929 when the see city was transferred to Vancouver
• St Peter’s Cathedral, Charlottetown — 1869 but not raised to cathedral status till 1879
• Christ Church Cathedral, Ottawa — 1872 but not raised to cathedral status till 1896
• Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver — 1895 but not raised to cathedral status till 1929
• St George’s Cathedral, Kingston — 1828 but destroyed by fire in 1899 and rebuilt 1900
• Cathedral of St John the Baptist, St John’s — 1850 but destroyed by fire 1892 and rebuilt 1893-1905
• All Saints Cathedral, Halifax — 1910
• St John’s Cathedral, Winnipeg — 1926
• Christ Church Cathedral, Victoria — 1929

One does wonder why this cathedral article in particular is singled out for deletion when it is part of a series on Anglican cathedrals in Canada — and no, I did not create that list; I did rename it from a somewhat cumbersome earlier title. Are cathedrals not inherently notable? At least that which is the second oldest in Canada, the oldest in anglophone Canada and one of only three pre-Confederation Upper Canada/Canada West cathedrals? The issue of older colonial buildings existing in the USA is of questionable relevance: anglophone Canada is of much more recent establishment. Masalai 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep I'm inclined to agree that all cathedrals are notable, plus the issue of same-sex blesings (along with the ordination of gay clergy and bishops e.g. Gene Robinson) are things currently threatening the worldwide unity of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep We should not even be entertaining this farce of an AfD. It's a Cathedral for God's sake. I also think Arbusto has some explaining to do for referring to the Anglican Church of Canada as a "sect". Carolynparrishfan 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a member of the Anglicanism project, I take offence that our work is being hampered by rogue editors who want to randomly delete articles about major cathedrals. Carolynparrishfan 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Arbusto called it a sect because that's what it is in at least one widely used sense of the word. I'd suggest you peruse WP:AGF. As to your project, everything in Wikipedia is subject to processes like AfD. If that is offensive to you, perhaps the Wikipedia project isn't for you. Erechtheus 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:AGF, thank you very much. It does not mean to assume good faith in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The use of the term "sect" is at best unfortunate and misleading. I am curious as to what this "widely used sense" is: Wiktionary provides one definition - "A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs." The connotation here is quite strong, even if the denotation could be argued to be harmless. Carolynparrishfan 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination. Erechtheus 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Connotation, connotation, connotation! Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:AGF, WP:AGF! Erechtheus 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at Sect you see "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well-established religious group...". So to follow AGF, we come to the conclusion that the deletion proposal came from an editor who didn't really understand the subject at hand anyway. -- Beardo 22:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Cathedral buildings as a rule are notable, and this one clearly has a history, both architectural and ecclesiatical. Deleting it as collateral punishment for Donald M. Kendrick is way out of line, and the use of "sect" instead of "denomination" is derogatory. But that's beside the point: the article contains notable material, and that's sufficient justification. Mangoe 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before you conclude that this was a matter of collateral punishment, consider that the article was not in the exemplary condition it is now at the start of the process. The nominator was not the only person who had good faith concerns about the article -- I previously proposed its deletion and was monitoring the article's progress at the time of the nom. Erechtheus 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Poorly written articles about notable subjects should be tagged for cleanup, not for deletion. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I disagree in part. There were no apparent sources that could be found to improve the article based on my cursory search. In addition, I disagree with this Cathedral="notable by default" theory that has sprung up in this discussion. I think it is biased in favor of religious institutions that have Bishops and could very well lead to a situation where Cathedrals that aren't very notable are kept "over" individual parishes that are more notable. When there is no apparent basis for notability, bringing an article in for AfD discussion is the only responsible thing to do if you ask me. Erechtheus 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. Any major church, whether of an episcopal denomination or not, is notable (we have many articles on churches which are not cathedrals). But cathedrals can easily be defined as notable for being the mother church of a diocese and usually (not always, but usually) pretty large. Nobody is saying that the churches of episcopal denominations are more notable than the churches of other denominations, but only those denominations have a group of churches that are defined as inherently notable in this way, so it makes sense to define cathedrals as a class as notable buildings. Like it or not, people are interested in cathedrals. When I visit a new city, the cathedral is always the first place I head for. And I'm not religious in the slightest - I just like fine buildings. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well yes, but you were also considerably more disposed to assume my good faith than Arbusto. If you recall, you said as follows:

How long do you believe it will take to add material that may establish the notability of this Church? I'm certainly happy to leave you be for a number of days or perhaps a month before re-checking the article to make sure any concerns have been met. Erechtheus 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is simply that most Church locations are not notable. There certainly are ones that are, though. What you have mentioned already sounds promising, so I really don't think there will be a problem once you're farther along building the article. In fact, I'm rather looking forward to it. That's one part of the reason why I like to go back and look at the work done. Do remember to remove the proposed deletion template if you have not already done so. Erechtheus 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the last sentence of your 13 September 2006 comment is what caused me to remove the proposed deletion template. Which is what really put the skunk in the air conditioner. I'm still wondering what the issue is with filling in the red-linked articles in a prior list of cathedrals (or indeed of anything). All Wikipedia articles are, after all, works-in-progress and the gratuitous insertion of a proposed deletion template in an article bearing the stub template without any prior notice by Arbusto as opposed to your approach to the matter does reverse the onus as to the presumption of good faith. Masalai 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The original AfD tag was added barely four hours after the "notability" tag was added. It seems odd that at no point was anything included on the talk page by either of the warring editors. -- Beardo 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cathedrals are generally notable buildings and organisations, unless there is exceptional circumstance (such as a very recently established cathedral with only a few adherents in its diocese). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it already for Christ's sake. RFerreira 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Not pretty sure what dabbify means, but if it addresses the WP:NOT issue per nom I have no objections to creating split articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Starship class

This page is an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT as the author(s) have randomly chosen several fictional universes and listed ships from said universes. There is no over-arching theme or analysis that makes this an actual encyclopedia article. Indrian 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think it's random, so much as incomplete. Possible needs a clarification to Fictional Starship classes (see List of fictional spaceships). And maybe better criteria. But on the whole, I find it useful enough to meet WP:LISTS and better than a category since it allows for quicker red-link access. FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The first problem with this line of analysis is that this is not a list, but an article. Now that, of course, can be resolved by renaming it, and if this article is kept, it should be renamed. As to your second point, it is doubtful that this list will ever be complete, so it remains random due to its incompleteness. Furthermore, it is indescriminate whether complete or not, as the items on the list have no relation to each other except that they all happen to be fictional. As for usefulness, how is it useful? Articles relating to each individual fictional universe undoubtably already has this kind of information, so it is not useful in that sense. Any one looking for a specific ship or type of ship in wikipedia are unlikely to look up a list named "starship class" or "fictional starship class." I cannot fathom that anyone would need to see all this information in one place, and even if they did, it would still fail WP:NOT. Indrian 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's an article versus a list? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. You'll have to explain what you mean. And I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious to me what the conection of the items are is, they are all classes of Starships in various fictional environments. Now you may think the entries are random, but that's not true at all. They are all spaceships from more or less notable series, grouped by series. Given that people are most likely to do what they know first, and what attracts interest to them, I completely expect such things to go first. Yes, it's not very systematic, but somewhat haphazard. That's the nature of Wikipedia sometimes. That's also why I agree it's doubtful the list will ever be complete, as I doubt that Wikipedia will ever be complete. People are creating new content every day, but I doubt it's increasing at the same pace of new things to include are. However, I point to this example of people wanting to look at Starships [36] presented as a visual comparison to size. If people want to do that(Slashdot and Sci-Fi Weekly both gave it a nod)), I can easily imagine someone wanting to look at it on Wikipedia. I certainly think it's useful. Perhaps some people might work backwards from it as well, if they're looking to compare several classes or genres. It's certainly no less useful than numerous other lists. You may not find it useful, I however, disagree. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind about the article/list thing, I figured it out. And yes, I agree it should be moved to something like List of Fictional Starship Classes, but I do not feel it needs to be deleted.
• Split and dabbify - split into lists for each fictional universe, and then make this article a dab page linking to lists of starship classes by fictional universe. 132.205.44.134 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll note, that's already done for examples like the Trek universe which already has fairly complete coverage for their various entries. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The introduction is basically original thought. The remainder of the article is an utterly unmaintainable, indiscriminate, fan list. Articles on the individual science-fiction franchises will inevitably be very thorough, but compiling an all-encompassing and comparative list of fictitious spaceships is ridiculous. Determining which spaceships are of equivalent notability is impossible, since none of them are real. Pure fancruft. --IslaySolomon 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem original thought to me. At most, it's a transference of the Naval Ship class article to Starships. Something that would seem to be well, obvious from the fact that numerous documents on the fictional works say "This is a class of Starships" or equivalent. But hey, you want to redirect to Ship class go right ahead. I agree, though, that eventually breakdown by fictional universe will be helpful. Since that's already being done though, I don't see the point in objecting, however. FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only are the first sentences original thought, they are not even provably true. Show me one place in a Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, etc. source where any of the following is stated, and I quote from the article: "By tradition, [a class] are [sic'] named after its first ship, known as the lead or class ship. Classes of starships, like their naval counterparts, are used to save effort and money; it's considerably easier and cheaper to build multiple units to the same design than to develop a unique plan for every individual starship. It also simplifies maintenance, training, and procurement of spares (not inconsiderable factors for any service)." While this is certainly ture when it comes to the real world, no proof exists that any of it is true in these fictional universes. Indrian 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so what you're saying is that the information is transference from the real world? Sorry, but I don't see how that fits the criteria of original thought. It does for example, apply to Star Trek, if you look at some of the technical books for it, like the Star Trek Encyclopedia (or see [37] for something on the web. It is minor, but it's what I can easily find online.) So at most, it's a little overbroad, since it might not apply to every example. Feel free to rewrite it, I could concur with that, as I do think the article itself is slipshop. FrozenPurpleCube 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Simply reporting naming conventions from a single sci-fi franchise isn't original research, but stating a theory on how those naming conventions inter-relate is. -- IslaySolomon 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Even when it can be observed in practice? I can accept some distancing from it, since it may not be true in every case, and I did try to reword the statement accordingly, but I'm sorry I just cannot concur with you that it's original research. It's observation of readily apparent information, justified sometimes by outright statements (see some of the Trek books for examples). If it's not in others, well, feel free to say which ones you know about and we can rewrite the text. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete Crufty fan essay. Artw 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redlinks galore, treats fiction as fact, mostly just a list duplicated elsewhere. The intro is original research and highly questionable - plenty of the civilizations listed don't even use money, so how could they save it by using starship classes? An non-list article about the cultural history of fictional spacecraft might well be interesting; this isn't it.--Nydas 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Efficiency applies even if you don't neccessarily use money. FrozenPurpleCube 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's original research to shoehorn real-world economic concerns (like efficiency) into fictional universes.--Nydas 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, I removed that section anyway, so that's a no longer something you can object to. I think it is still applicable, but it's not necessary. FrozenPurpleCube 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Duplication of lists like List of Starfleet ship classes. Other universes without such lists should create them for that universe alone, not lumping them in with every sci-fi ship ever seen on a TV screen. --Mnemeson 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as fancruft. Simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. Within specific fictional universes there may be enough WP:V information to create such an article as with List of Starfleet ship classes. But this reads like collector trading cards. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dabbify. Starship classes within a single continuum are notable things, but when putting all them together, they have nothing to do with each other, so it ends up being useless listcruft. JIP | Talk 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is one of the premier sources for SciFi trivia on the internets, and deleting this would compromise its reputation as a world-class entertainment guide. It's a bad encyclopedia, but a kick-ass guide to TV, movies, video games, pop culture, and porn, and it should stay that way. Billy Blythe 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This list is just too broad and lacks added value to make it worthwhile. Any purpose it serves can be handled by a category.-- danntm ^T _C 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Redlinks, which may be very useful. FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Split and dabbify per previous recommendations. I think there's something here. It certainly doesn't deserve an article and the stuff on top is original research. However, it may deserve to be a list. Other lists are less than exhaustive yet legitimate. In short, I'm most in favor of making a category and least in favor of outright deletion of the list and its content without at least putting it to good use. Yes. --Maadio 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wrong content, wrong title. Guy 23:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dabbify Per JIP. Aggregating these into a single list turns what could be a number of useful article subsections in their own cosmologies into listcruft. Choess 23:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay and Nydas. Andrew Levine 01:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay Solomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. It's enough having starship class articles for the individual franchises (or none, if said franchise is not notable enough for its own). To be honest, I think it should all be transwiki'ed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate recepticle for data, or something like that. Don't know it verbatim. --Kitch 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is very good at this sort of article.--Poetlister 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is PRECISELY what Wikipedia is good at. Our strength is in chronicling those corners of popular culture which might not end up in any "real" (ie, formally published) encylopedia, but are of major interest to users in certain fields. this page serves another vital role of such articles; ie, it serves as a forum and convergence point for fans of one genre through many different works, shows, franchises, etc, etc. Therefore, i feel strongly that we should keep this. Why shouldn't this be worth keeping precisely because of the people most interested in it, precisely as it is, such as, for example, science-fiction fans, budding writers, or those interested in the broad shape and pattern of speculative fiction, etc?

--Sm8900 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT if notable put it in the franchises pages. No need for a huge indiscriminate list. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Could do with a reformat and tidy, but everything there is notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay Salomon above. Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dab per JIP. Accurizer 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - too random to be encyclopaedic. Anything useful can be extracted by the editors of the main articles. BlueValour 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast

Delete. Non-notable podcast; 3 Google hits for "Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast" and 15 for "Nufc podcast" ... discospinster _talk 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn webcontent. MER-C 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vanity. Resolute 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Patrick 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If "Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast is the first Newcastle United Podcast ever made." is it's claim to notability, it's failed. JASpencer 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only citation that is directly relevant to the podcast is the homepage of the podcast itself. arj 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dodge 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete totally non-notable spam/vanity page, possible speedy under WP:CSD A3 & A7. Qwghlm 11:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Singularity Inductor

Nomination for deletion Gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. SMAC is a great (if somewhat flawed) game, but this is not encyclopedic. Taking this to afd rather than prod'ing in case there is some real life physics or whatever term that I don't know about. Bwithh 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per nom. MER-C 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there's not even a list of Secret Projects in the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And the information seems to already be at the Civ wikibook page. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Civ FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--I love SMAC as much as the next guy but this doesn't at all make sense as its own article, nor would it really fit into the main article due to a lack of list of secret projects. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. The speculation about "real" singularity inductors doesn't help. Choess 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And I played SMAC last night. Totally unencyclopedic. Go to Civfanatics or Apolyton if you want every last thing to do with CIV games. Spartaz 22:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Puras Inside

This article fails WP:MUSIC based on the claims made in it. In addition, there is only one English language search result. It does not establish any grounds for notability. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Creator has removed AfD template. Erechtheus 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maadio 17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Despite warnings, creator has removed AfD template three times. Erechtheus 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of flavors of chewing gum

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically listcruft. Crystallina 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This has to be a joke... · XP · 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:OR.--Húsönd 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as chewcruft. Actually, I wouldn't mind a representative list of kinds of gum added to chewing gum, but a list of flavors is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this is a list of the names of flavors, not an attempt to taxonomize the flavors themselves. Is "Cherry Chill" really different from "Cherry"? And what the heck flavor is "Blue Blowout"? Someone worked hard on this, and I don't want to denigrate that, but I don't think this should be retained. Pleather 07:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with suggestion that the author put this information in the articles about the brands. Gazpacho 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely useless listcruft. Many of the names are marketing-speak which doesn't tell anything about the flavours. JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. 23skidoo 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can hardly believe this exists! Guy 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete flavoured listcruft, do not swallow. QuagmireDog 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does he qualify for a Barnstar for triviality?--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree that this article constitutes indiscriminate information (and it falls under none of the categories listed on the policy page. The article is directly related to other articles in wikipedia (we have articles on chewing gum itself, as well as on individual brands like altoids, Trident gum, Bubblicious, etc., and flavors like spearmint and bubblegum). The information is also completely verifiable. Note that there are also related lists also in existence, like List_of_chewing_gum_brands. It's certainly as encyclopedic as many of the other lists on Wikipedia. It wasn't created just for the sake of creating a list. There are a lot of people who actively follow the chewing gum/candy/mint market, collect containers (like Altoids tins or tic tac boxes), and are interested in buying gum *across* the range of brands, not just within a particular brand. As a result this is actually a useful list for many people. The fact that Wikipedia has so many articles on individual flavors and brands demonstrates that fact in part. Ideally, it would be a section on the chewing gum page, except that it's clearly too long for that. If there were only, say, 12 chewing gum flavors in existence, nobody here would have a problem with listing them on the chewing gum page. But the list has become too long to be a sub-section, so it really needs its own article at this point. It is fairly comprehensive, although obviously not complete, and I'm the first to admit it needs some work. There are lists on wikipedia seemingly more trivial (i won't bother listing them here. you've all seen them). In many ways, a list of flavors of gum is analagous to a List of genres of music. It's true, they aren't taxonomized, but that's more of a reason to improve or reorganize the page than it is a reason to delete it. Also, yes, the flavors are "marketing-speak" to some degree, but so are brand-names (what does "Altoids" or "Kraft" really tell you about the products those companies manufacture and sell?) or book titles, and we certainly have lists of those. Also, somewhat as an aside, "marketing-speak" is actually of interest to many people. Although admittedly the consensus so far is to delete, that alone isn't reason to delete an article, i really think i've addressed the relevant issues here. -Bindingtheory 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

L programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This one. NN. · XP · 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

L00P

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn · XP · 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 10:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another brainfuck derivative not notable on its own. Equendil Talk 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Daniel.Bryant 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

L33t programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This page was a no consensus keep at its first AfD in March 2005. Xoloz 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one. Has enough spread of use to merit a stub at the least. · XP · 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:XP. JIP | Talk 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Esoteric != Nonnotable Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lambda programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This one. nn · XP · 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Alternatively replace with single line text that lambda calculus is not a programming language to clear confusion of some people. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lazy K

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This one has some spread, warrants an article. · XP · 04:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I don't think it's that notable. JIP | Talk 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the following is a quote from the article. Another unusual quality of Lazy K is its flexibility of dialect. Lazy K can be written in a combinatory logic notation (like (K(SI(KK)))), Unlambda-like notation (`k``si`kk), Iota notation (**i*i*ii***i*i*i*ii*ii**i*i*ii*i*i*ii), or Jot notation (1111001111111000111111000111001110011110011100). Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. Its not vandalism is it? --Spartaz 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per it not being Unlambda. —Ruud 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Music videos broadcast by CMT Pure Country

Delete. It's just useless collection of infomation. --Caldorwards4 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - useless listcruft. MER-C 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yay! More lists! eaolson 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Heh. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - another useless list. --Ineffable3000 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as scary precedent. Listcruft is one thing--lists of things performed by entities created to perform those things is something else entirely. What next? Books checked out of Wisconsin libraries, perhaps? {shudder} Although, I must say I admire those hearty souls who watched CMT in 1990, when all it did, apparently, was continuously broadcast a Garth Brooks video. --Pleather 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quickly before someone thinks a similar list of videos aired by MTV (over, what, 25 years?) is a good idea... 23skidoo 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

White-ball

Completely unverified. A game a guy told his grandson. Non-notable. eaolson 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nom pretty much sums it up - Richfife 06:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gazpacho 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't assert notability in article. JASpencer 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Its a game and maybe people want to learn i dont see the harm. The information is correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.193.193 (talk • contribs)

The harm. Also, "correct" isn't the criterion.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Popular game in Calgary, played at multiple group meeting including 'Club' which is the weekly meeting of Young Life ([Young Life Canada Website [38]]) and also 'Ventures' meetings, which is a part of Scouts Canada ([Scouts Canada Website [39]]). There is not verification because Heritage Park Historical Village will not allow the photography or copys of the history to be published. Amathers 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The village not allowing copies of the history isn't really the point. If the game is being played (even if you can't publish a photograph of the rules), then there needs to be documentation about it from reliable sources before it can be on wikipedia. - Richfife 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The game may exist but without being verifiable through reliable sources it can never be more than an assertion of existence. That is not the province of an encyclopedia. By the by, Mike Shamos' Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (ISBN 1-55821-219-1) has no entry for it and I know of no more comprehensive resource (and I know pretty much all the resources on the subject of pool and billiards).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The game exists, and should be on here just as much as something like Soggy Biscuit is. --DanceCommander 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Soggy Biscuit is disgusting, yes, but also a notable game (or at least an urban legend about a game) that has had a lot of coverage in print and on the web. Wikipedia doesn't pass judgement on whether something is good, bad or ugly, only whether it is notable. Also, for the record, DanceCommander is not an actual account (the signature is fake). - Richfife 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Betty Suarez, Merge the rest to Ugly Betty. No prejudice against un-merging these if Ugly Betty increases in notability and the content on these characters starts to crowd the Ugly Betty article. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Betty Suarez

Character(s) from a upcoming TV show on ABC called Ugly Betty, which has not premiered yet. WP is not a crystal ball, and I don't think it is necessary or notable to have every character from this show, which has yet to be determined to be popular or notable in the long run since it has not premiered, to have their own article. What if the ratings tumble and it gets cancelled in 5 weeks? It's not out of the question. This could also be considered fancruft and original research, and it may have been lifted from promo materials. Giant onehead 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unnotable characters from said show:

• Ignacio Suarez
• Hilda Suarez
• Justin Suarez
• Daniel Meade
• Bradford Meade
• Wilhelmina Slater
• Christina (Ugly Betty character)
• Amanda (Ugly Betty character)
• Marc (Ugly Betty character)

• Pare down and Merge All to main article. If the show lasts until, say, a third season (or is a major hit), then consider breaking them out into their own articles. - Richfife 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't pare down. Merge or keep On the grounds that the show has emerged as a breakout hit (and the fact that it's actually pretty damn good), I'm changing my vote. - Richfife 00:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Ugly Betty per Richfife. The show hasn't even premiered yet. TJ Spyke 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ugly Betty or Delete. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. What if it gets cancelled after 1 episodes, let alone 3 weeks? We don't know, and that's the good of not including certain things predicted to warrent articles. The very spirit of the crystal ball arguement for deletion. Kevin_b_er 04:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete all per above editors. --Aaron 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Premature to have articles yet. Agreed wait a few weeks and see if the show survives first, and once it does, only create an article on Betty herself until or unless any of the supporting characters become notable. 23skidoo 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Including ugly Betty Seems to be prediction not reporting fact. At the very best OR. at worst speculation and PR puffery. Spartaz 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I think that's going a little too far. The show premieres this week on a major network and would be notable at this point even it's cancelled before airing (which is very unlikely given the positive buzz about it). - Richfife 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I never intended for the show's article to be deleted, I just think the characters need to go. Giant onehead 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ugly Betty. If the show becomes a hit and that article becomes unmanageably long, then we can re-assess this. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- for now (and monitor). WOULD IT KILL US TO WAIT A MONTH AND SEE? Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to create all the articles. If the show is a hit the articles will probably get expanded. Deleting or merging now could just create the need to redo all the work. If the show tanks, all the merging, etc., can be done later.
  • However, in any event the articles should be renamed to indicate they are TV show characters. RickReinckens 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The thing is, we have standards here, and we can't go around and make exceptions like that. Just because someone "worked" hard to create the articles does not mean that they are instantly notable or should be kept. Yes, the show has a fair amount of hype, but that doesn't mean that the show will be sucessful. I think it's best to delete/merge the articles until it can be assumed that the characters are notable (if ever). Giant onehead 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is what's the big deal about waiting one month? Many articles are listed as stubs with only 2-3 sentences and they are kept sitting around for months "in case someone decides to expand it". One month won't kill anybody. Regarding "we have standards", "Wikipedia is not a beaucracy." It isn't necessary to make a decision immediately--monitoring relevant external events for a short period is the best approach. RickReinckens 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, you're wrong, simple as that. There is a problem waiting another month or so as we can't just make exceptions for articles. Odds are, the article will be merged or such, and if it's certified as a notable show to allow character pages, then perhaps they can be recreated at a later date. WP is not a crystal ball, and we can't just forcast what is notable. Giant onehead 04:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per others. Never Mystic (tc) 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ugly Betty has just premiered with ridiculously high numbers, so cancellation is unlikely. This is no different than the articles for characters of Lost or Desperate Housewives.--Isocyanide 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't think the reasoning for this vote is valid. Yes, it did get decent ratings, but that doesn't mean that the show would be kept long-term at this point. And Lost and Desperate Housewives are confirmed hits and have been around for a few years, this show has only aired one episode and probably got the high ratings mainly on curiosity and the fact that Grey's Anatomy was on afterwards. Even a show like We Got it Made got pretty high ratings at first, but that show got dumped fairly quickly, and not even all of the actors on the show have articles, let alone characters. Giant onehead 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Ugly Betty. The previous versions of this show have had at least moderate (often great) success in many other countries, including Russia, Spain, Columbia, and Mexico. Also, with the large Latino population in the United States, there are many people within the country who are familiar with the show already. While the jury is out on how it will fare in the US, I think that given its previous track record, the hype surrounding the show, and the great ratings it has recieved so far, so what's the harm in simply merging them with the Ugly Betty page and going from there in a month or so? Mhtbhm 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for Betty Suarez and Merge to Ugly Betty for the rest. In time, the supporting characters could branch out into their own articles, but right now there isn't enough information in those articles to keep them seperate. - Lex 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I hate that I'm making so many comments on this issue, but I'll make some more. I really don't understand where people think that initial good ratings mean that the show is an instant hit or is instantly notable or what. I'm not suprised that the ratings were alright for the premiere (not a "giantic success", but respectible), there was a lot of hype and the premise was unique and it has Grey's Anatomy following it. Who knows what the ratings will end up next week? Even a show like The Single Guy always had decent ratings based on lead-ins and such, and I don't see any characters getting pages for that show. I'll make a compromise and Withdraw Betty Suarez from consideration for deletion. Even if the show got cancelled tommorow, the hype and buzz about the character make her notable for WP for sure. I still stand by that the other articles nominated should be merged/deleted. Giant onehead 04:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected. MER-C 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden shoulders

Duplicates Golden Shoulders. (Speedy?) →smably 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close, I created a redirect to the proper article. hateless 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, thought this was a cut-and-paste move kind of situation, but I guess it's different. Thanks for dealing with this. →smably 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —freak(talk) 00:36, Sep. 24, 2006 (UTC)

Oleg Voronoy

DELETED BY AUTHOR. END OF DISCUSSION! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs)

The page contains no useful information about its subject; most of the enigmatic text is copied directly from this ad, selling the Russian language book. Jim Douglas 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable author, unencyclopedic text, creation is the only edit by the author. Nope. - Richfife 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• UnDelete Notable author. More than 424 entries in Google [40] and [41]. More than 8000 readers on-line [42] and [43]. Published books registered with Library of Congress ISBN: 1-4116-0995-6. Popular songwriter in Russia. [44]. Most of "enigmatic text is copied directly from" Wikipedia to LULU [45], not a vise versa. This article fully complies with “Biographies of living persons Policy”
  • Comment Most of those google hits are either (1) wikipedia mirror sites, or (2) lyric sites that end up at a dead end if you actually click through. I just tried to search for that ISBN. It's possible I entered it wrong, or did the search wrong, but it doesn't find anything. -- Jim Douglas 17:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment An ISBN # doesn't mean anything. Anyone can submit anything to the Library of Congress and they'll keep it for you and give you a # - Richfife 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Anyone can submit anything"? Way be correct, but any author who submits work to Library of Congress, think that his work is some contribution to the public. There is no "Anyone" and there is no "Anything". For every work allways some readers and some fans... and some people critics. Every one judges on level of they intelect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs)

Reply I'm going to assume that the implied insult is a result of a language issue. The author's intent is of only minor importance. People write what they consider to be "the greatest book ever" every day. - Richfife 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Richfife: I do not want to insult nobody here. Love! Peace!

• Delete Doesn't assert notability in article. JASpencer 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you define "Notability", since it is no Wiki Policy on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs)
    • Reply Wikipedia's Notability Page on People - Richfife 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Lilith angel: Also on the WP:BIO page, see WP:AUTO (Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?) -- Jim Douglas 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Jim Douglas: Yes, this article has been written by the subject. I don't mind if you delete it, I'm not trying to achieve glory and recognition by submitting this article to Wikipedia. I was just submitting my BIO to Living Russian Poets, that’s it... Unfortunately in our time, most of the work published on Internet, in different languages and form, so “Notability” is the question. Are you “Notable” if you receive more than 100s emails a day from your fans? Do I really need Wiki for that? Was just wandering that you decided to delete it now, after this article been published for 6 month.
      • Reply Lilith angel: I honestly have no axe to grind here. I was clicking the 'Random article' link and this article happened to come up. The first thing I noticed was that the external link was for a personal photo site. That seemed a bit unusual, so I spent a few minutes looking around on google, and the only other link I could find was here. I was wondering, though; wouldn't readers of ru.wikipedia.org be more likely to be interested in Russian-language poetry? -- Jim Douglas 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • ReplyJim Douglas: It’s funny, but you hit my site right at the moment I was updating it. It is not personal photo site, but artists home. I just left the photos, since I have been asked by fans to keep photos while I do maintenance of the site. Look at the article again.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lynx Log Works LLC

Non-notable company vanity page, created as advertising [46]. ProD removed by creator after rewrite. Only established this year, zero google hits [47]. Fails WP:CORP. IslaySolomon 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spammy. MER-C 05:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Transwiki optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Original research galore on this one, as well. While there's a Yu-Gi-Oh project going on (which I'm a part of), I think this kind of info is better served on the Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki. Danny Lilithborne 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if they want it, else delete per nom. MER-C 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if they want it, else delete per nom. per MER-C. Andrew Levine 01:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Charlesknight 12:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wikipedia is not a strategy guide.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article isn't a strategy guide, since it doesn't teach how to make the decks; if it was a strategy guide, it would say "The perfect aggro deck is: and give a list of cards. Nor is it original research, because there's websites such as Pojo.com and some about.com websites that explain what these decks are and how to build them. I think that if the sections can get expanded, this will be a good article. HOWEVER, I think this shouldn't have the word "strategies" in the title, but rather just be called List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats.

P.S. If you're going to delete this article, don't stop at just this! Here's two other articles that are quite similar to this one: Tank (computer gaming) and Munchkin (role-playing games); they are similar in that they teach about different styles, or strategies if you must, about MMORPG's and RPG's. SuperDT 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I don't see any similarity whatsoever, other than all three articles are about games. The article I nominated is a how-to guide, and you haven't said anything that proves otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment They are similar in that they explain about different styles of playing a particular game; for example, the tank article is a how-to guide on how to "tank" in MMORPG's, and the Munchkin one tells how to play as an underestimated character. The article you nominated tells about different styles of play that Yu-Gi-Oh players use. Second, I'm not sure how this(The article you nominated) is a how-to guide, could you please enlighten me? SuperDT 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Tank" and "munchkin" are common enough terms in gaming in general to merit having an article explaining their meaning and source; this article just explains how decks differ from each other using fan-based terms, with no sources whatsoever. "Aggro deck" has no meaning outside of MTG variant type games. Instead of trying to get the article kept as is (which it obviously won't), why don't you add some sources, or (better) consider a transwiki. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I guess I will try and find some sources, and make this article better, but you still haven't answered my question: how is this article a how-to guide? These are how-to guides: Aggro deck, Combo Deck, Control deck, and Midgame deck.

SuperDT 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki, it's all original research with no sources. TJ Spyke 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ballet Theatre of Central PA

Unfinished nom found by User:DumbBOT. Procedural nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Article should be "Ballet Theatre of Central Pennsylvania". My first instinct was to keep, but reading between the lines on their home page it seems clear that they're really just some kids after school dance teachers. One production (read: recital for parents) a year, always "The Nutcracker", performed at a local high school auditorium. Nope, not making it. - Richfife 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to transwiki, I'll happily provide you with a copy of the page. Wickethewok 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Awards in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat

Game guide article. No value M8v2 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a game guide. TJ Spyke 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to battlewiki.com TJ Spyke 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per above. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, is there a Battlefied specific Wiki? If so, transwiki it there. If not, then to a general gaming Wiki. TJ Spyke 05:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Found one. MER-C 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I also have to object to the term "no value". Surely it is easily conceivable that people would come to this article to look up this information, hence giving it value? What about the information in this article is "no value" that vast majority of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat is not? If all these articles get deleted should be begin a massive cull of all game articles for "no value" information? Remy B 03:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This article has no value. All the exact same info can be found on any gamesite.--M8v2 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. So can all information on Wikipedia - that is a necessity because original research is forbidden. Are you suggesting that any information on Wikipedia that can be accessed on other sites doesnt belong here? Remy B 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Not all. I'm just saying that all the info in the article is a direct copy of info you would find on gamefaqs. Other info that is posted on wikipedia from other sites is atleast summarized and edited to a certain degree before it is added.--M8v2 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete extreme cruft, fails WP:FICT, sub-topic of game does little to serve the larger topic of game. Does not aid the reader's understanding of the over-all game, but instead lists awards as if it were a game manual or a collection of trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if required and Redirect to Battlefield 2 article. Lists such as these are game guide material as they're exactly what you'd find on GameFAQs and of no relevance to those who don't play the game already. Until someone sits down and actually plays the game, how can they compare the difficulty in accomplishing these tasks?. Why would gaining 'insert award here' mean anything to them? Talking about these things, what kind of requirements players would need to pass etc. is useful information. FAQ-style lists spurting out all over the place add precious little to the information and drown readers with useless information. QuagmireDog 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, QuagmireDog (but no redirect pls). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft. --Charlesknight 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gameruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A single sentence explaining that there are awards for accomplishments (X kills under Y condition) in the Battlefield 2 article will suffice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Battlefied 2: Modern Combat. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteThe Kinslayer 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ERP5

Completing incomplete nomination by User:82.226.112.70. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - spammy, fails to assert notability. MER-C 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't attempt to assert notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't think I would call that an article - a business flyer maybe. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, should have been speedy due to lack of deletion reason. — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GNU Enterprise

Completing incomplete afd by User:192.169.41.44. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand 136,000 GHits, lots of chatter. I can see why the article would cause concern, but it looks real to me. - Richfife 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the FSF has identified it as part of the GNU project [48]. Gazpacho 08:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an official GNU project package/subproject, and is included in Linux dists (is in Debian at least as gnue-*). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Sonic Adventure Cutscenes

Completing nom made by User:Knuckles sonic8. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a gameguide, game/list cruft, useless trivia. MER-C 05:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruftus maximus ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is plenty to say/has been said about one of the Dreamcast's flagship titles without resorting to listing in-game cutscenes, let alone spinning them out into a seperate article. Dear me :( WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. QuagmireDog 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The plot of the game is covered just fine in the main Sonic Adventure article. This level of detail is way beyond what's appropriate in an encyclopedia. Ace of Sevens 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alexie 23:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendship Sloop "Old Baldy"

Non notable subject matter. MidgleyDJ 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Next up, an article about my 1960 VW bus "Boswell" - Richfife 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Capsize - nn yacht. MER-C 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The creator of Friendship Sloop "Old Baldy" has commented on the proposed deletion on the discussion page. Is it worth redirecting them to this discussion? MidgleyDJ 06:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. MidgleyDJ 06:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This particular yacht is nn. But perhaps the author should be encouraged to author an article of "Friendship Sloops" as a class of yacht. --Pleather 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the author already has done (see:Friendship Sloop). "Old Baldy" could possibly be included as an example? Perhaps then some of the material could be merged. MidgleyDJ 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Scuttle... notability severely questioned. --Storkk 11:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable sailing ship. JIP | Talk 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, "Old Baldy" already appears in multiple volumes of the printed press; she is already noted. Agreed that both the section on the type of vessel "Friendship sloop" needs expansion, but that does not preclude documenting individual vessels much in the same way that the U.S.S. Enterprise has a separate history apart from the class of ships known as "aircraft carriers". Friendship Sloops were contemporary working vessels of the famous Glouchester Grand Banks fishing schooners some of which are used as yachts and cruising ships today."Jwilsonnh 23:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones' websites

No notability asserted. All 15 references are to one of the same websites listed in the article. Suggest Merge into Alex Jones (radio) and delete. Aaron 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No merge necessary. --Tbeatty 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strivercruft. Misuse of Wikipedia for conspiracy theory advocacy.--MONGO 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything not already there into Alex Jones (radio). —CWC(talk) 07:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any info not already there into Alex Jones (radio). Outright delete is not proper. --Shortfuse 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Since the sites are Alex Jones's property, and the article is descriptive, I don't see a basis for deletion here. Gazpacho 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing in this article that the reader wouldn't know by simply going to the sites. as such, this article is simply advertising. Derex 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Alex Jones (radio) and delete. --MaNeMeBasat 10:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any useful information to Alex Jones (radio), else delete. MER-C 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Commet It is against the rules to delete after a merge. --Striver 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. Sandy 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically spam. No merge. Crockspot 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge I think Alex Jones' websites should be mentioned in the Alex Jones article, but not to the extent they currently exist in Alex Jones' websites. -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tbeatty above Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox GabrielF 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Into parent. · XP · 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge content, but no redirect. Namespace is not a significant search term, and most people looking for these will go to Alex Jones first. Redirect is not needed in my opinion, but the pages that were merged into this one will need redirects corrected to Jones anyway to avoid double-redirect.--Rosicrucian 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Rosicrucian. Morton devonshire 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete, we're not a directory of websites Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Tbeaty, Rosicrucian and Night Gyr or barring that Merge to Alex Jones. If the merger does occur we should do a history merger as well so we don't have the GFDL forcing us to make a redirect (since the search term is unlikely). JoshuaZ 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoshuaZ, if merged, merge history per JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I don't see any indication that any of these are notable, other than through others of his websites. If there is anything to be merged into Alex Jones (radio), do something to ensure the redirect from this name is lost. I'm not sure a history merge would work; perhaps moving the source of the redirect to something plausible would help. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no merge necessary, Alex Jones (radio) already gives as much weight as is due to this subject. Guy 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and redirect. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No notability asserted? Comment the websites are notable. 9790 google hits in the Netherlands alone: http://www.google.nl/search?q=infowars+site%3A.nl You will see there that the website is even mentioned in major Dutch newspapers. /&#151; Xiutwel (talk)

I agree that no notability is asserted in the article. However, it's still appropriate in Alex's own article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 25 might give a solution, to merge several of articles into one, allowing for a more encyclopedic article? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I suggest that the article we merge this stuff into should be Alex Jones (radio). Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones (radio) Mujinga 00:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge into Alex Jones (radio).--Jersey Devil 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Peephole 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not necessary. Rmt2m 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteFail to see the point.--Freddulany 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP This sort of thing has been featured on some radio talk shows, such as Jeff Rense's show and on the Coast To Coast AM radio show. Martial Law 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A radio talk show host's websites have been mentioned by other radio talk show hosts? How is that notable? Beyond that, Rense is a conspiracy theorist himself and Coast to Coast's own article says that it focuses on conspiracy theory and oddities.--Rosicrucian 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Worth keeping for information. --Nutschig 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Do not merge. Delete with prejudice. ---Charles 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, bad faith nomination. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiroshi Komiyama

nn--NONONONONON 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: NONONONONON (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comment This is the president of the University of Tokyo. However, the page is such a mess that unless someone shows up wanting to fix it, I see no harm in deleting it and letting it be recreated later. —Celithemis 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I fully translated the article from Japanese version. Please check it, and correct the grammatical errors. :-) --Masao 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Current president of Todai is notable. And page being in mess is no reason for AFD (althugh this page looks like a typical bio stub). Shinhan 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, and also Masao's edits. Neier 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A good stub now thanks to User:Masao. —Celithemis 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment jawiki is copyvio from [49]?--Ss2d 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a blatant copyvio. It is just a list of events; and a similar list can be found here and other places. The 2002 entry on the ja page isn't listed on either of those lists. Neier 12:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The president of a major nation's most prestigious university is of course notable. Fg2 03:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Author has userfied it. -- RHaworth 22:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tomas Perez Acle

A rather average scientist, doing your average scientist's work: Giving lectures, publishing papers, talking at conferences. Nothing particularly notable. No reliable sources given except for his publications. Fails WP:BIO (actually, since I'm no expert in the field, he might pass WP:PROF without me knowing it, but the article gives no indication). Delete. Huon 07:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like his CV. --Storkk 11:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - resume. MER-C 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:PROF. Leibniz 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Didn't anyone notice that the link for the editor who created this page (User:Tomasao) is a redirect to this page? Isn't there a policy that forbids creating articles about yourself?? --141.156.232.179 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

* See WP:VANITY for details. Leibniz 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only 7 publications, in at best medium-rank journals; the institute he's head of doesn't seem to be an independent institute of any obvious note, though someone who can translate the website might be useful. Espresso Addict 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Hi There... all of you are right... Actually is my personal page and is not more than a CV. I was creating a personal page for my user Tomasao, and suddenly I wrote Tomas Perez and I got a Baseball player page that is currently under Wikipedia. So, I thought that if a baseball player have its own wikipedia page, why not me?... certainly breaks several wikipedia "laws" and I will remove it.

• Please do. Creating a page about yourself just drives home the fact that Wikipedia considers you much less notable than Pikachu. Leibniz 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Duffee

Stub about a candidate for office. No notability asserted. Prod was removed without comment, so I left it alone for a while, but it hasn't been expanded in the past month and a half. I do not believe this individual is noteworthy. If he wins the election, then an article can be created for him. Shimeru 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as candidates aren't notable just for being candidates. --Storkk 11:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment same editor (User:Cstangler) also created Ralph Ferrucci, another NN Connecticut Green Party candidate. (Gee, they created that page as well!) --141.156.232.179 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by RexNL. (aeropagitica) 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Theory

Non-notable original research from video-gaming forum ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A1. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Redworth (hostel)

Delete entirely non-notable hostel. Charlesknight 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as noted, article fails WP:NN -- MarcoTolo 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim of notability and has existed for 2 years yet contains 1 sentence. WP is WP:NOT a web directory. QuagmireDog 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article's subject is not a web site. It is a business. Uncle G 10:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, incorrect term. What I mean is that a two year old sentence describing the services offered by this business seems like an advertisement (and one which apparently wasn't worth devoting much time to). QuagmireDog 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, having a look on Google seems to replicate the exact same sentence on many sites via Wikipedia or featured on that site (often surrounded by a stack of adverts). Struggling to find anything not involving that sentence or WP. QuagmireDog 12:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Valerie Oskin

Survived an attack in 2005, but since then the article hasn't been edited. Doesn't seem to warrant an article. —Xezbeth 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO --Storkk 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into some article that lists other similar attacks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well as far as I can tell, said article doesn't exist. So a merge vote is a little redundant. —Xezbeth 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. She's an example of a type of incident that would probably make a good article. --Maadio 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Nothing notable here, just a hopeless stub with info linking another case as padding. If there's anything to merge anywhere, please do it. Ohconfucius 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If anyone ever gets round to writing the aforementioned article I'm sure the details can be found on the WWW. Otherwise the lack of information makes the article redundant and of doubtful notability--Spartaz 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide a merge target. Punkmorten 09:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by RexNL. (aeropagitica) 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor Harbor Sea Scouts

non-notable local group jergen 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep after re-write. Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Organic lawn management

A how-to stub, unlikely to become an article but a good start for a chapter in a gardening book. Has been transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Organic lawn management) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom, article accepted. MER-C 10:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've pruned it drastically (and you've been a lovely audience). Should be encyclopedic now. I've also asserted the importance within the article. JASpencer 15:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Change to Keep - It's now a good stub thanks to JASpencer, but definitely a stub. Hopefully someone with good knowledge about the history of the "organic landscape movement" will come along and add some history, references, etc. :). (Nice work!) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question - Does that mean that the nomination has been withdrawn by proposer? JASpencer 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but that doesn't actually close the AfD. I'd be happy to see a speedy close though :-). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to List of motorways in the United Kingdom. Not sure why this was relisted, it was a pretty clear consensus to merge prior to the relisting. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbuilt British Motorway Plans

Delete: Granted Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, but I just don't think that this is really important enough for inclusion.--*Kat* 08:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of motorways in the United Kingdom, which already has some of this info. ::Supergolden:: 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Although the current article is probably not worth keeping in its present form, the actual subject matter is very interesting, and certainly warrents a page of its own. [50] is a great place to start. Dave 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Supergolden - there's not really much that can be said about these plans that's worth having a whole article for them. Let Pathetic Motorways deal with the fine details. — sjorford++ 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of motorways in the United Kingdom. Kirjtc2 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Supergolden, &al. ~ lav-chan @ 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per everyone. There is something encyclopaedic about transport plans which are not built, because it allows consideration of previous forecasts for road use. David | Talk 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oozinator

Fails WP:CORP for products. I can find no coverage in neutral/reputable media, and the article is filled with original research speculating about the contents of the television commercial and an Internet meme. It's been around a while and has had plenty of time to improve, but there simply isn't anything out there to make this a quality article. I don't think any of the contents here even warrant a merge. Delete. Kafziel 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has a link to the official Hasbro page on the toy, and a link to the commercial, so they're not speculation. Perhaps some tone editing would help. NawlinWiki 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The company website and a commercial for the product are not independent sources. As I said, it's verifiable, but not notable. Kafziel 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This toy caused considerable controversy. There is no good reason to delete the article. Tim Long 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What controversy? Where? A blog and an AV Club spoof? Look, if anyone can show me some quality sources indicating some kind of notability, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. So far, I've seen no evidence. I've seen plenty of nonsense, but nothing to indicate that this was anything more than a blip on the most obscure of geek radars. Kafziel 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for insufficient verification regarding notability. Wryspy 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That thing is just HI-larious. -- GIR 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Funny, but not encyclopedically notable based on current references. If Hasbro gets called to a Congressional hearing on this issue, we can have a rethink on the article Bwithh 13:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, Keep, or at least merge relevant content with Super Soaker – if nothing else, it could be added to the list of product models. Oddly enough, the Oozinator did receive some coverage in newspapers, based on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis searches. The Washington Post named it "[one] of the toys kids raved about" (June 12, 2006); the Florida Times-Union said the bio-oooze "looks like something that would come out of your nose" (May 29, 2006); the Arkansas Daily Gazette compared it to the monster from Alien (May 24, 2006); and it was even mentioned – albeit briefly – in a New Yorker article (July 24, 2006). There were additional results from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Star-Ledger, the Buffalo News, the Columbus Dispatch, the Modesto Bee, Newsweek, Business Wire, and Playthings (mostly included in "summer fun!" articles). None of these sources mention the semen thing, though. Zagalejo 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Skeet skeet. Wooty 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Super Soaker. Equendil Talk 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, the oozinator is not the subject of any of the articles that mention it, which WP:CORP requires. Those articles are about supersoakers in general. Pan Dan 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Furious George

rec league sports team. On a side note, I vaguely remember a 90ies punk band with the same name ccwaters 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Furious George is a men's (open) ultimate touring team, not a rec league (www.vul.bc.ca) sports team. I'd like to correct the name to "Vancouver Furious George" to avoid confusion with the 90ies punk band you mention. Seumono 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the band in question was on Lookout! Records, and is listed in allmusic.com. I'd say they are borderline per WP:MUSIC ccwaters 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please excuse my ignorance, this is my first entry (which is why i'm copying your markup). Does changing the name to "Vancouver Furious George" allow the entry to remain? I do not see a "move" tab on my page, so I'm not sure how to rename the article. Seumono 18:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is decided that your team is notable it would probably be named something like "Furious George (Ultimate)" ccwaters 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to band. Keep and move to Furious George. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's right. That is George Tabb of Maximum RocknRoll fame. ccwaters 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, but now the band is afd'd, and the ultimate frisby team is not. the frisby team was nominated, not the band, so now the afd is all out of whack . . . --heah 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Satori Son 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question* - if "Furious george" and "Furious George" are both credited to the band, I'd like to create a valid page called "Vancouver Furious George" for the ultimate team? Thanks 66.38.134.26 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I added Vancouver Furious George under Ultimate teams so it is distinct from the band. seumono

• I based my page on these other ultimate pages. Seattle Sockeye and Eugene DarkStar. Eventually, Vancouver Furious George page will look similar to Eugene DarkStar. seumono 66.38.134.26 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vancouver Furious George. This is a fairly important and widely-known Ultimate team. Adamkik 08:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I think. WP:ORG applies here, and the VUL seems like a local amateur Ultimate league. Moreover, there are no reliable third-party sources to verify this article. ColourBurst 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Changed my vote. It seems that UPA is a major North American league, and they won the championship in multiple years. Works for me. ColourBurst 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per colourburst and makes no claim to notability at all. -- Chabuk 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressing these two votes: They are not part of the VUL, they are a touring (elite) team. Moreover, I've added WP:RS's to the article. Themindset 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They were the 2002, 2003 and 2005 UPA champions in the open division. They are very well-known in the ultimate scene, are hands-down the best men's team in Canada, and are considered among the top ultimate teams in the world. Rawr 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse I would have voted keep, but I was unfortunately directed here by a message board post. I am a regular AfDer though, and my opinion is that this team is quite well known, being UPA champ is equivalent to being a championship club team in any other sport. Themindset 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - I've added references for their championships. Themindset 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per themindset. three time upa championships seems notable enough. --heah 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is probably the most well-known team in Ultimate of the past few years. They are not a rec league team, these guys are as close to professional as you can get in Ultimate. --Liface 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Xyrael / 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert ÆOLUS Myers

Musician and composer; doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Relevant Google search. Craaaazy unicode character, though not a critereon for deletion, makes a successful search for the subject unlikely. Fernando Rizo 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is asserted that all details of the article are true and verifiable. As regards searchable with Æ as a character in the name, Google has a number of entries for this specific person under the exact spelling Robert ÆOLUS Myers already in their database. User:Hiiaka 19:40, 14 September 2006
  • Assertions are well and good, but what we need is references. Please have a peek at the inclusion guidlines at WP:MUSIC and if you can find any verfiable source that meets those guidelines, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Fernando Rizo 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As Cited in WP:MUSIC this article satisfies:

1) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2

2) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

3) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). – numerous press articles in Honolulu Advertiser & Honolulu Star Bulletin – see google reference cited under Christian New Age references

User:Hiiaka 19:59, 14 September 2006

Revisiting the above arguments note that WP:MUSIC states, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria". These are three of the cited criteria that are met--1) Robert ÆOLUS Myers' tour to Spain which included the Expo '92 in Seville does not have readily available web citations, though hard copy information could be supplied in verification; 2) Relevant Google search as cited above derives a number of citations corroborating Robert ÆOLUS Myers' inclusion in Global Pacific Records roster. See Global Pacific Sampler, FRUITS OF OUR LABOR; 3) A major article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin (Mike Gordon, "The New Age of Music," _Honolulu Star-Bulletin_, 5 Nov. 1987.) is cited in a 1993 reprint for web article "How 'New Age' is New Age Music?" cited from Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 2: Number 1, 1989 by Elliot Miller.

Hiiaka 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If the sources mentioned above are the best ones available, then it's pretty obviously a delete. None of them are articles about the subject, the best one is the "How 'New Age'..." thing, which has one paragraph out of 12 mentioning him. 29 unique google hits for "Robert ÆOLUS Myers" (which also includes results that have ae instead of Æ) have no relevant mentions of him either. - Bobet 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The above refenced article, Mike Gordon, "The New Age of Music," _Honolulu Star-Bulletin_, 5 Nov. 1987 does indeed fulfill the criteria noted in WP:MUSIC, while the "How 'New Age'..." article does not, but does contain the reference. However, Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles from 1987 being pre-internet phenomenon are currently unverifiable by interent seach engine research. I will see if I can access a hard copy of the article and post a link to a scanned copy, though this may go against Wikipedia linking protocols (please advise how to submit hard copy references).

A second WP:MUSIC criteria is the artist's participation in "one of the more important indie labels" with a roster of "notable" artists. Global Pacific Records, with artists such as Bob Kindler, Steve Kindler, Georgia Kelly, David Friesen, Paul Greaver, Ben Taverna King, Charles Brotman, and Tor Dietrichson, etc. was a strong enough label to be purchased by Sony records in the mid-eighties when Private Music and Windham Hill had a lion's share of the new age market so that Sony could establish themselves in the market as well. Additionally, the above mentioned "notable" artists are search engine verifiable.

• Note: two albums released on Global Pacific as cited on Global Pacific Gems.Hiiaka 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I reference the WP:MUSIC criteria that states that only one criteria need be met to let an article stand and that declining the acceptance of articles due to criteria outside of the guidelines is capricious at best and Wikipedia reputation damaging at least. To defer to "not researchable by Google" is not cited as criteria for dismissal. Hiiaka 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - there has been a lot of research completed to support this article in the AfD process. I would suggest that one of the people who want to have this article kept should take the time to use this info to provide citations in the article. As it stands, the article still does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Citations to entities not the artist could be readily made, i.e. to the record company, the artistic collaborators and affiliations, and to specific articles within Wikipedia itself referencing the Sufi masters and Expo '92. This would get a cross referenced article, and I would be happy to do that. However, what remains under dispute is how important an indie label is Global Pacific (I am not sure that a citation would help this and would smack of a commercial citation), is the Honolulu Star Bulletin an important journal (this still does not cite the article under question), and did the Spain tour occur (no citations for this are available outside of citing the Expo '92)? I would suggest letting the article stand on the merit of the Record company and inputting the available citations. Citations are a good enough idea, but needs a bit more consensus to be seen a remedy. With a nod and/or a wink I could make it so.Hiiaka 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of uploading archived articles for citation.Hiiaka 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Citation sources scanned from the original articles have been referenced at the end of the article. Additionally Wikipedia cross references have been cited as well as pertinent web based citations highlighted. I hope these edits will contribute to its merit and verifiability.Hiiaka 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was "speedy" close. This is a problem which does not require deletion. MER-C 12:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Metro (System of a Down single)

This is not a single, it is actually a B-side. Please move this to the System of a Down songs category.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bedroom eyes

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Senordingdong 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Not very well written either. ~ lav-chan @ 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom. MER-C 12:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If its badly written, rewrite it. Bad writing is not a valid deletion criterion. In any case this could be significantly expanded into far more than a dictionary entry by showing how the term has entered popular culture in film, popular music etc. --Centauri 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef Bwithh 13:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef There's no real opportunity to expand this past a definition, and WP really isn't the place to do liguistic analysis. eaolson 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Open and shut. JASpencer 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. FairHair 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. I'm giving it 'dustbin eyes'. QuagmireDog 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef "Dustbin eyes" - LOL! --Charlesknight 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty much any word or phrase can be expanded into something resembling an encyclopedia article. But, hey, let's not, since that's a waste of everyone's time. Recury 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [51]. MER-C 12:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Global Symposium

Promo, advertisement. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Not encyclopaedia content at all. ~ lav-chan @ 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of schools in Antwerp

Useless list. (see WP:NOT) --Lord Snoeckx 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge somehow into List of universities in Belgium if 'schools' in this case means higher education. Otherwise, this appears to fit in with List of schools by country (in fact it's linked from that article, or a sub-article of it anyway). Someone clearly has gone through a lot of trouble to come up with the lists, but i'm not sure if 'lower' institutions of education are notable enough for Wikipedia. If they aren't, i guess somebody should delete all of those lists, not just this one. ~ lav-chan @ 12:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: School is in this case secondary education, so this belongs to List of schools by country --Lord Snoeckx 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

• Merge and redirect to list of schools by country. --Myles Long 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see anything wrong with this list. List of schools by country is merely a list of articles. One of the articles is List of schools in Belgium, which lists three articles, one of which is List of schools in Antwerp. So I fail to see what we would achieve by redirecting it - it would be a purely circular redirect. -- Necrothesp 01:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless list. It is an old copy of this list. Note that it does say" incomplete". Well, Steiner-Hibernia in the town of Antwerp is missing, for instance. --Pan Gerwazy 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Poor argument for deletion. This is Wikipedia. We can add to lists any time we want. Incomplete lists are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You are right, I should have elaborated. How is this one: if we add the ones that are now included in the list I mentioned above (Kunsthumaniora eg), would not that constitute a copyright violation? --Pan Gerwazy 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: WP:Notability is not an issue for lists, those are supposed to have minor items in an attempt to be[come] complete. There should be a notable interest for having such a list. Since there is a List of schools by country, such is clearly the case, less all lists of schools become a grouped AfD. Does anyone assume the list of UNESCO monuments to have been created by looking for signboards across the world? Many lists are copy-edited from an external source. The information is not some copyrighted material and can [have] be[en] obtained elsewhere. The present scheme of countries / provinces (or departments or...) is good: if all 10 provinces would become completed, it would probably be too large for a single page. It certainly would be for larger countries, and it seems better to maintain a classification method that can be used for any country. The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg does not have provinces. — SomeHuman 3 Oct2006 22:01 (UTC)
• Keep per SomeHuman and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list. --Vsion 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bracuta

Reason Extranauta 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Vanity, self promotion

• Weak keep, with conditions. On the surface it seems like vanity or at least it has POV issues, but the article does hint to notability (internationally recognised, TV appearances, all that jazz). If somebody can reword the page to have a neutral POV and qualify her notability, i would say keep it. ~ lav-chan @ 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody improved it. Punkmorten 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Cordless Larry 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 04:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I visited her blog. It's mainly just "this and that". No matter how many hits she gets there's absolutely nothing notable or encyclopedic. No comments on politics, world affairs, art, literature, etc., just "Here's what happened to me and my friends over the weekend," type stuff. Apparently the Wiki article was written by her sister. RickReinckens 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One World (project)

Promo for a personal website of two peoples' travel journals, non notable, advertising. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hello32020 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lowellist

There is no evidence that this publication even exists, let alone that it has any significant readership or is otherwise notable. The page was added by a user who has created many other articles about the individual Norman Lowell SandyDancer 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Drew88 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability, even by its author User:Drew88 Maltesedog 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Alkova Group

Prodded and endorsed for failing WP:SPAM, removed by article's creator. So brought here, still fails WP:SPAM. Delete--Richhoncho 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: nn WP:VSCA. Leuko 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hello32020 12:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2 Awards

Game Guide Article. Prob deletion was removed by another user.--M8v2 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. gamecruft Bwithh 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete I've been looking at all these articles in this little group of deletions, and they all appear as guides that do not belong on Wikipedia. gamecruft, not notable outside of the game, but this level of detail does not aid a reader's understanding of the game, it would only be relevant to a person playing the game in the form of a game guide. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, very crufty indeed. If you have the game, you'd already know this, or could read it in the manuals; if you don't have the game, the article lacks sufficient context. Cruft in other words. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft and per WP:NOT --Charlesknight 12:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGood Stuff Road guy 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki first then do so. It's a list of requirements, by BF2 players for BF2 players. Contributors' time would be better spent getting the main article up to scratch and rising through the ratings then trying to list info far above and beyond WP's remit. QuagmireDog 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article does not classify as a game guide becuase it has no helpful hints. It merely shows what the rewards are when a player has reached the levels on their own. Some of the other articles up for deletion are game guides, such as the articles with the maps. Those articles do clearly provide hints. Espiro 8:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Espiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delte. Helpful hints are not the only thing listed in game guides. Stuff like awards, requirements, etc. are game guide material. Hbdragon88 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP What the fuck is with m8v2 and his hate for battlefield 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badhand (talk • contribs) .

No need to insulting about it. Game-guide articles like these get cut from WP sooner or later anyway, the more there are floating around the more other contributors think it's OK to make more - more time wasted. Better to give WP readers a concise article stating the facts then replicate what's on countless game-guides. QuagmireDog 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unreferenced and therefore failing the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I like BF2, I don't see how this article is notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia. EvilCouch 07:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dalian Plant

Gameguide article. Gives hints such as where vehicles and spawnpoints are and how they can be taken. Delete this.--M8v2 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images.MER-C 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a game guide? Really? "There are a couple of places that can be used for cover on this flag, as well as a large orange tower, which is good for sniping." "There is an anti-aircraft missile launcher on the dock pointing towards the US aircrafr carrier. So if the Chinese are in control, attacking from the air can be difficult." "There is a small area of the first floor of the nearby building where it can be captured, but if spotted, the player can easily be taken out."

Strange new meaning of the phrase "definitely not" I was previously unaware of, since it is definitely, you know, a game guide. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How does this qualify as a games guide? let's see - This flag is next to a large warehouse. Around the flag itself there is little cover, but there is a small area inside the warehouse where the flag can be captured, though it is fairly open. The flag can also be captured from the roof if you have a helicopter, This flag is quite open, and the only real cover is the sand bags around the flag itself. This flag is not very easy to defend due to there being three entrances by land, as well as the aircraft carrier behind it. However, there is a tank and an attack helicopter, making it a valuable asset, though on the 64 player version the attack helicopter will only spawn if the USMC side hold the flag. How does that NOT read as a games guide? --Charlesknight 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Clearly a game guide and also crufty. The article is about one game map and is full of advice about tactics for how to play on the map. Bwithh 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, Bwithh. As there is BF2 wiki, that's where this belongs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft - take it to the BF2 wiki. --Charlesknight 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and remove extraneous info - there are many aspects of "game-guide" in here, mentioning common strategies, and even in-universe perspective. Having the basic info, and what real-world locations it's based off is informative and needs to be kept. The in-universe description is in fact copied verbatim from List of maps in Battlefield 2 so this article only offers a little extra info and a picture. merging and fixing the article is the best course of action as there's not enough info here to reason that it would be better broken up. -Zappernapper 15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps article should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Wall (Battlefield 2 map)

Game guide article. Gives hints and locations of objects. No value--M8v2 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a game guide? Really? "Snipers that lay claymores can be devastating, as there is no way to disarm them if placed properly, and movement is limited throughout the walls." "If the PLA were to capture the Quan Fortress, the European Forces defending the Lao Tian Ye Road would have a difficult time defending the PLA from capturing it." "While parachuting in is more dangerous, it can also be the quickest route to the Fortress Village."

Strange new meaning of the phrase "definitely not" I was previously unaware of, since it is definitely, you know, a game guide. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest you please assume good faith. After all, everyone has their own perspective on Wikipedia's policies so there isn't really a "right" or "wrong" interpretation. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Clearly a game guide and also crufty. The article is about one game map and is full of advice about tactics for how to play on the map. Bwithh 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. Even if a great deal of work has been put into it, it's simply a great amount of something that should not be on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft and as per WP:NOT. --Charlesknight 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per Calton's comments. This is textbook game-guide material. What on earth could a non-player possibly glean from this lot? How can this information be laid out in such a way to mean something? Where are the citations going to come from? GameFAQs? Sorry, but allowing this kind of material encourages others to do the same, resulting in more time wasted and more needless articles getting dragged to AFD. QuagmireDog 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete extremeley detialed. Could just be listed in three bullet points. Maybe a sentence. Any more and the average reader will not care. Hbdragon88 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to transwiki it, feel free to ask for a copy. Wickethewok 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ranking system in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat

Game guide article. No value--M8v2 05:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am also very confused as to why the article has been labelled as "no value". It seems perfectly obvious to me that people could come to Wikipedia to look up the ranking system of this game. It would be a great reference for people wanting to see the various things involved in going up rankings. How is that "no value"? Why would you want to delete something that people would use as a reference? What could possibly be gained? Remy B 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft Bwithh 04:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete extreme cruft, fails WP:FICT, sub-topic of game does little to serve the larger topic of game. Does not aid the reader's understanding of the over-all game, but instead lists as if it were a game manual or a collection of trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, MER-C. Transwiki to the BF2 wiki if desired. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Anyone who would be interested in this already owns the game and has the manual with this list of ranks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Why in gods name would you delte this? It is very valuable, and just cause you have the game dont mean u have the manual. It is not agame guide, just a reference as to what people who play this game online require to gain that next rank the want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacko3.16 (talk • contribs)
• Extremely Strong Delete By the ANONYMOUS guy aboves definition, this does indeed qualify as a guide, and it's only use is for people who have an illegal version of the game. The Kinslayer 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Songhua Stalemate

Gameguide Article. Gives flag positions and vehicle locations. Little to no value.--M8v2 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

delete as cruft and per WP:NOT - how many of those fucking things are there???? --Charlesknight 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. No, it's an obvious case of correct intrepretation and execution of Wikipedia policy since this and the others I've checked so far are, in fact, very obviously game guides, of only real value to those playing the game. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft Bwithh 14:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike at Karkand

Game guide article. No value.--M8v2 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to make it known that while I've been cutting and pasting some of my deletion rationales, but I have been viewing each article and evaluating it independently. I completely agree that these are game guides and do not belong on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, transwiki to BF2 wiki if so desired. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft Bwithh 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to transwiki, feel free to ask. Wickethewok 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of ranks in Battlefield 2

Game guide article. Gives points needed for Ranks and the rewards per rank. Prob deletion was taken done by another user. It's external link is a website that gives you the same info.--M8v2 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is not a guide, there are loads of lists on Wikipedia, what is your obsession with putting all BF2 related articles up for deletion? --Lorian^T_C 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete I've been looking at all these articles in this little group of deletions, and they all appear as guides that do not belong on Wikipedia. gamecruft, not notable outside of the game, but this level of detail does not aid a reader's understanding of the game, it would only be relevant to a person playing the game in the form of a game guide. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, classic cruft - only useful to fans, who already know this, but entirely useless and indiscriminate detail for the rest, for whom it lacks context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Anyone who would be interested in this already owns the game and has the manual with this list of ranks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete game guide material not encyclopeidc transwiki to StrategyGaming if possible. Hbdragon88 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete For all the above reasons. The Kinslayer 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to transwiki, feel free to contact me. Wickethewok 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wake Island 2007

Game guide article. Gives hints and locations of objects. No value--M8v2 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Map is notable, though I question its having its own article. However, being based on a real island, and for being probably the second most-played BF2 map, keep and cleanup. I also question the spirit of this nomination: "no value" seems to be a pretty harsh assumption. Wooty 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info, it's completely pointless to have an article on maps within a game, all of the other BF2 map articles should be deleted. GrahameS 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. gameguidecruft Bwithh 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I voted to keep the list. This is the singular most notable map in the Battlefield series, but it still is nothing in comparison to the deleted de dust. - Hahnchen 04:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into the list of battlefield 2 maps. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, GrahameS; optionally transwiki to BF2 wiki. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - --Charlesknight 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Kinslayer 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Toby Grotz

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This looks like a vanity article to associate with a very poorly formatted HTML essay[52] linked to the Nikola Tesla page, and the only External link on this page. --141.156.232.179 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo evidence of notability. Jeendan 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; problems can be solved, seems a useful article. Luna Santin 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

List of compositions for harp

Contains the names of two of the people who were part of User:Musikfabrik, as well as at least one of the people that company publishes. List is untrustworthy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Clean, Rename As much as I agree that this user has teken too many steps toward appearing harmful to Wikipedia, I don't see this list any different than List of important operas or whatever else. Does it need cleanup? Most definetly; and as it's be impossible to list every existing composition for harp (this isn't an octocontrabass clarinet), maybe 'Notible works for harp' or something similar would be better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Yes, an article of similar content deserves to exist, but unless someone wants to adopt it and reference it, it'd be hard to get it NPOV, and I'm not certain how much content would be keepable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It should go for the reasons Adam Cuerden mentions, unless there is a systematic overhaul of the whole article. I have concerns that this list may be being exploited for promotional purposes. A way should be found of avoiding this. If not, it should go. Therefore I'd say keep and give till the end of 2006 to fix POV problems --Folantin 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Neither the Sonata for Harp and Concertino for Harp by Germaine Tailleferre are published by Musik Fabrik. The Sonata for Harp was a commission by Nicanor Zabaleta, is the most widely performed and recorded Harp Sonata according the SACEM and widely used as an imposed work at major Harp competitions. It is published by Peer Music. The Concertino is published by Heugel-Leduc, was premièred by the Boston Symphony under Serge Koussevitsky and has been widely recorded. All of the works on this list may be verified here: [53], including biographies of all of the composers. This is clearly becoming a "witch hunt". Jean-Thierry Boisseau 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The link is a very long list, compared to the very short one on that page. It proves they composed for harp, not that they are particularly notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: As a minimal step, have deleted all known Musikfabrik composers from it - it may well be this results in unfortunate losses. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: The source listed, the Association Internationale des Amis de la Harpe was founded by Pierre Jamet, for whom Debussy wrote his famous Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp. All of the main teachers of the instrument throughout the World are members of this association or of it's chapters. The list given on their site in not inclusive, but selective. All of the composers listed here are not only listed, but have a biographical page. I assure you that if this organisation lists it, it's a reputable source. This list is short because it needs inclusions, not deletions. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I doubt me the list has even 1% of the names listed there. Unless you intend to add every name on that site, it's not really a valid reason for selection to say that it's on there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dammit, Boisseau. I'm trying to believe in your good faith, then I learn that whilst you may not publish some of poor Talleferre's compositions, you still include every single one listed in your catalogue. Can you please not try to imply things that aren't true? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not sure this can be saved. There are very serious problems. Why non-exhaustive? Who decides notable? Why is a particular piece notable? Can you offer any evidence that X piece is played less than Y piece? These give me very serious doubts as to whether the page can be saved, even before we get onto the whole POV issues surrounding the Musikfabrik role account business. Moreschi 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Are the current versions of Flute repertory, List of solo cello pieces, List of compositions for cello and piano, List of compositions for horn, List of compositions for piano and orchestra, etc., unwelcome on Wikipedia as well? None of these lists could possibly be exhaustive and they do not articulate the criteria for the inclusion of entries either. --Defrosted 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Let's see how the vote on this one goes. It may well be that all or some are salvagable, if some sources can be found, or even be decided to be fine as is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; extremely useful list, as would be any list of compositions for a specific instrument. Needs expansion and notability-checking, but it's certainly keepable. Antandrus (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for harp, carrying over similar consensus. Luna Santin 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

List of organ pieces

Contains the names of two of the people who were part of User:Musikfabrik, as well as at least one of the people that company publishes. List is untrustworthy

• • Delete as per nom. (unless there is a systematic overhaul of the whole article). I have concerns that this list may be being exploited for promotional purposes. A way should be found of avoiding this. If not, it should go --Folantin 13:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Although I do have some reservations, Keep and clean up, paying very careful attention to possible addition of non-notable composers, as indicated in the nomination. These kinds of lists can be useful, although this one would become extremely long if ever completed. Antandrus (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If an article is untrustworthy, the solution is to edit it, not to delete it. Fg2 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Pseudonym

Non-notable band. Had a minor hit, with no sign of any high chart placement. No entry on AMG shows level of notability

• Delete - nn. Not a speedy. MER-C 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination Equendil Talk 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Canadian Space Opera Company"

PROD removed without meaningful discussion. Article doesn't assert any importance, a Google search [54] reveals just 15 mentions lifetime, which seem to ammount to official pages, blogs and college newsletters... all really just mentioning that the Company exists, with no reviews or information about it from which we could write an article. If kept it should be retitled to remove the quotation marks. --W.marsh 13:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD as A7 ("Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.") as an unremarkable group of people. Cool3 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I wrote the original article. I've retitled this to remove the quotation marks, and added as much notability as I could. :-) I wasn't sure what the notability standard was for Wikipedia. Feel free to delete the article if you think it best - I won't take it personally. Cheers! Davetill 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, meaningful coverage by independent sources. Have they been reviewed in widely read newspapers? Magazines? Etc. --W.marsh 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

666 rail

Non-notable sporting event. Only Google hits for "Chris Haffey" "666 rail" lead to forum postings and a YouTube video. Talk page says this "is considered a great achievement by the Aggressive Skating community," so it should be mentioned in a press article or a organizations web page somewhere. Lacks reliable sources. Contested prod. eaolson 13:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS unless somebody can find reliable sources. Crystallina 15:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can i ask what would make this article better? Because I don't understand why there needs to be any reference to this in the media, Aggressive Skating is becoming an ever incresingly popular sport so we want people to know about great acheivements that have happened in the sport and give the public a place where they can find out information about the acheivemnts.--Churchill 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Originial Research and non-notable. As per the above question, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources for articles. Because anyone can post to youtube or a blog, such sites are not considered reliable sources of information. Also, most Wikipedia requires that the subjects of articles be notable (see Wikipedia:Notability). Media articles or references in academic literature easily assert notability, but blogs and youtube do not. Dozens of articles are deleted on the basis of notability every day. However, if you can provide citations to reliable references for the event, it will be considered notable and factual. Just find a few, and everyone will be happy. If there are none, it is likely that the article will not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. However, you can always move the article to a subpage of your userpage so that people can still access the information. Cool3 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Luna Santin 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Audree Jaymes

Article as it stands right now does make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. A check at IAFD reveals only 33 films. Tabercil 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• • To clarify what I'm saying, she's non-notable. Tabercil 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason given for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'm following your notion... Punkmorten 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sulfur 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mecha as Practical War Machines

Page spun off from Mecha today. A heady combination of unsourced, unverifiable, essay to which is added more than a hint of crystall ballism and a hearty helping of cruft and original research. There is a slim chance that an article can be salvaged from this trainwreck, so I don't presently have an opinion as to the Right Thing to do here but I'm certainly tempted in the direction of deletion. Make this into a good article and you're sure to win Danny's third contest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft per nom. Leibniz 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mecha is awesome and extremely popular. There should be as much information on mecha on Wiki as possible. Article can be cleaned up, and AfD is not cleanup. Billy Blythe 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a heady brew of original research. No refs, is essentially an essay. This will open the door to similar fanciful weapon systems having 'Are they practical' articles as well. --Nydas 18:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR essay. Inappropriate title for an article stubification/rewrite. There is an article to be written about DARPA's Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation project and related research initiatives. There's an existing article on Artificial powered exoskeletons but unfortunately, about 85% of the quite lengthy article is focussed on popular culture and fancruft references. Personally I would ship off all those fan culture references to their own specifically titled pop culture article, and expand the real life research stuff in the exoskeleton article. Also, BLEEX could do with some help too. I'll put it on my to do list Bwithh 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Robocruft. Artw 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the problem itself is genuine enough, but it does need sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I split this material off of the original Mecha page specifically because it was a big ugly mess of unreferenced conjecture that had no place being attached to a page that was otherwise very good. While it might make interesting reading, the fact that it is all conjectural means it belongs on somebody else's website. I would have just deleted it, but for the fact that Mecha fanboys will probably just revert it back to the original mecha page. Jboyler 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As things stand, the vast bulk of this article is useless conjecture. We should write a concise summary of attempts to construct a RL mecha for the main article and leave it at that. Kensai Max 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft as impractical OR machines. It's a mecha fanboy's favourite talking point and should be saved for the chat-rooms. QuagmireDog 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and crystal-ball work. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR using the level-7 anti-cruft cannon. --Charlesknight 12:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The OR rule is only put in place to stop vandals from proposing their own theories about subjects already established. There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Therefore finding sources is impossible. But it is still a subject of interest to mecha enthusiasts, therefore it should be kept because it is a notable subject of interest. Subjects on wikipedia also include pop culture topics which don't have acedemic research. See donkey punch for example. This is another topic based on pop culture. Lengis 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Yes there has. But they're known as exoskeletons. Bwithh 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, since nobody's coming around to close this. ;) Luna Santin 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pesfan

Contested prod. I still hold that this fails both WP:WEB and WP:RS and should be deleted. Crystallina 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be an advertisement. Zero references. Vic sinclair 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as apparent advert. Dubious if it passes WP:WEB. Luna Santin 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Written in a very promotional style which suggests advertising. No references or links. Dukeseee 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Leonard H. Tower Jr.

• Note to closing admin: Do not speedy, do not cite WP:SNOW and do not collect $200. Also, take into account the previous discussion, which should have been relisted here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Also to closing admin: Please note that the article has gained all fifteen -- so far -- of its sources since this second AfD, most in the latter stages of this debate, and had no sources at all before Sept. 24th at 16:11. Please bear this in mind when evaluating the weight of responses below. LossIsNotMore 07:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article at AfD as improper. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Per DRV, the AfD page will be semi-protected to prevent spamming. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a worthwhile stub. IMO, hits that "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" clause at WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • An argument that WP:BIO shouldn't apply is always a weak argument, and indicates that the person probably does not warrant an encyclopaedia article. Any person who warrants a biographical article should easily be able to satisfy WP:BIO. Uncle G 08:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe there's a reason that clause is there, and this is a good example of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you tell us what you mean by that Jeff? I'm not seeing you demostrate any actual notability here so the argument you make reads to me like ruleslawyering. Surely that's not what you intended, is it? ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I mean that WP:BIO is designed to set up a framework for notability, but even it realizes that not everyone who's "notable" is going to meet the standard. If you need to dismiss it as ruleslawyering, you'd be wrong and so be it, but I think his position in the FSF confers notability, and it should stay based on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, Jeff.... Go ahead. You have my blessing! Demonstrate that. Provide a cite that he has the position, and that it is notable enough in the history of the open software movement, or whatever else might help establish notabiilty. The keeps have been asked for this for some time, and I'm not seeing it. Hypothetical, or unsupported, assertions don't cut it for me. Until something changes in the article this is such an obvious delete that your claiming differently causes me to question your judgement about what's deletable. Providing a cite would be much more useful than the wikiwlawyering you seem to be engaged in. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you might want to lay off the accusations of wikilawyering. It's entirely unnecessary. If I find a cite between now and the end of this, I'll gladly add it - you can do so, too! But the accusations are tired and uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You might be tired of them, yes, but they're not uncalled for in my view. Call a spade a spade and all that, your comments often look like that is what you are trying to do... If you have the cites needed to satisfy my standards here (which I think are more in tune with accepted practice than yours) I'll be falling over myself to change from delete to keep. As for adding cites, I looked. Didn't find any. Not sure I am convinced that adminning a mailing list, even for 10 years, quite counts. As I said, I have 2.5x ghits he does and I'm not notable. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                • No, they are uncalled for. If my comments "often" look like that, you better have more than my belief that WP:BIO should be waived for this one if you're going to continue to go down that line of accusation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • So did you have any cites as to his notability, then? I have to wonder. I see a number of cites added that satisfy me that he's been part of FSF and LPF for a very long time. But they don't establish notability, to my view, just participation. I worked for IBM for 12 years, a much more notable org than FSF, but I'm not notable. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Maybe you are, I have no way of knowing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • You never did actually supply any sources, unless I'm mistaken. You just arguned about process. Fortunately others did. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a worthwhile stub to expand on. Subject is notable and has made important contributions which are indeed "part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" (active part in designing GCC, active figure in FSF and pre-FSF history, etc). Capi 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are arguing that someone forms part of the historical record, and not supported it by pointing to any such records. Instead, your supporting data are unsourced statements about what this person has purportedly done, rather than pointers to where what this person has done has been recorded in the historical record that you claim that this person is already a part of. The Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies as they apply to living people employ the primary notability criterion in part to filter out people who are not being recorded. If you wish to make an argument to keep that holds water, please cite sources. Show that this person has formed part of the historical record by pointing to the historical record. Uncle G 08:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I know this from primary sources (I am not, however, in any way linked to the subject of the bio, have never met him, etc). Capi 12:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Aha. Do you not have permission to disclose these primary sources to us? Because I suspect a lot of people around here know what primary sources are and how to get hold of them. I'm on the fringe of extreme sarcasm here, throw us a bone, will you? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It is not a matter of permission, or me trying to hide anything... If I seemed to be doing so, it was simply because primary sources are not normally considered adequate verifiable material for encyclopedic content. I know of (some) early free software history (including GNU and FSF) mostly due to following the free software community and conversing with some of the people who have been actively involved in it from the start. I can't really tell you "go to this URL or read that book where a secondary source said this and that". Not that there necessarily isn't one; I just never really researched into it, as I didn't have to. If you look at RMS for example, there aren't that many sources either, outside of himself or the FSF, regarding many of the things we take as common knowledge, and mention in his article. (added a posteriori: GRBerry makes some interesting comments below, which I think fall well into what I said here) Capi 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; notable figure in the open source software movement; good encyclopedic potential. --MCB 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please demonstrate how this person is notable, by citing sources. A bare assertion of notability is just as much a bad argument as a bare assertion of non-notability is. Uncle G 08:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment After all this, has a single reliable source been found on this person? If not, article doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, regardless of whether some editors feel this person is notable. --Xyzzyplugh 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I searched for sources on Leonard Tower, and couldn't find any reliable ones. I think we can source that he was a director of the FSF, but as it stands, that isn't enough of a reason to have an article. He has done so well at not promoting himself, I can't find any good sources about him. However, if anyone can produce a source that says anything beyond the basics about him, I would support keeping. I don't mind having a stub if it can grow, and I think he's notable, if sources can be found. Mangojuice^talk 11:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete. - I can find no decent sources about this author but will be willing to reconsider my comments if someone can provide some solid sources. -- --Charlesknight 12:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) --Charlesknight 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is simple. It fails WP:BIO, and no reliable sources exist. Arguing to keep in the face of these facts is makes no sense. Sure the stub could be expanded. A stub about me could be expanded, but that wouldn't make me notable or magically produce reliable sources. pschemp | talk 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article does not verifiably demonstrate notability. There is no useful content in it that I can see. I ran a scan on Google for the name and I get 9900 ghits. None in the first few pages demonstrate anything other than that he posts to lists a lot. CERTAINLY no evidence of historical record or significance there. I personally got 26000 ghits last time I checked, and I know I am not notable. This person is not notable as far as I can see and the article is a non useful substub, and a violation of our vanity policy to boot. The arguments of the keep crowd are totally unconvincing (and those brought in to argue for keep from outside, especially so). Delete... there is nothing really to userify either. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • Change to Weak Keep based on additional information, specifically evidence of being a major contributor to gcc. More solid sourcing for that would be better though. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Those postings to lists are primary sources for his contribution. His role for more than 10 years at the FSF was to do electronic administration for them, including handling mailing lists and usenet groups. See the citations recently introduced to the stub. As primary sources, we as Wikipedians should refrain from using them to evaluate just what his contribution was, but they are evidence of his contribution. (Also, he usually doesn't use his full name, and references to him usually don't use his full name, so that search underselects the available data. I know Len personally, but only learned his full name from Wikipedia.) Try searching for "Len Tower" plus "GNU" or "GCC" or "FSF" or "Free Software Foundation" or ...
    Also, this discussion (as opposed to the last) was semi-protected so that opinions here are only from established Wikipedians, not from anyone brought in from outside. GRBerry 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Less articleworthy than the MediaWiki developers. [ælfəks] 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Len is one, via GNU diff. LossIsNotMore 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Note to closing admin: The article had no references at all at the time all of the above top-thread-level comments were posted. LossIsNotMore 09:04, 27 September 2006

---

• Keep Expanded and cited, but still a stub, at this point in the discussion. (Bias disclosuer: I know Len personally, but have had no involvement in the FSF or LPF. The organization to which we both belong is not listed in Len's biography, either here or on the linked to site.) I beleive that he meets the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criteria of WP:BIO, with the specific field being the free software movement/industry. Len's long and significant involvement in the FSF is the widely recognized contribution. Speaking on behalf of the LPF is a minor additional noteworthy activity. GRBerry 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Citing you from further up in this discussion, His role for more than 10 years at the FSF was to do electronic administration for them, including handling mailing lists and usenet groups. I wouldn't say that maintaining mailing lists is significant to the historical record. I'm pretty sure the passage from WP:BIO you cite above was not intended to mean that if you make a small contribution to chronicling, you are notable. The passage may need to be further disambiguated on that point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The same source that gives this description describes Stallman's role as "Richard Stallman continues as a volunteer who does countless tasks, such as Emacs maintenance." (volume 1, #22). This is a transparently obvious understatement of the roles of the various individuals. It is, however, the only source we have found so far to use until someone competent (which isn't me), evaluates all the primary sources I was referring to above and publishes a secondary source that more accurately describes the roles of all the key players. GRBerry 12:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that the cited volume only refers to Stallman's contribution to Emacs does not necessarily imply that there are contributions of LT's that are notable and omitted. Reasoning thus is original research at best. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity b.s. once again for the same reason given in the previous discussion. —ExplorerCDT 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There needs to be an article on Len Tower as he played a major role in the beginnings and current success of the FSF and the GNU Project. I just did a google search for "Len Tower" and there are over 9000 web pages mentioning him. The beginnings of the Free software movement are important and should be documented. And part of that documentation includes the efforts and assistance offered by Len Tower in helping the FSF and Gnu Project to form and prosper. I recall first meeting Len at a USENIX conference in 1990 and he was very active in promoting free software. Richard Stallman (rms) wrote the code and Len helped get the word out. Richard was not that great with human interactions at that time (he is much better now!) and there really needed to be someone who believed in the cause and could communicate well with others. Len Tower was this person. There is no vanity in Len Tower. He is who he is and thank goodness there are people like him in this world. -lile 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Keep This debate is completely nuts. Len has been the behind-the-scenes organizer, fund-raiser, administrator, and sanity checker for the very organization that laid the groundwork to make projects like Wikipedia possible. Without Len, RMS would still be poor and homeless, and you would all be paying to browse Encarta or Britannica read-only. He easily passes multiple WP:BIO notability criteria per above. It is only his modesty through the years that keeps all the nay-sayers here from knowing just how notable he really is. Shame! The only mistakes he made were starting his own article after being asked to, and knowing someone who mentioned the first AFD on a mailing list of hundreds of people who have known him all these years. Close it kept now; this debate it absurd. LossIsNotMore 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If this gets speedy-kept, all that will happen is that it will get relisted again. Please do a little bit of research before you express such strong opinions. Yours sincerely, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I know Len, and I know what I'm talking about. Let me ask you this: Have you grepped the Linux contributors file for Len? LossIsNotMore 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good to know your bias. Google doesn't give me that file. How are you going to cite it if it's not on the web or in a library? WP:RS WP:NOR WP:V. This is beginning to smell of breaching experiment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You can't find the Linux contributors' file, so you claim it isn't verifiable? It is on every single Linux distribution and probably remains undeleted on 99% of Linux boxes. Why don't you look a little harder? LossIsNotMore 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Bah, never mind. I see Len has not been in CREDITS since it was restricted to kernel developers. His authorship of diff, which Wikipedia uses, and gcc is noted below. LossIsNotMore 05:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's enough verifiable information about him to write more than a stub. If his only notability is for being a director of the FSF, he can get a couple sentences in the history of that organization. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just a few notability references I came up with, concerning Tower's role as a speaker for the FSF and general involvement in the FOSS community:
  • GNU Bulletin Vol 1, no 1 - Introduces Tower as GNU's #2 man, after Stallman. Mentions Tower (in section "4. C Compiler") as being responsable for the task of redesigning and fully rewriting GCC (one of (if not the) most notable and widely recognized compilers worldwide), which was in its infancy at the time.
  • Usenet hits for Tower speaking on GNU and FSF-related BOFs (Birds of a Feather, discussion groups) - Tower was often the spokes-person for GNU and/or FSF (e.g. USENIX, Sun User Group Conference, etc)
  • GNU Bulletin Vol 1, no 7 - Tower part of FSF board of directors
  • Official AUTHORS file for GNU diff - Tower and 4 others created GNU diff
  • GCC docs, Contributors section - Leonard Tower wrote parts of the parser, RTL generator, and RTL definitions, and of the Vax machine description.
  • Ghits for Tower and FSF or GNU, excluding most of the bulletins
    There are many more mentions of Tower in old newsgroups and mailing lists. What you have to note here is that several of the most notable events range back 20 years ago, in a time when things were much more informal. The WWW wasn't what it is today (in fact it began on 1990), and much was communicated through BBSes, Usenet and simply through personal contact at universities and user groups. Many informal references exist, some of them primary sources, some of them not. This isn't just true for Tower, it's true for most of the early hackers, including of course Stallman and others on whom we (rightfully) already have large articles (hacker here being used in the sense of computer wizard, those who advanced much of what we now take for granted). badlydrawnjeff above is right; this clearly falls under WP:BIO's "this is not an exclusionary list" explanation. Capi 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR exist for a reason. A lot of things in the world happen through personal contact, but data that has effervesced or is stuck in a BBS box in someone's attic is not fit for an encyclopaedia. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but thank you nonetheless. Linking me to WP:V and WP:NOR seems to indicate that you chose to ignore the existance of references which I pointed out above as examples. Did you read the links I provided? It is unclear to me where WP:NOR comes into place in a discussion about notability, after sources showing notability have been produced. Are we arguing "letter of the law" now? Or are we trying to understand and follow the guidelines to create a better encyclopedia? WP:BIO is clear that people need not belong to that list to be notable - it would be a very limited encyclopedia otherwise, where you could only write about 10 or 12 different topics that someone thought up. Tower in fact even fits on that list, having made critical and recognized contributions which are part of the history of his specific field; this is sourced and cited above, on the sample of references which I posted. The problem now is? Capi 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I was rebutting your arguments about BBS and direct contact, which, in addition to being OR in themselves, do not lead us to any reliable sources. Furthermore, I read the links, but neither attendance at conferences nor contribution to software development confer notability, in my opinion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In my opinion, these sources are reliable for what they prove (which is that Len Tower was on the board and participated in the project), but they don't justify anything further. This was the kind of source I was able to dig up myself, and after a bit of digging I gave up, because I could find nothing that profiles Tower, no interviews, no one discussing his contributions. Someday, maybe someone will write a book about the history of the FSF, and then we'll have the source we need. Until then, with the article being confined to either be original research or a permanent stub, I think we shouldn't have an article. Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Well said. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Indeed. How about putting the verifiable parts of the above into the FSF article, and leave a redirect from Leonard H. Tower to that article? would that do? I was mentioned on BBS systems 20 years ago too, but I'm not notable. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                • What possible relevance could that have? I breathe air too, but I'm not notable... that's called spurious reasoning :-) Did you redesign and rewrite, almost from scratch, what today could very easily be argued to be the most widely recognized and notable compiler worldwide, just to name one example? If you did, you would indeed be notable in your field. And that article would be about you. We have a huge article on Torvalds, who created a very widely recognized free kernel. That's great. We even have an article on a sysadmin whose sole contribution to mankind, from his article, was apparently creating a directory in an FTP server for Torvalds to put his kernel sources in. That's great too, if only a bit inconsistent given what we're arguing to delete here. Given the choice between outright deletion and a redirect, of course a redirect is the lesser evil. However, I still believe that there is no harm in leaving the article; we have information to cite, from official sources - GNU bulletin being one, the official AUTHORS file for GNU diff (only the program that allows version control systems such as Wikipedia to even work) being another, the GCC documentation being another, etc. Mangojuice noted that we don't seem to have a book telling the history of Len Tower yet; indeed, it would be nice for such a thing to exist, and we could definitely expand on the article if it did appear. Until then, though, why delete the article? As long as it doesn't have false information, or information that cannot be sourced, and given that he is notable in his field, why not keep the stub and let the natural process of Wikipedia evolve the article in its own speed? Surely you cannot expect an article to grow from a 2-line stub to a featured article over the course of 5 days or whatever, during an AfD. We have countless stubs that need enhancement, some more worthy than others (heck, some stubs are far more worthy than some articles I've seen). Why should this article not have the same chance? Capi 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Dude... if you can provide a verifiable cite for "redesign and rewrite, almost from scratch, what today could very easily be argued to be the most widely recognized and notable compiler worldwide" as far as I am concerned, this discussion is over, Len is notable. But that's not what has been put forth so far, it has been about maintaining mailing lists and how much was posted in the old days of usenet. Provide a cite for the gcc assertion, a solid verifiable cite, and I'm on your side. But mostly what you have been doing is not that, it has been arguing against the guideline. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Lar, did you notice (and read) the references I quoted above? In particular, the GNU bulletin vol 1, no 1. That bulletin establishes Tower as GNU's #2 (after Stallman) and clearly defines his role with GCC, in section "4. C compiler". GNU is the official organization which produces GCC, and that particular part was written by Stallman, the organization's founder and person who initially started GCC. Furthermore, the GNU bulletins are official GNU publications. Here is the link again, for convenience: GNU Bulletin Vol 1, no 1 Capi 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • What's more interesting is that the cited 1986 bulletin contradicts the GNU Compiler Collection article, which gives Stallman as the author with a date of 1987 (no inline source given). So either this part of history has been misrepresented by Stallman in the books given as references at the bottom of that article, or the article is not true to those sources either, or possibly LT bailed out of GCC development before 1987. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • Well noticed. GCC's first beta release was indeed made on March 1987 (note the post was made by Len, quoting Stallman). GCC Releases (Historical section) confirms this. Now, for a beta release to have existed on March 1987, programming must have started earlier. I believe the problem is simply that the GCC article is ambiguous. It should be corrected to state something like "GCC was first released on 1987" or something equivalent. I wouldn't say the authorship of GCC is in dispute; to my knowledge, Stallman did indeed start work on GCC, and continue on with it. Tower made substantial contributions to GCC, though, being responsable for a thorough redesign in the early stages (to lose the Pastel dependency and rewrite the thing in C), and assorted work on the front end, etc. Capi 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The above sources go to notability but almost none of them meet WP:V so it would still be nearly impossible to write an article on him. JoshuaZ 14:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Now this is confusing... How can the sources listed above not be WP:V? I mean, they exist don't they so doesn't that mean that they have Verifiability? Also, I just don't understand how some folks think that Tower is not notable. Since he is, isn't that even more of a good reason to have an article about him and his work? so that folks like the ones who are voting delete here can learn their history??? A bunch of wipersnapers and young ones clearly! I always thought that the nice thing about Wikipedia is that you could learn about folks who helped enable the Internet revolution... People who you would not normally hear about in a normal encyclopedia. -lile 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Some, not all, sources above are newsgroup postings. For the most part, newsgroup postings constitute self-published materials that lacked fact checking processes before publication, much they way that Wikipedia lacks a reliable pre-publication fact checking mechanism. Per WP:RS, the guideline on reliable sources, such publications, including both Wikipedia and newsgroup postings, are not reliable enough sources to meet WP:V. This can feel odd in comparison to how we handle websites on a case by case basis to those of us that remember the pre-web days of the net. I personally believe that the same skills needed to evaluate if a web page is a reliable source are the ones needed to evaluate if a newsgroup posting is a reliable source. But that isn't the community consensus. So I'll I'm adding to the article are the facts from items meeting WP:RS that I also am confident I can represent correctly. So far just the FSF and LPF's periodicals have met both tests for me. I'm quite sure the author's file portions of the software documentation is a reliable source per WP:RS, but I think it is a primary source that I personally am not qualified to interpret. So I'm now adding a fact here, a sentence there, as we identify more usable reliable sources.
    • With the sources identified to date, it is impossible to write a featured article, but that isn't a standard we even mention in most AfD discussions. Every fact in the article now is cited to a reliable source, except for Len's birthdate (which could readily be cited to one of the external links if we want to be that picky). With that level of citation, I feel that the WP:V concern about the present form of the article is a bit unreasonable. Concern about future versions should be addressed through the normal editing process. After all, WP:V is focused on defending specific facts and edits. GRBerry 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the arguments in previous discussion. Oh, and btw, why isn't this being relisted with the old discussion included, given that it was being argued that this would have been the right thing to do originally? Are we now not doing it anyway because we feel like it? Or pushing POV? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I vote to keep as per all the arguments in the previous discussion ;-) Joking aside, though, I would say that cleary, there is at the very least a lack of consensus as to what "the right thing to do originally" was. You and others who wanted to delete argued in the DRV that the previous discussion should had been closed for deletion because there were 3 votes to delete in the last day; myself and others who wanted to keep argued that the discussion should had been closed for keeping because there were 6 votes to keep (and no delete votes whatsoever in the first 5 days). I see no logic in your argument, you presumably see no logic in mine. Wrong Version and all that. I would submit that the whole point of having the discussion again would be to do it independently of our own individual belief that our side was injusticed and that the outcome should have obviously been this or that... Capi 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're twisting things once again. It was ruled in DRV that the nomination should be relisted, which means including the previous votes and listing the AfD again to gather more views. However, in this instance, the old discussion was not relisted. Instead, a new discussion was started, so all the people who originally complained that process had not been followed were apparently happy with process not being followed second time round, presumably because the offense was in their favour. If you're going to be a process wonk, you had better be consistent. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Twisting things once again, pushing POV, trying to gain unfair advantage, process wonk... Well, I'll assume good faith somehow, even though you don't really seem to. What I would like to know is how not listing the previous opinions is favoring the keep side... (or the delete side, for that matter.) Both in here and in the DRV (where at least it was on topic) you consistently mention the previous delete votes as though there were 50 regular users who argued to delete and everyone was conspiring to hide that fact. I have nothing against including the previous votes; they favored us anyway. In any case, "relist" to me implies "listing again", as in doing another vote, but hey if the normal procedure is to include previous votes then fine, message an admin and ask him to do it. My previous comment, that if we are here to relist and discuss deleting the article, then we should do it instead of playing with hidden implications of prejudice and cabal, still stands, though. Both sides feel that their point of view was the right one - that's called a disagreement. This is the AfD, not the DRV. Capi 13:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You need to familiarise yourself with policy before you make assertions about how things should be done around here. SPecifically, please look up the specific meaning of "relist". A quick look at any given day's AfD listings could have given you this insight. My argument stands as before. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • And that challenges anything I said how? I specifically said I have nothing against including the previous votes. Straw men and red herrings are both quite interesting, but rather useless to a discussion, I would say. Capi 14:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • So let's include them, then. Either copy them in, or, make the link in the header loads more prominent. I think when we start process wonking we have to not pick and choose among processes. Samsara has it exactly right, and in my view this AfD gives the appearance of having been skewed by one side. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Repeat something often enough and it becomes true... 1) [red herring] Someone has yet to show how not including the previous votes has skewed anything, especially when there were far more regular users arguing for keep than there were for delete. 2) [straw man] The point is moot anyway, because no one here is arguing against including the previous votes, so if anyone feels prejudiced against, by all means include them. 3) [red herring] It is hardly process wonking when we overturn an AfD that had at least 6 regular user arguments for keep over 5 days, and 3 arguments for delete in the last day, and got speedy-closed as delete (on WP:SNOW, on top of it, if anything SNOW would have meant it should be closed as keep). 4) Can we please do whatever to solve the issue of previous votes already, and go back to discussing keeping or deleting the article? Capi 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Meh. All your process points don't actually address the real issues here... this is a substub article (and therefore deletable in my view, as often NOTHING is better than a unsourced substub) about a person whose notability has not been established, and apparently, can't be. Were I the closing admin of this AfD or the first one (I am not and, as a participant, won't be...) I would say this is a clear delete. Numbers are irrelevant, who turned up when is irrelevant, that it was closed a bit early is irrelevant, what matters is the strength of the arguments, because AfD is not a vote, and the Delete argument is running away with this. All the keeps can do, seemingly, is raise process, which, frankly, isn't what this encyclopedia is about. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • This whole sub conversation would have been much shorter if anyone had bothered to read the nomination, which includes a link to the prior AFD and has done so since Xoloz created this discussion. Xoloz knows what he is doing. GRBerry 16:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Chalk up another one who's not yet familiar with the concept of relisting. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • You are that one. Xoloz closes the overwhelming majority of DRV closures, including almost all relistings, and he did everything that is normally done. See for examples from this month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dellegatto (second nomination) (ok to not even link the prior discussion because there were sock-puppet concerns about the prior discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Martians Band (second nomination) and the lots of examples from the five-a-day relistings of Esoteric programming languages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fromage programming language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOTO++, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iota and Jot (3 of 5 from the day before this one, many many more on the prior days). Xoloz did the right thing. GRBerry 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Observation: Sometimes an apparent meatpuppet storm is from bad faith attempts by LaRouchies or Scientologists to sway editorial judgement, but sometimes it's a good-faith crawling-out-of-the-woodwork by the numerous self-motivated friends of a very humble original coauthor of gcc and the guy whose code you run when you click "diff." There may be a way to tell those two kinds of cases apart in the future. LossIsNotMore 13:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Even vain people have friends that may support their article being retained, especially when they clearly have limited understanding of how Wikipedia works. To my knowledge, no CheckUser was run in the end, so they may well still be sockpuppets of one or two people. Note that their comments were similarly phrased and signed in spite of other examples being available. I can just about imagine a hacker yielding to the temptation of seeing how community mechanisms work and making socks for that purpose. Getting hold of seven IPs shouldn't be too hard for someone in the field. But that's speculation. In the end, thanks for that second edit, which I edit-conflicted with. Nice touch of POV. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I remember back when points of view were encouraged on talk pages, and admins assumed good faith. I know how all those new users came: a friend of Len's posted about the 1st AfD on a mailing list filled with friends of Len. I know a whole lot of them, and you can easily verify their identities from the names they used, as many if not most used their full names for ids. Speaking of temptations, why is it so much easier for you to assume bad faith than good in this case? Do you have any evidence of vanity or subterfuge? LossIsNotMore 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I can also certify that I knew one or two because they used their real name to sign their edits. I disclosed my bias in both the prior AfD in this one. Len has in private communication disclosed encountering Samsara previously, so I ask if Samsara should also be disclosing a bias? GRBerry 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment since Loss is trying to discredit early votes with a citation line-I see plenty of cites that exist that say the man exists, yet not one that proves he's notable. I could find citations that prove I exist and my mode of transportation too, but that doesn't mean I'm notable. I still vote to delete. pschemp | talk 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that original coauthorship of gcc isn't notable? If you were going to number the people whose everyday lives depend on software compiled with gcc, it would easily be more than a billion -- maybe two; maybe three. How many people have written software that directly affects that many people? The man wrote Wikipedia's diff function, for goodness sake. Have you no sense of proportion? LossIsNotMore 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We've seen no unequivocal evidence of the notability of Len's contribution to gcc. A lot of people have contributed to gcc over the years. Very few of them would be considered notable, and probably for reasons other than their gcc contributions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me get this straight. The sources show that RMS decided to write the first version of the compiler in an rare extension of Pascal, resulting in a very nonportable design, and you don't think translating it into C and overhauling the parser, intermediate language, and VAX (most numerous platform of the time) target description as the second person to touch the code was a notable contribution? That is an opinion with which I not only disagree, but which I think is ridiculous, and worthly of very much ridicule, which should reflect on the quality of your education and educators. What reason could you possibly have for holding such an opinion? LossIsNotMore 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Try to remain civil. In speculating on my education, you're putting yourself afloat on a very fickle raft. On the other hand, I am glad that you appreciate that saying we will do something in the future is not the same as actually achieving our goals. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "How many people have written software that directly affects that many people?" - Loss Um, alot have, but they were paid by Microsoft, so you don't know their names. Doesn't mean they are notable. pschemp | talk 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that more software is compiled with Microsoft compilers than gcc? Please look again; you will find just the opposite. Just because a lot of people use Microsoft on their desktops doesn't mean that they use it at their bank, or their grocery store, or their gas station, or in their cars, or in their telephones, or at their factories, or airlines, or for their email and web software. The number of MSVC object files running is probably not even 1/20th the number of gcc object files in use at any given moment. LossIsNotMore 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Now let me get this straight. Since his notability now seems to hinge on whether or not he has made huge contributions to gcc, let's be very careful about this. The source says is working on this, not has completed. The source given does not indicate that Len significantly contributed to the completion of the transition from Pastel to C. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on gcc does not mention Tower in spite of citing three sources, two of them by Stallman. It seems that at least one person is taking or being given more credit than he deserves. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I believe this can be explained by the fact that RMS depends on income from speaking fees, and Tower does not. However, I will take another look at the gcc article. LossIsNotMore 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Not wanting to involve myself too much in this line of discussion, I would just note that the Stallman sources cited in the GCC article do not go much toward authorship or development history; they are reference manuals, they discuss usage and technical characteristics. Regardless of this, I really don't think going down a path of "which one person wrote more lines of code" or "someone is lieing" is productive or even relevant. Stallman is generally recognized as the person who created GCC; he did not do so alone, naturally. Tower is one person who is cited officially as having been a very important contributor. He was the person resonsable for changing GCC from an initial design which was written in Pastel, non-portable, impractical and unmaintainable (keeping the compiler in that language would have meant a project within a project, as there was no other compiler which could compile Pastel in the first place) to something completely different and modular, written in C, a design which evolved into what we have now. We have an article on Torvalds, who created the Linux kernel, but we also have articles on a few important contributors; should we delete those, because "many people have contributed to Linux over the years"? Clearly not. Please do not reduce this to a matter of "who was the one guy who created GCC so that we can keep him and delete the other" or whatever; they are both important figures, in GCC and not only (sources have been listed for other projects besides GCC - e.g. GNU diff - and other things besides programming as well) along with the rest of the other hackers on whom we already have articles. Capi 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
            • (edit conf) capi, we're trying to establish whether among all the hundreds of people who've contributed to gcc, Len Tower is sufficiently outstanding to be considered "notable". We simply can't afford to have an article on every contributor to gcc. Now, where's my vim? ;) Also, can you guys get used to writing your comments once rather than keep amending them, because I'm getting very fed up with these edit conflicts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Perhaps you already know this, but if you can improve the diff engine, then you can cut down on the number of edit conflicts that occur. But I digress. Do you claim that RMS's statement that Len, in 1986, "is working" on the conversion from Pastel to C may be reorganized per WP:OR into the fact that he "has worked" on that conversion, and was the first and for at least several months the only full time staff to work on that task, or, do you believe that the adjustment of verb tenses constitutes original research? LossIsNotMore 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete No doubt a wonderful chap and perhaps moderately important in the history of GNU, but I don't see the sources. Insufficient reliable sources==no article, I'm afraid. --kingboyk 18:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (section break against edit conflicts)

• Firstly, does anyone disagree that representing the FSF at USENIX for at least the better part of a decade constitutes notability on its face? LossIsNotMore 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, does anyone dispute that being the second person, and first full time FSF staff, to work on converting gcc from Pastel to C is notable, even if the task was not completed by one person? LossIsNotMore 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Finally, isn't contributing to the design of WikiMedia's diff function notable? What would Wikipedia be like without diffs? LossIsNotMore 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Resorting to arguments like this doesn't help your case. We don't (at least, shouldn't) write articles about things which are important to Wikipedia but not the outside world. (Tony Sidaway, for example, doesn't have an article). --kingboyk 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • MediaWiki is just one of hundreds of programs which incorporate diff into their functions. Source code control systems, for example. LossIsNotMore 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, but that wasn't what you originally said :) I was just pointing out the fallacy of that particular argument. --kingboyk 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep seems as notable as any other of the free software hackers at Wikipedia. Why the controversey (I don't have time to read this entire page)? P.S. I'm sure Len contributed to GNU diff, but probably not MediaWiki's implementation. It's probably true, just overstated. --Ashawley 17:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • GNU diff was translated to MediaWiki "verbatim" according to the PHP source. LossIsNotMore 17:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The controversy originally arose because the user that goes by the nick Lentower started the article about the person he professes to be. </paranoia> - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This is not my area of expertise, but after my attention was called to this article, I found the stub to have enough content to be interesting. It also seemed as though there were enough citations. However, I did not check them. The one point that worried me was that the subject of the article appeared to have made edits to his own biography, which can be bad. MCalamari 18:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Admittedly, this isn't my field of expertise either. The article itself seems to speak of verifiable and significant achievements, and the version I read of it seemed adequately referenced with sources that are likely reliable for the facts cited from them. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, duh. Why is it that two-bit Linux dweebs whose notability comes from one blog posting last year are "notable", and a major figure in the founding of the FSF is controversial? Is everything to be wrapped around Pokemon-level superficiality now? Stan 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are these "two-bit Linux dweebs" and why haven't you nominated their article for deletion? Anyway, the problem here isn't so much notability AFAIC but reliable sources. --kingboyk 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article now well-sourced. Vic sinclair 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He definitely seems to be notable, and the article is now sourced (not sure the sources meet WP:RS, but most of them are reliable and trustworthy sources for the areas in question nontheless). Between this and Carlsbad grimple, I'm worried - does AfD work anymore? -- makomk 10:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is now well sourced and meets our WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please tower is notable as a promoter of programming freedom and the free software movement Yuckfoo 06:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Taylor

Non-notable witch. There is a whole bunch of witch bios in WP. I can't help thinking they are a lot less notable than the worthy but undistinguished profs that get AfDed all the time. Leibniz 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO Gwernol 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unverifiable too. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Bizzell

non-notable teacher. Nekohakase 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless her Rhetoric text is widely regarded as a classic, she fails WP:PROF. (Still better than a witch.) Leibniz 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep she has written a book and her research is noteworthy also.Igbogirl 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete She EDITED a book of historical writings and no references are given for her other research.Vic sinclair 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on a myriad of Ghits some of which feel notable. It may just be a niche topic and thus notabiity may be much more solid than I can see. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• DEFINITE KEEP. I added a ton of stuff from her CV. She definitely qualifies as notable. Now the article needs major cleanup, not deletion. RickReinckens 05:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Luna Santin 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Novemthree Siahaan

This article has been tagged for deletion for some time, but no discussion page was then created. As it is not a clear-cut case, I am carrying it here for discussion. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be one of those "Hey, come look at the circus freak!" articles. In addition, there's been a cleanup tag on the article for almost six months, and nothing's been done about it; that sort of puts a nail in the "this article is important!" argument. --Aaron 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important, notable freak, just like Gianna Jessen and Brian Peppers and Lobster Boy and Joseph Merrick. Billy Blythe 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reluctant, but I can't see that it fails notability.--Runcorn 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mergeto Gigantiform cementoma. It's a tumour which took over the kid's face, and happens from time to time (ie the condition has a name). If he had a book or film created after him à la Elephant Man, he would indeed be notable. Ohconfucius 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup is needed, but the subject is notable.--Poetlister 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable because he is a notable person inflicted with Gigantiform cementoma. Xamian 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Grisa

non-notable artist. Nekohakase 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I had actually speedied it for failing A7, but "visual artist, using geometric design in his work" seems to count as assertion of notability. No relevant Google hits, unsourced, probably vanity. --Huon 15:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think this might actually be speediable. He doesn't appear to be any kind of "professional" artist, neither the article nor his website (last updated 2001, it's own counter says it's had 258 hits in 5 years) lists anything about galleries, museum showings, agents, etc. He neither sells or shows his work and the article itself says he isn't drawing right now. He's a soldier who draws with a homestead page of his art. I think that's pretty cool but I don't see any assertion of notability here. Dina 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think this guy's stuff is way cool. What exactly makes criteria of "notability" anyway? So the guy isn't famous, but is obviously an artist. Plus, according to what is written, he hasn't abandoned art for the time being, but is slowed from usual production for the time being while carrying out a commitment to his country, perhaps as an act of patriotism from the immediate wake of 9/11? I know 5 and 6 year commitments are common. Plus, since all of these are done freehand and not computer generated, I can see how he would be slowed by it. The fact that he does fractal-like by way of freehand is amazing, and while not famous, perhaps he should be, as he has a unique and amazing talent, and thus should be noteworthy on that alone. It would be a shame to say that because someone isn't a "famous" artist, that they should be removed. I know I have seen other people deemed "noteworthy" on wikipedia who don't exactly have talent, but somehow got some sort of fame.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commonnonsense (talk • contribs) 07:37, September 24, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment please refer to WP:BIO Ohconfucius 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Now a whopping 300 hits on his web counter Ohconfucius 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ohconfucius sounds like someone who knows how to be a critic, but not how to critique. I guess when you have no knowledge of things, but want to appear to be an authority, that can tend to happen. 'Twould be a shame to delete in my opinion. This guy's stuff is quite good. Like I said before, it is unique and vibrant. Perhaps one of you could tell him a direction to go in to become famous, rather than dismissing him as nothing, when he is merely not known, but still quite good.Commonnonsense 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You are using a purely subjective evaluation of artistic merit to justify keeping the article, whilst we are debating whether to keep based on more objective criteria laid down in policy WP:BIO. Kindly frame your defense accordingly, and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you Ohconfucius 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

John McLean (film director)

Non-notable person. Clearly vanity article. Editor has not contributed other things to Wikipedia. SDC 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Vic sinclair 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Judging by his IMDB profile [55], he's not likely to pass WP:BIO. Doesn't turn up too much in Google searches, even "John McLean" director turns up a high amount of noise. Luna Santin 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lil' Ganesh

non-notable. Nekohakase 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nom essentially, but I do prefer when Afd noms have more content than "non-notable." But let's break it down: One independent album release that sold a few thousand copies according to the article, 4 ghits only two which seem to be about the subject, both apparently his or a friends flickr account. The "rap/hip hop" legend linked in the first paragraph Bih bow actually links to an article about the phrase Bih bow. Probably vanity (his IQ test results are in the article.) But undeniably, the cutest Indian rap name I've ever heard. Dina 16:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - A couple of myspaces is not notability.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

delete Igbogirl 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete Obviously vanity article, exemplified in the last line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.56.0.231 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per Dina. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nandesuka 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack)

No information about the soundtrack other than the composer, Nicholas Hooper. No official confirmation that there will be a released soundtrack. We should hold off on making this article until the weeks leading up to the release of the film when surely some information, such as track titles, is released. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Either merge with the main article (if there is one) or delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Alex | talk / review me | 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the main information (composer and director) are already present on the article Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), and it is noted on the Nicholas Hooper article that he will score the film. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). -- Beardo 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the film article until such a time as the album is released. 23skidoo 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Not sufficiently notable for a separate article. --Elonka 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect. When the soundtrack is released it can be recreated. Batmanand | Talk 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Slicksville, Slicksville Characters

Launched 2 weeks ago, this online flash webcomic has not fulfilled any notability guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:WEB). WP is not a place to promote Your site. feydey 16:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a promotional site. Fame first, entry on wikipedia second, not the other way around. Equendil Talk 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Guyanakoolaid 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

MB (singer)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia -Nv8200p talk 16:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• WOuld you object if I also nominated Rob64 as well? Same creator, same "MT40 hit" and "Top 10 per Peoplebase Chart" malarkey. Ohconfucius 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, that's a lot of "eras" for a 22 year old. All the singles and CD's mentioned appear to be self-produced and released and publicized via message boards. The "chart positions" appear to be some kind of user-driven "favorites" sort of thing -- ie. "Jessica's Top 40" "Adam's Top 40". It seems impossible to do a relevant google search for the letters "MB" so that's no help either. I agree, can't fulfill any of WP:MUSIC's criteria. Dina 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice article, Extremely interesting take on chart success, but unfortunately fails WP:MUSIC by our boring conventional definitions,  ;-) Ohconfucius 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Victoriagirl 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although if MB signs to a small indy, maybe we can bring this page back. There's motivation.--Hraefen ^Talk 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. If you want to merge you could always do that later. Punkmorten 08:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Papa Wheelie

Does not meet guidelines of WP:MUSIC for inclusion on Wikipedia -Nv8200p talk 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Keep (failing that merge) In what way does this article not satisfy WP:MUSIC? It clears Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Jason Newsted was the bassist for Metallica, playing bass on ...And Justice for All their grammy nominated album. He's also part of that reality show Rock Star: Supernova. The article needs work, but I think the subject passes muster. Dina 17:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be redirected to Jason Newsted instead. -Nv8200p talk 17:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that. I'd prefer a merge. There's no article on his label Chophouse records, or I'd suggest putting the content there. Meh, I'll change to weak keep, maybe merge and see what other folks have to say. Dina 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Absolutely meets WP:MUSIC. I wonder if Nv8200p has read WP:MUSIC lately, because it clearly states only one criteria is needed, and there are at least two here, including the release of two albums. A redirect is not appropriate, because this is not a side project from Jason Newsted alone, and a redirect does not take into consideration other members of the band.Guyanakoolaid 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The full criteria is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." I'm not sure that Chophouse Records qualifies as either. -Nv8200p talk 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" Guyanakoolaid 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rusty trombone

Offensive, obscene, probably permanently harmful to the psyche of a child, stupid dictdef, no sources. Billy Blythe 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The first two criteria of the nom are not valid as Wikipedia is not censored. Harmful to the psyche of a child is too subjective to be a criteria. As for whether or not it's a dicdef, it does make some attempts to list popular cultural references to the "act" (which could be sourced, if they're not) which makes it more than a dicdef. We've been down this road before with Pitssburgh platter but I think this one is more on the Dirty Sanchez side of the issue and ought to stay. Also, I realized while reading it that I always thought this phrase referred to a different sexual act. Ah, Wikipedia....always teaching me something. Dina 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are you sure you made this nom in good faith? Your own user page Billy Blythe has some material that some might feel is Offensive, obscene, probably permanently harmful to the psyche of a child. I personally am not particularly offended by the language there (though not really a fan of harshly mocking either transexuals or women) but then again, I'm not offended by Rusty trombone either. Dina 17:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, it's good faith, all right. I have no qualms about putting offensive material in user space, but Wikipedia namespace is not owned or maintained by any one person, hence my concerns about the stupidity of the article. BTW, I've removed the objectionable content on my user page. I personally think that the idea of transsexualism is offensive and total fiction, but that's just what squicks me, and the PC Police here don't care about my minority opinion (cf. WP:STEAM). Anyway, this is about the rusty trombone, not me. Billy Blythe 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I withdraw my suggestion that this was a bad faith nom and hope you'll both accept my apology and see where I might have gotten confused. I still disagree with your Afd reasoning, (as well as, frankly, many of your statements above) but you're right, this is about Rusty Trombone. So let's see what everyone else has to say. Cheers. Dina 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dictionary definition. JASpencer 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yuck, but notable. If anyone wants to clean up (no pun intended) this article, I think it'd be fine. Wooty 19:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have every confidence in the nominator's good faith, but his arguments do not convince.--Runcorn 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't censored takes care of the first three (it is a parent's job to decide what web content is viewed by his/her children, not ours). Slightly more than a dictdef, and no sources merits a cleanup tag, not deletion. (Unverifiable, on the other hand, would be a valid reason, but it isn't applicable here.) GassyGuy 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Culturally appropriate. Lolife 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, highly referenced in culture. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting it would set a dangerous precedent, and allow users to slate every other sex-related article for deletion. --Spartacusprime 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as the nominator has given no valid Wikipolicy-based reasons for his nomination. "Offensive" and "stupid" are not criteria for deletion here, otherwise we'd delete Jerry Falwell. wikipediatrix 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keeping it would set a dangerous precedent, and allow users to assert every other ludicrous bit of sexcruft article for inclusion. Guy 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedia

The original research. No independent sources. Zorro CX 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep OMG there‘s no original research, read Chronicle of Czech Wikipedia. Petr K 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  What else this Chronicle is? The independent source? No, the original research by wikipedians about the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Well, where would you search for the “original” sources then? In talk pages, which are hundreds KB's long? There were some flame or edit wars, I remember the article about term cs:KSČSSD, coz' I participated in it. The information about the ex-bureaucrat isn't really written exactly as it was. He had been really good for the project from the beginning, but he changed and did unpleasant things, so that he lose his status and arbitration and was then banned. For these I've added the links yet.

  Please, read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SELF. Your task is to find some reputable (no blogs) independent sources, that means outside the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (Czech Wikipedia by itself _is_ a valid reference, as any other website); it is not OR. Or delete English Wikipedia too, it has no external references. googl t 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Good idea. -- Zorro CX 16:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, e.g. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --W.marsh 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  That's really bad reason for deleting entry about wikipedia, coz' many sites has refered about it (above all English version, of course). Petr K 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The English version has nothing to do with this non-notable subject, without a single independent resource. Almost no site refers about describes the Czech Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC), Zorro CX 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Without condoning "Zorro CX"'s other statements, yeah the above basically describes my stance. If there's not meaningful information to use in a proper article, we shouldn't include that article. All I'm asking for are sources. --W.marsh 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this AfD is useless. Timichal 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why? Do you have any argument? -- Zorro CX 19:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for Timichal and hands off our czech brothers! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Articles are no place for the solidarity which would be irresponsible behaviour. Is it the breach of WP:NOR or it is not? If not, why? -- Zorro CX 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are statements which need sourcing, but they're no worse than those in German Wikipedia regarding "ways in which the German Wikipedia differs from the English version," some of which are entirely subjective. Even if these statements offend you, surely they could be removed and the statistical information left alone, since it is indisputably factual and fully documented at stats.wikimedia.org, and is fully in keeping with articles describing other minor (ie. sub-50,000 articles) Wikipediae such as Catalan Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia and Bosnian Wikipedia.

  The only useful information is statistics, which can be referred by the article Wikipedia directly. -- Zorro CX 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Either all must be deleted, or none, and it seems insane that Wikipedia should not document itself. Chris Smowton 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, WP:SELF prevails. Wikipedia should only report what others write about it – exactly the same as in normal articles. This is the encyclopedia, no Village Pump. -- Zorro CX 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean a different guideline? SELF is just a manual of style guideline relating to avoiding writing with the assumption that the text is being viewed on Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere on the internet. The article actually follows it fairly well, in that the text would make sense in any context.

AFAIK there is no especial guideline covering self-documentation in this sense, since the issue only ever arises in non-namespace pages relating to Wikipedia itself. Therefore we should stick by a combination of the core principles (eg. write from an NPOV and so forth) and the exercise of a healthy dose of common sense -- WP:WEB and WP:ORG are designed to stop trivial websites and organisations respectively from using Wikipedia as cheap advertising space, which is clearly not what's happening heere, and WP:V and RS are intended to prevent conjecture and opinion from being presented as fact, which again isn't happening, though certainly a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment. Chris Smowton 01:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly this guideline. If I, for instance, create my user's page at Wikipedia, is this a source for an encyclopedic article? Obviously, it is not. And the same goes for language versions of the Wikipedia. There can be a lot of useful information in other namespaces. But these are auxiliary. The main namespace is something very different. It is the encyclopedia.

Well no, of course not, but I can't see why we would need your user page (or anybody else's) as a source here. The article makes a few assertions:

1) Czech Wikipedia exists. Of this we're quite sure, a source isn't needed.

I agree, the only problem is whether its existence is notable. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Czech WP had N users as of Y. Source: stats.wikimedia.org. Whilst this might count as self-citing, it's the only reasonable source for such information, so employ common sense and ignore the rule for this special case.

I may agree, but this source cannot be verified. Only facts (not truth) which are verifiable can be inserted into the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3) Czech WP commonly features arguments about topic X. Somewhat woolly and hard to source per se, but again since it's a harmless observation about the internal culture, don't worry about it unless it is disputed by another CZWP user.

Andy what about this another CZWP user? Can he or she insert his or her original research into the article? -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

4) Czech WP banned a Bureaucrat in July. The only logical source is the cz block log. Whilst it counts technically as self-reference, again this is the only reasonable source and verifies it as unquestionably factual. It's also used elsewhere in Wikipedia; for example the article on Jimbo Wales links to diffs to show some of his edits.

This fact is of defamation nature and shall be removed on sight. Our privacy policy does not allow to publish slanders. Jimbo Wales repeatedly removed some slanders about him[56], [57] and untrue claims[58]. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In summary, I think you should pay more attention to the spirit of the rules and less to dogma. 83.67.4.159 09:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. The spirit is: No original research. Whether there are some third party reviews, the Wikipedia can inform about them. Not let Wikipedians write about themselves. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get an NPOV, when there is only one POV so far? You need sources, you have not them. Reason? Non-notability of the subject, this is clear. Compare this situation with the Wikipedia. A lot of independent sources = a lot of good material to write about.

How do you know that the Czech Wikipedia is not trivial? About a dozen of articles in Czech (most mixed the Wikipedia in general) and only one in English. Should the English encyclopedia have an article about every in Czech context notable website, like Neviditelný pes, Britské listy, Živě, or Root?

"a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment." This is anti-Bureaucrat POV. What about the Bureaucrat POV? -- Zorro CX 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This debated has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic. Yamaguchi先生 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Wikipedia project passes WP:WEB and WP:ORG as well as WP:V and WP:RS. Czech Wikipedia is an unique offshot of the Wikipedia Project. It has been referred to in The Atlantic Monthly coverage of Wikipedia(see chart) and other articles which talk about Wikipedia's spread beyond English, and I'm sure the Czech media has referred to it. Article is fine except for controversies section which needs cleaning up. Nuisance smartass afd nom.Bwithh 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The only one isolated table is not enough for the whole article and marginal remarks about other editions as well. These remarks have been already covered by the article Wikipedia. WP:WEB – not passed, no independent source. WP:ORG – not passed, there is no such a Czech organization, WP:V – not passed, not a single English text about the Czech Wikepedia, and WP:RS – not passed, no independent source. There is almost none Czech text about the Czech Wikepedia, and even it would be, this is the English Wikipedia and it would have no meaning for it. -- Zorro CX 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh Gawd. Okay here you go, here are some Czech sources:

• Radio Prague - leading Czech radio station:May 2006 interview (translated to English) with Czech Wikipedia editor]
• Novinky Online magazine published by leading Czech newspaper:November 2005 article on Czech Wikipedia
• iDNES Website/contentportal of leading Czech newspaper:January 2006 article on Wikipedia with multiple references and links to Czech Wikipedia.
• I'm sure you're going to complain that the last two are not in English, but you know, not everyone here is limited by one language and sometimes its plain what an article is about even if you do know the language (I don't know Czech, yet it only took me about 10 minutes to find these articles.) And by the way, I believe the Czech Wikipedia still falls under the ultimate authority of the main Wikimedia Foundation, which is not solely restricted to English language projects Bwithh 22:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you read Czech? You said you do not, because otherwise you wouldn't cite them. Anyway, what about WP:V? How can others verify what is written there when there is no English? -- Zorro CX 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But OK, let's go through:

ad 1. An interview with non-notable Petr Kadlec and, obviously, a Wikipedian. This constitues a bias. Would you mind an interview with myself as a source for the Wikipedia article? -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ad 2. The article is almost only about the Wikipedia itself. The Czech Wikipedia is mentioned only in just two statements: "Jenže pak jsem se dostal na stránky české wikipedie, kde je mj. k dnešnímu dni přes 18 300 článků ..." (= statistics) and "Místo pro setkávání našich wikipedistů se nazývá Pod lípou neboli Česká hospoda." (= There is a Village Pump.) Nothing else at all. The base for the encyclopedic article? I am sorry, but my demands are higher.

ad 3. Again about the Wikipedia as a such (I never propose to delete the article about the Wikipedia). "Česká verze Wikipedie (přístupná též z adresy www.wikipedia.cz ) má na začátku roku 2006 článků přes 22 tisíc." (= statistics) "Na české Wikipedii můžete vyzkoušet, jaké to je, stát se wikipedistou a podílet se na psaní encyklopedie. Můžete se také podívat na články nominované na nejlepší články české Wikipedie . A pokud by vás zajímalo, co že editory motivuje k jejich mravenčí práci při kontrole vkládaných informací, můžete se podívat do Kabinetu kuriozit , kde se dočtete (vesměs promptně odstraněné) perličky anonymních „wikipedistů.“" (= P. R., verbis expressis: "On the Czech Wikipedia you can try how to become a Wikipedian and to participate on writing the encyclopedia. You can look at the nominated featured articles of the Czech Wikipedia. And if you wonder by what motives the editors to their ant-like work with checking inserted information, you can look at the Cabinet of Rarities where the pearls of anonymous "Wikipedians" (mostly promptly deleted) are preserved.") And nothing else. I still wait for your sources. -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say this is the most bizarrely obstinate work-to-rule afd I've ever been in. Okay: 1) I doubt that you would be invited to get an interview / profile about whatever you do on Radio Prague. The interview I referenced is about Wikipedia, not an individual Wikipedian; and its conducted by professional journalists in the employ of a major Czech broadcaster. The journalist conducting the interview even asks some difficult questions about Wikipedia 2) and 3) These articles prove that Czech Wikipedia exists and are notable for the Czech audience when talking about the broader discussion of Wikipedia. And finally, are you still denying that Czech Wikipedia falls under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation? Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation's operations in CZ fails WP:ORG? Bwithh 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your doubts were baseless, that's what I can say. Concerning the English interview, most of its content is about the Wikipedia. But the Wikipedia has already had the article, so does Wikimedia Foundation and no one doubts it. I only doubt notability and verifialibity of the subject which is so far described in one and only English article. It presents one POV, what about the others? There's a lot of subjects which are relevant to Czech audience, but not to English speaking people. -- Zorro CX 08:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep while the article itself might need to be fixed up, an English-language description of the various Wikipedias in other languages (such as Czech) is both notable, and useful. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It may be notable, but where are reputable sources? Where is published independent research in English? Dare you say? -- Zorro CX 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I would assume that would be provided by Bilingual Wikipedians, though some of the information might be derivable from the WikiPedia Admin side (I'm thinking the date of creation, number of articles, etc.). FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    But this is the English speaking Wikipedia. Every Wikipedian has a right to verify its content. In case of foreign language texts, he or she cannot. I refer to the debate about Israeli sources in en:. -- Zorro CX 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    WP:RS#Sources in languages other than English: “However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.“ --Mormegil 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    OK, but the conditions are very strict: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." That means only direct citations (subsequently translated) are permitted. -- Zorro CX 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    No, it does not. --Mormegil 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    How comes? "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original" -- Zorro CX 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original", only "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source". There is no permition or restriction, when editors do NOT use their own English translation, is it? --Li-sung 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, you are correct. -- Zorro CX 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Sigh, do you not trust that Wikipedia's administration is capable of knowing how many articles were in its database for the Czech language, or even when the fork was created? I am a little baffled by your zealotry. It'd be one thing to object to some of the content, but to the article as a whole? FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

      I am not objecting statistics, of course. But is the information about how much registered accounts (not users, obviously), how much pages (not articles, obviously) so important that it deserves its own article in the encyclopedia? I may be a zealot, but this is a question of principle. If it is so needy to have information about creating each language version, why not include it into the article Wikipedia? -- Zorro CX 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Read WP:AUTO: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable." Most authors of the disputed article wrote about themselves. -- Zorro CX 09:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll remove all the nonsense added by ZorroCX (is that you VZ?). This nomination is clearly made in bad faith in attempt to wage a proxy war here. Czech Wikipedia was plagued with very long conflict but managed to close it. I very much dislike several attempts to confinue the conflict here and on Meta. Pavel Vozenilek 14:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the article to my best knowledge.

Short background: Czech Wiki suffered from a long conflict that escalated into wheel wars, edit wars, flame wars, numerous blocks, using sockpuppets, exposing personal details ["is that you VZ?", inserted by Zorro CX], labeling people as Hitlers, fascists or communists, questioning their motives and intelligence or associating them with former secret police. The attacks were made on Czech Wikipedia as well as on external website. Several people left or gave up admin positions. The situation was mostly solved by an arbitrage in May 2006. IMO this conflict was so long and so heavy that it is worth to be mentioned in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind the WP:CIV. I am not the one who insert nonsense.

I removed your breach of privacy as Jimbo Wales did.[59]. Mr Voženílek is one of the Czech Wikipedians. You should not write about yourself – mind WP:AUTO.

Your unsourced doubtless claims were notified by the appropriate template.

This article is no battle ground for another dirty war. Either Czech Wikipedia deserves its own article with no original research and no people writing about themselves, or not. In my view the article Czech Wikipedia would be appropriate only in the case if both conditions would be fullfilled. -- Zorro CX 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note Zorro CX is a single purpose account[60] Bwithh 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Assuming bad faith? I ask for your civility.[61] -- Zorro CX 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Absolutely does not hurt to have articles of Wikipedias that appear on the en.wiki front page (i.e., have over 10,000 articles). Moreso if it's in the 25,000 or more category. That's a relatively small group of Wikipedias, after all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is no reaction to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELF, and WP:AUTO. Main namespace is no Village Pump. -- Zorro CX 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  And? Deletion debate is all about determining notability and how remarkable the site is - whether a separate article is warranted, or do we need to merge the contents somewhere else, or consider if the content is too unremarkable to even mention anywhere. This particular Wikipedia satisfies this with its scope. Lack of verifiability or reliable sources is a cleanup issue, not AfD issue. WikiMedia projects are are to extent handled with a little bit silkier gloves than the rest of the websites, but there's always extents to that (see how MediaZilla is, rightfully, being AfD'd right now). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  OK. But what about possible (future) verifiability? There is a lack of any idependent research. All the articles about the Czech Wikipedia rely on statistics and trivialities. In my POV, the article Wikipedia is fully satisfactory for the whole project. Do we need an article about the Village Pump? The talk pages? In my view this is an encyclopedia, not the community web log. We should really not write about ourselves.

  And what about notability? Is Latin Wikipedia notable? Why not? Is any Wikipedia full of stubs notable? Does really any Czech use the Czech Wikipedia for his or her work? Speaking for myself, I don't. -- Zorro CX 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The encyclopedic article should not be mere a copy of Meta. -- Zorro CX 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, the deletion of this article will not improve Wikipedia (WP:IAR). Yamaguchi先生 21:33, 24 September 2006 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why does this article need a special treatment? Why is the original research allowed? Any reasons? -- Zorro CX 16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just another Wikicruft. Only Template:Wikipedia editions, some user pages and other name spaces link there. -- Zorro CX 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 02:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

The previous discussion has not mentioned the problem of WP:NOR. I wonder how this could survive the voting when the majority was for merging with the Wikipedia and only Instantnood, GRider, Kappa, Capitalistroadster, SγωΩηΣ, Jmabel, and unknown were against it. -- Zorro CX 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC) No reference at all (contrary to Wikipedia). -- Zorro CX 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty sure this meets WP:WEB, since most things written about "Wikipedia" are about the English Wikipedia. Merge possible I guess, discuss that on the talk page, an AfD isn't needed for a merge. --W.marsh 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  OK, it was just a proposal of the user googl. -- Zorro CX 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It indeed has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works, just see the Wikipedia Signpost's "Wikipedia in the News" section. Some P. Erson 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is without question a notable subject, worse case scenario it can be merged to Wikipedia but either way this is not something to be discussed on Articles for deletion. There are quite litereally hundreds of non-trivial news articles written about Wikipedia, specifically the English Wikipedia, and usually a dozen current news articles at any given time on Google News. Yamaguchi先生 18:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Do you distinguish between the articles Wikipedia and English Wikipedia? The first one is not the subject of this discussion. -- Zorro CX 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Bad Faith nomination. SYSS Mouse 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  This I denied. I originally proposed only Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Wikipedia, but the user googl suggested this. -- Zorro CX 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, the English Wikipedia far exceeds the bar set by WP:WEB guidelines and I request that you withdraw this nomination. Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I deny it was a disruption. I read the original discussion and I noticed that majority was against keeping the article. WP:NOR was not discussed at all. No one denies notability of the Wikipedia as a such, but only the English one as a year before.

You're talking about an afd which was over an article only 2 sentences long[62]. Bwithh 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to withdraw this nomination, but woudn't be better to discuss a question of NOR? -- Zorro CX 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Same nonsense as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Wikipedia. Timichal 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The English Wikipedia is the most popular and the one with the most articles. It is very notable. Ric36 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nuisance afd nom. Nominator has withdrawn the afd Bwithh 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep quite notable.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per nom withdrawn. - Kookykman|(t)e 23:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (討論) 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Line spectra

Non-notable high school band. Fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Was prodded by me but removed by article's creator. Still in favour of delete. --Richhoncho 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no claim of notability. --RMHED 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above --Guinnog 18:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. "They have not released much music, and do not plan to," eh? Luna Santin 03:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Orphanage (musicians)

Does not meet the guidelines in WP:MUSIC for inclusion on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the AfD template on the page, it was missing. Equendil Talk 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination, though at least the entry is of decent quality. Equendil Talk 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty well-written, but I don't see evidence of passing WP:BAND. If somebody finds something, feel free to introduce it; no luck for me, yet. Luna Santin 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--72.199.153.17 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Emilie Millikan

Delete. This person is not notable by the guidelines of WP:BIO. Merely being the relative of a Nobel prize winner is not enough. ^{[Check Google hits]} There are 5 Google results for the name. I had applied a proposed deletion tag which was removed. ... discospinster _talk 17:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deletenon-notable --RMHED 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Igbogirl 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Abid Chohan

Under WP:BIO it says that a politician must either be "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" or "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Manchester City council is not a legislature and no evidence has been provided that there is significant press coverage for this figure. Are councillors on substantial councils inherently notable? JASpencer 17:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is a stub, but I would be inclined to keep him as a member of a notable city council. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No ex-officio encyclopedic notability for a ward councillor (or even for a city council member, I would argue). This person is not a councillor representing the whole of Manchester. He's one of three[63] councillors for Longsight ward i.e. a small segment of Manchester city. There are 32 wards in Manchester city, each with 3 councillors (so 96 in total)[64]. In 2001, Longsight had a population of 16,000[65] - about 3.8% of Manchester city's total residents in 2001[66] or about 0.6% of the total Greater Manchester urban population of 2.5 million[67]. Bwithh 19:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Local politician of no particular notability. Ohconfucius 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Bwithh. -- Kicking222 13:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be better to merge this with Longsight, his ward? JASpencer 13:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 2 He was put in a batch of councillors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors, but there were differences within the batch. There was also a failed concensus here. JASpencer 14:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Local authority councillors with no other notability do not need an article. David | Talk 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete: only 200 google hits; no reason presented to keep article. John Broughton 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Local councillors not automatically notable. Espresso Addict 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RexNL; deletion requested by initial editor (CSD:G7). JDoorjam Talk 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The RCP (Red Car Posse)

Delete as a contested PROD. Absolute WP:BALLS, violates WP:V, zero WP:RS indicating any sort of notability, fails WP:ORG, suspected WP:VANITY, possibly WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's totally B.S., it's racist, it's unverifiable, the listed assertions of notability are clearly fabricated. Can we speedy it as an attack page on either the friend at the end or African-Americans in general? Probably not, but man, I have never wanted to delete an article as much as I do this one. Dina 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• This article is no more than offensive than any other article on this website concerning the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, racism, or anything else. The purpose is to inform and if one truly desires to delete this article then one may as well delete anything else that pertains to the aformentioned. Let it also be pointed out that nowhere is racism upheld, justified, or encouraged. Rather, one should read the article in full before making irrational judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso2005 (talk • contribs)

Comment I did read the article in full. If its intent is to parody white supremacy and racism, then I suggest that it does that rather poorly. The article on the Ku Klux Klan does not include unverifiable "joke" fantasies about attending the Apollo theater and shouting "Wow! Look at all you monkey people!", or anything similar. The article on Nazism does not describe circumstances like a believer saying "would be nice to get rid of those disgusting chinks and hashbrown bastards permanently" as "in which he vocalized these exact thoughts into an albeit witty social commentary" (um, sic). Anyway, the fact that it's racist is hardly the only criteria for deletion on the table here. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes. Dina 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ok, the fact remains that because there is an absence of these specific citations on Wikipedia, does not exlude their existence elsewhere. And yet again, how is this racist when there is nothing advocating racism? Simply because the majority of people are not familiar with this organization does not point immediately to this being 100% false. There are countless underground organizations in existence and if Wikipedia claims to be a haven of information, surely it cannot delete an article that some people find offensive despite its accuracy. If there truly are doubts about this organization, I implore everyone to get in contact with, for starters, the various connections this group has with people of national presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso2005 (talk • contribs)

Comment Since the history shows that you are User:Zoso2005 the creator of this article, then please provide appropriate 3rd party citations. Obviously you know a great deal about the group, so you should be able to source your claims. Suggesting that other users "contact" (for instance)Mary-Kate Olsen to verify that "Thompson was seen trying to cop a feel on [her]" is unreasonable. The fact that people are unfamiliar with the organization is not the point -- the fact that no verifiable sources for the claims about the organization have been provided is. Also, please sign your comments by using four tildes. Dina 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, speedily if possible, as a hoax. I doubt that the sources claimed in the article actually discuss the subject. Note that several of the sources claimed are weekly or biweekly publications, yet are identified only by month. --Metropolitan90 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've personally heard of this group before and based on what I've seen on Youtube they're the real deal. Sure, some of the information on here seems a little "out there" but the sources are still cited with month and year, regardless of them being weekly or biweekly publications. Is it not also the intentions of Wikipedia for all users to seek out more information themselves? Also, how is it unreasonable to contact people like Mary-Kate Olsen? They're not unapproachable. --Elvis 1950 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Congratulations on your first edit. To answer your question, Wikipedia's intention is not for all users to seek out more information about themselves... it's to be an encyclopedia. And the "citations" are pretty bogus. WP:V is a policy that must be satisfied. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire per nominator. Might I remind our new friend(s) that the burden of verifiability lies upon them? Choess 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Who the fuck cares? Seriously, if there are citations that seem feasible, let it be. I doubt anyone is going to have a hernia if they come across something like this group's article. But I suppose no one else has anything better to do than amount to some lousy website's bitches. Way to go, everyone, way to go!--Lindy3930 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) — Lindy3930 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note:Also vandalized my userpage here Dina 15:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? --141.156.232.179 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sources I checked my library of Teen People magazines from the last decade and to my surprise I found that the citations are legitimate! Unfortunately I can't check any others, but I think we should give this person the benefit of the doubt. I also believe that there may be a mention of the RCP in one of the Futurama DVD commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin999999999 (talk • contribs) — Franklin999999999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Also made this edit reverted as vandalism Dina 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, complete bollocks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete and utter bollocks. --Charlesknight 12:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Save complete and utter truth! Actually, I just hate it when people say "bullocks". Therefore, keep the article since these strange folk dislike it. In fact, why not just have a huge vote on whether we should keep it or not. Also, as mentioned by people above, who really cares? I sincerely doubt anybody in our lifetime is going to do intense research on a group like this. Who does it harm, besides the eccentric Wikipedia blowers here?--Tier1 14:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC) — Tier1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• WOW and holy hell! You people are way too into this site! Good God! Oh no! I think I see another article on here that has questionable material! Better run off and tell the proper authorities because I am a goody-goody! Yay for me and screw everyone else! Anyone who actually uses Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is a tool and has absolutely no claims to make on anything that holds sway. Good day to you all!--Flea1999 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC) This was User:Flea1999's first edit. --Metropolitan90 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Note: His second two were to vandalize Angus McLellan and Charlesknight diff diff Dina 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• My my Things here are definitely heating up. I suppose the one good thing that came from the creation of this article is that it got all of us talking. Just for the record, I think it's funny when people "vandalize" a Wikipedia page. Call me crazy. And, to shake things up even further, I speak for all of us here when I say this group deserves to remain documented in an article here.--Memphisjack 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Memphisjack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Fine, go and delete Apparently some psychos are going around using similar IP addresses and giving my own user name on this site a very bad rap. Therefore, against the overall purpose of the article, I request that the administrators remove the article in full. For anyone who's article was "vandalized", on behalf of those made up people pirating IP addresses, sorry.--Zoso 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page you created, it'll work faster. Also, my offer to drop the sockpuppet issue only stands if you own up to what you did and apologize to each person you vandalized. Come on now, it's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, be a man about it. Users who got off to shaky starts have become highly respected contributors in the past. It's especially important if you think you might want to create or edit more articles on Wikipedia. Dina 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Farah Philosophy

Prodded as a neologism by another editor, removed by the article's creator. No Ghits, fails WP:NEO Delete. --Richhoncho 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It asserts notability in argument as "often used in conversations". Asked for citation. JASpencer 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Asserts notability" is not a reason for keeping an article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is, and this non-existent philosophy badly fails WP:V. Did you notice the zero google hits? Based on the ending of the article, this appears to be something the article creator made up himself based on a friend of his named Farrah. Obvious Delete. --Xyzzyplugh 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN neologism for Special pleading, and not a "philosophy" at all. Leibniz 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Asking for citation is not the same thing as getting one, and "often used in conversation" is another way of saying unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research; also noting the weasel words "often used". Punkmorten 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Myprojectfodebate

Page used to store an essay for a project. Nwwaew 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, per prod, (my) prod2 and afd. By the end of this debate it shall be clear that 1. The status quo is prohibiting academic freedom and 2. The status quo leaves gaps. (WP:NOT - No original research (#1), personal essays (#4), WP:NOR - No original research, WP:V - Verifiability, WP:RS - Reliable sources, etc). Article title is blatant as well. However, I believe prod'ing was fine, as by the time the prod ends, the deletion debate will still be open (unless closed earlier). -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wouldn't a speedy delete be more appropriate here? JASpencer 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  There is no applicable speedy clause for these kind of articles. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe someone could look into that- who knows how many items have been uploaded to Wikipedia to store online. Nwwaew 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Notepad. --Wafulz 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:V, what else? ColourBurst 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Wafulz. Wikipedia isn't meant as a convenient storage space for school essays. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Functional Tensor Imaging

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lacking sources, but still seems more a case of expert attention needed than deletion to me. Leibniz 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I agree that it needs sources a quick PubMed search revealed no articles. It should be merged with diffusion tensor imaging until the technique becomes more established. WU03 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems to be original research. The article's creator is User:OllieHulme. Oliver J. Hulme is a coauthor of this article and this abstract. The latter describes the technique. In any case, if the method ever catches on, someone else can write a new article about it. Michael Kinyon 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Leibniz 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. --Peta 04:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted already as copyvio. - Bobet 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rob Bredl

This article don't meet the Wikipedia conditions. It's very badly set up. Dennis 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Asserts notability as Television personality. This is a clean up candidate, not a deletion. JASpencer 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not so good at the setting up of the page, and was hoping someone would assist me by cleaning up the page. Alls i am trying to do is get Rob's name out. i was actually quite shocked to not find an article on him here, so made this one myself. Yet, as i said, i am not good with the layout. As you can see though, all of the information, images, etc is all there. I just need the page setting up. And I would have appreciated a message rather than nominating my article for deletion. I have been working on it for a while...

Thanks,

Wayne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Wilkins (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2006

• Keep. Sounds like a notable television personality. The article needs additional sources, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I got the "source": http://www.venomousreptiles.org/articles/132. It is literal copied from this and likely other sites. Copy/paste. I don't know the exactly rules for delete a page on en:, but this is violation of copyright. Dennis 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I changed {{afd}} into {{copyvio}} Dennis 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

30/60

Local high school show. No notability outside of that very local community. The talk page explains:

"It is one of the highlights of Colony that the administration is most proud of. It is not an advertisement, it is merely an article on a popular show which needs to be recorded of."

Fair enough but Wikipedia is not MySpace. Pascal.Tesson 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom What? No Sparkle Motion? At least I hope they got copyright permission... Kids today... Bwithh 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I cannot believe the Donnie Darko wiki article does not shout-out to Sparkle Motion <=PBwithh 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A yi yi... -- Kicking222 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Than what needs to get done to keep this page from being deleted? This is ludicrous. Very local community? This show is known all over Southern California! About time it finally got it's own page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WorldEpcot (talk • contribs) .

Comment known all over Southern California? I would think that this is at least a mild exageration [68]. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. if it is "known all over Southern California" then there should be a non-trivial mention of it in a reliable source. Short of that, its not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, whatever. This is absolutely crazy. I suppose this isn't "a website that allows any visitor to freely edit its content." And when I say it is known all over Southern California, it is not an exaggeration. So much chaos over one simple page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WorldEpcot (talk • contribs) .

Look, no one is saying that what you say is not right. IT MIGHT BE CORRECT. That is cool. If the show is well known over Southern California, then CITE A SOURCE. Link to a webpage that reviews it. Cite a newspaper article that mentions it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please read this over. If something is worthwhile, then it has been mentioned somewhere besides wikipedia. If you cite your article and cross reference it well, it will probably not be marked for deletion. No one is saying that the 30/60 show is AUTOMATICALLY not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. You just need to demonstrate its noteworthyness, and it will be included. If you CANNOT do this, I support its deletion. If you can do this, I will support your arguement to keep it. --Jayron32 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a website that allows any visitor to freely edit its content. This is an encyclopedia. Edits have to demonstrably conform to guidelines involving Verifiability, neutrality, and similar notability criteria, including WP:NFT and generally WP:NOT.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jinice

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete. Choess 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:RS. Crystallina 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hello32020 21:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jeendan 07:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Herb Moelis

non-notable Nekohakase 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Notability not established. JASpencer 20:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTABLE Hello32020 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep all, in spite of the painful number of {{oldafdfull}} templates I'll have to fill out. Consensus appears to be that these are notable. If anybody has a beef with particular stations, I suggest single noms to sort those out. Luna Santin 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Donington Park services

I am nominating the following articles as well, under the same rationale: Hopwood Park services, London Gateway services, Keele services, Corley services, Hilton Park services, Knutsford services, Rownhams services, Westmorland services, Leicester Forest East services, Stafford services, Charnock Richard services, Lancaster (Forton) services, Southwaite services, Sandbach services, Northampton services, Fleet services, Tibshelf services, Heston services, Reading services, Chieveley services, Membury services, Magor services, Cardiff West services, Sarn park services, Swansea services, Pont Abraham services, Frankley services, Michaelwood services, Gordano services, Sedgemoor services, Bridgwater services, Taunton Deane services, Cullompton services, Exeter services, Burton-in-Kendal services, Killington Lake services, Norton Canes services, Harthill services,Stirling services, Birchanger green services, Maidstone services, Pease Pottage services, Clacket Lane services, South Mimms services, Thurrock services, Oxford services, Cherwell Valley services, Tamworth services, Severn View services, Chester services, Leigh Delamere services, Woodall services and Woolley Edge services.

Please note that Watford Gap services is excluded from this AfD. It may be notable in its own right.

• Delete all. These are all individual articles for motorway service stations (rest areas) on motorways of the United Kingdom. There are a few dozen of these, as listed above; most are genetic and have very little that makes them notable, even apart from one another let alone in their own right. Few of these comprise anything more than a description of where they are and who runs them; some have lacking content warnings, linkless warnings, cleanup warnings. None of the nominated articles is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion. Many of these articles have been attempted to be deleted before (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knutsford services) but no consensus was reached. This time, they are all being nominated, and a consensus is being saught. Erath 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you should have started a centralized discussion. I fearlessly predict right now that this discussion will end in no consensus, partly because of the mass nomination and partly because you have not apparently even considered merging. Uncle G 10:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Can I second Uncle G's proposal. I don't think this AfD is going to go anywhere for the reasons I wrote below: mass nominations like this never do, in my experience. Let's have a centralized discussion to hash out whether service stations are notable as a class or individually or not at all, then we'll know what to do with the individual articles. David | Talk 10:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all - I proposed one of these for deletion a while ago but for reasons still unclear to me, the consensus was keep. Clearly nn, imo. Mikker ^(...) 21:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to several omnibus articles. Could be grouped by motorway, or by region. Some service stations are, in my judgment, clearly notable - think Watford Gap services, the first of them, which has a nice long article. An obiter dicta remark: any AfD nomination which includes so many articles is almost bound not to end in a clear-cut result, because there are so many articles that AfD contributors will never bother to read them all, and are unlikely to support deletion just in case there's useful information in the bits they didn't see. David | Talk 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Every UK railway station qualifies for an article and the smallest of these service stations has many times more visitors per day than many small railway stations. -- RHaworth 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Agreed with above. Most of these are stubs and just need expanding. I have fixed the missing links one and propose to go through and expand them. I am working on the main motorways at the moment, but this is my next project.Regan123 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Motorway service stations may not be very exciting but they are prominent features in Britain. -- Necrothesp 01:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• You guys have to be kidding. Do we really want an article on every rest area in the world? (If you include Britain's I can see no reason why, say, South Africa's rest areas shouldn't also have articles). These things are just not notable, they contain little sourced information (and is therefore WP:OR)... Mikker ^(...) 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is suggesting the same for every part of the world. Service stations are large and prominent facilities on UK motorways. Surely we can look at this issue on a country, by country basis? Regan123 01:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, unsourced material is not necessarily "original research". This term has started to be bandied around a little too freely in recent months, usually by people trying to support their desire to delete something. It's a good idea to read WP:OR to see what actually constitutes original research on Wikipedia - it's summarised in the little box at the top. This clearly states the position - stating a fact (e.g. "Donington Park services is a motorway service station off the M1 motorway and A42 interchange near Derby, England") is not original research; advancing a theory which has not been published by a reputable source is. Yes, it's always better to source articles, but don't just dismiss articles as OR because they're unsourced. -- Necrothesp 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ummm... getting on high horses about policy/guidelines is not called for. Please remind yourself of WP:FAITH & WP:CIVILITY, condescending remarks like "it's summarised in the little box at the top" is not cricket. In any case, my OR comment was ancillary, my main point is that these articles are nn. And, Regan123, there are prominent service stations in every country I've visited or lived in. In SA they seem to serve exactly the same functions as in the UK, so if the latter is notable enough, so is the former. I see no reason whatsoever, however, why Wikipedia should have articles like these. Mikker ^(...) 02:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry if you took my remark as a breach of either guideline. It certainly wasn't meant to be and it doesn't read as being to me. I was merely pointing out a misinterpretation of the OR rule, which, as I said, seems to be getting incresingly common. Were you not getting on your high horse in the first place by claiming the articles were OR? -- Necrothesp 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. As per RHaworth Mr WR 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - I don't think the future of 50-odd articles should be decided at once and I agree that trhese are as notable in Britain as railway stations, which all have their own articles. -- Roleplayer 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, and I would encourage looking at editorial actions such as merging instead of deletion. I'm sorry, but there's too much here to go through to research whether each of them meet our content policies, although I'm sure that most if not all of them do. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and RedirectSomeone might want to know about them, The only problem is that they are all short. If there is a merger it will be a more completer artical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze1200 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 September 2006
• Comment: There doesn't seem to be any parent article for these at the moment. For starters I suggest creating Motorway service areas in the United Kingdom or similar, which can have a list of them and any other generic information. Then I'd vote to delete any of these articles that doesn't pass the WP:HOLE test, retaining any that are particularly noteable (eg Westmorland services - which should be called "Tebay services" while we're at it - which is the only one in England not owned by the big chains); trouble is, there's probably something vaguely notable about all of them if you look hard enough. --Blisco 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all without particular notability either into one or several list-type articles or into articles on the motorways they serve. (I'm not sure that UK railway stations deserve automatic inclusion, either, but most have a much longer history and a less generic feel.) Agree with Blisco that Tebay/Westmorland may deserve an article. Espresso Addict 09:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all (and don't merge). Each is a multimillion pound business in its own right, most long established, and certainly as or more notable that the high schools and shopping centres which, an apparent consensus asserts, are sufficiently notable. Secondly they form a component of our overall UK trunk roads article collection, which is getting pretty complete - omitting the service stations on Motorways seems like a willful omission. Southwaite services, a lamentable heckhole though it surely is, is certaily more notable (and with much more to say about it) than M876 motorway and its myriad ilk. That said, motorway services are a special case (they're large, the exist because of specific government action, and there aren't that many of them). A-road services, on the other hand, are far less special and far more numerous, and exist merely because someone got planning permission from Upper Scratching Parish Council, so I think motorway services is the line below which we shouldn't (barring special cases with more to say for themselves) we shouldn't go. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all. This isn't a paper encyclopaedia, and these are all notable locations in the UK (I know I've been to many on that list personally). Motorway service stations are a necessary part of tranport life in the UK and frequented by perhaps a million people on a daily basis. If some old building that no one lives in and few people visit is allowed an article because someone once owned it or lived there, then why shouldn't these services? Ben W Bell talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Expand or die. If all Wikipedians can think to write on a topic is "Swansea services is a motorway service station on the M4 motorway near Swansea, Wales. It is owned by Moto.", then that's pretty much proof that it doesn't meet notability requirements, and that the article should be deleted (which is my current vote for all of them). Articles could survive if they had any substantial content, however, as Watford Gap services does. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no reason to delete stubs because they're stubs (and it's not policy to do so). Just because not much has been written about something doesn't mean that a reasonable article can't be written about it, just that nobody has got round to it yet. To say that this is proof that it's not notable is frankly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all to the Moto article do not keep. These are nothing more then a yellow pages list. There is no attempt to assert notability. These could very well be a speedy delete as they now stand. Vegaswikian 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All.per nomDINOMAN 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 17.18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All, against my instincts but in keeping with all the "Keep" arguments above. I hate the idea, but I see the logic to having them. Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Themes in Star Wars

This is an unreferenced, OR list of things that people spotted that happened to form parallels between the movies, rather than an actual exposition of the themes in the film. It's been around for over six months and still doesn't have a single secondary source to establish any of its claimed parallels, making it nothing but Original Research and thus wholly inappropriate for wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR Hello32020 21:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as if nothing else, there is a David Brin (I think, could be someone else) article on the "meaning" of Star Wars, a couple of books exploring it, and who knows what else. I would suggest moving it to the individual movies, but then again, I can see how as it is a series of movies, it might help to have one page to collate them all. Still, this article does need cleanup. It needs to be more like Themes in The Lord of the Rings. FrozenPurpleCube 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, Themes in Blade Runner. FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the issue is here. The article on Blade Runner and Lord of the Rings at least talks about themes in the stories. This is just a list of coincidences between the movies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the article does need cleanup. Possibly outright revision. It's so long, I'm not sure that there's nothing salvagable from it at all, so I'm hesistant to say that. In any case, I believe that it would be more likely to produce a better article with a rewrite than a deletion, as deleting it would just be likely to produce the same thing again. FrozenPurpleCube 03:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• New Proposal Since most of the article is currently about motif's in Star Wars, I propose a new article solely for that, separated from this one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this version. An encyclopedic article on Star Wars themes is certainly possible, but this collection of OR isn't it. BryanG^(talk) 05:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, textbook original research. Recury 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia's not the place for this kind of unreferenced research. --Elonka 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 02:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Feinman

Allegedly notable 'marketing pioneer' with <500 GHits. Artw 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep asserts notability in the direct marketing field. JASpencer 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not provide any evidence of notability in the direct marketing field. Google finds about 200 unique hits for people of this name, and this one doesn't seem prominent even among Jeffrey Feinmans. (A veterinarian by that name seems to get more hits.) Fan-1967 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being, subjec to to verification. The absence of many Ghits for a person whose prime was before the internet era is not proof of his non-notability. There are sufficient achievements for there to be existence of some proof of these claims. Being author of a half a million seller alone, if substantiated, would make him pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 13:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• That claim, also, is unverified (and without even the title of the book supplied, rather difficult to try to verify). Seems to me "Keep because someone might verify it" goes against the usual standards. Fan-1967 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as I'm currently unable to find any sources verifying these claims. If anybody knows of any, point them out, pronto. Luna Santin 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as failing WP:V. My rule of thumb is that if an AfD doesn't find sources there aint no sources to find! BlueValour 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason McGill

I originally speedily deleted this article twice (under A7 and then G4), but the article has since been recreated for the third time. Given this, I figure that the article should be placed on AfD rather than an administrator unilaterally deleting the article for the third time. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS and above. Hello32020 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Chairman of a professional football club so should come under the WP:BIO guideline "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league" just as much as a player. JASpencer 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is the chairman of a football club - which is worth notability. Mattythewhite 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is the chairman of a notable football club Kingjamie 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - he is MD not Chairman which in such football clubs is a significantly less notable role in terms of public profile. BlueValour 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's actually the Managing Director [69], but this doesn't invalidate the reasons given above - York City are a professional club and notable enough for him to be included in WP. Qwghlm 17:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. That WP:BIO guideline applies to sportspeople who have played in a league. What's this guy really done? A one line bio that barely establishes notability and has no likelihood of being expanded in the future, unless possibly he stubs his toe on the Premiereship trophy. Fethers 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, frankly I don't see any connection to the WP:BIO guidelines for sportspeople. We don't have articles for every CEO out there, so... Punkmorten 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs expanding. If that is all the info on him, then it isn't worthy of an article, however I suspect there's at least enough to write a few paragraphs. I would suggest that the man himself is reasonably notable, but not highly notable. aLii 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - he is the MD of a non-league football club which simply is not a notable role. MDs of such clubs do not have the public profile of Chairmen and his job is equivalent to that of MDs of very many other local companies. BlueValour 17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Jean-Thierry Boisseau, and no consensus on Paul Wehage. Luna Santin 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Thierry Boisseau and Paul Wehage

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau freely admits to being part of User:Musikfabrik with Paul Wehage. Musikfabrik's edits, as far as I can tell, include pretty much every single fact and statement made about him in this article: The rest were cleanup. Self-promotion of a non-notable (1500 GHits) composer? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Wehage seems somewhat more notable, but, again, was written largely by Musikfabrik. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Having looked over the Musik Fabrik website it's a little difficult to tell whether it's a label as such or simply a group of friends doing mutual vanity-publishing and selling the results online. Dybryd 00:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wehage: delete Boisseau. Vanity, but Wehage marginally passes notability. Moreschi 11:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Probably Keep Wehage: delete Boisseau. "Paul Wehage" turns up a few hits at the various Amazons for a couple of discs, so he is a recorded composer. "Jean-Thierry Boisseau" only turns up one item at Amazon France, namely the book Histoires de la musique (used as a reference for many of the Musik Fabrik articles on Wikipedia). Its sales rank is currently zero, so nobody has actually bought a copy (from Amazon at least). --Folantin 12:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Query: Is that him as a saxophonist or him as a composer turning up? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. There's a possibility he composed some of the pieces on the "Saxofolies" CD (currently unavailable) but I couldn't say for sure from the info Amazon.com gives. --Folantin 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Boisseau. A vanity piece and clearly non-notalbe. Neutral on Wehage. This is also clearly a vanity piece, but he may be notable. It's tough to say, as he may really be an arranger rather than a composer. -- Ssilvers 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. +"Jean-Thierry Boisseau" googles 924 hits, none of which on quick examination has convinced me of his notabiliy per WP:MUSIC. +"Paul Wehage" googles fewer hits (670), none of them convincing me of his notability per WP:MUSIC. My opinion, anyway. I wish them all the best, and hope that others will write articles about them when they become notable in due course. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Both are autobiography, contributions of a banned user, Wehage has one entry in AMG (Saxofolies), Boisseau has none, I see no compelling evidence that either meets the inclusion guideline for musicians. Guy 10:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notable composer, even mentioned on other language Wikipedia's - see [70]

Note: The above unsigned comment is from Madder. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Yes, and no doubt a substantial part of that French entry was contributed by User:Musikfabrik (i.e. Messrs. Boisseau, Wehage et al.). Look at the edit history. They have a French Wikipedia account too. The whole point is we don't know how much info on the Web about Boisseau, Wehage & Co. was put there by themselves and how much is from neutral third-party sources. So it's not a very good indicator of notability. --Folantin 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wehage. If Jean Francaix actually wrote pieces for him, that's pretty notible. Delete Boisseau, per above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Luna Santin 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums

List of songs on a series of children's music albums. I question whether the album series is notable enough for inclusion, much less a list of all of their songs. —tregoweth (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Heavily advertised albums - as notable as List of songs by Weird Al Yankovic or the like. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These albums are indeed heavily advertised and pretty well-known through North America. --Wafulz 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree that Kidz Bop itself lacks notability, but this list is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Do we also want List of songs on Rhino's Have a Nice Day series, List of songs used on Living in Oblivion compilations, and the likes? I can't particularly see the encyclopaedic value in keeping track of the songs included, and if anyone really needed to do so, it isn't hard to find the track lists at appropriate sources. GassyGuy 12:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The series is notable, and I don't think "find[ing] the track lists at appropriate sources" means this one should be deleted. SliceNYC 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My main argument wasn't that the info could be found elsewhere, but rather that there was no good reason for it to be found in an encyclopaedia. A few of the tunes could be named in the main article to illustrate the sort of material found on the CDs, but listing the lot of them is excessive and unnecessary, bordering on (and in my opinion, falling on the wrong side of) the line for indiscriminate information. GassyGuy 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I still believe that a comprehensive list isn't indiscriminate, but rather a good illustration of the series' scope. Because this is a unique concept I feel it's necessary to provide this list. SliceNYC 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Without citing on which album they appear, this list is just cruft. OTOH, no one seems to have noticed that there are already a bunch of Kidz Bop playlists in Wikipedia (Kidz Bop 3, Kidz Bop 4, etc.) that are much more useful ... filling in the missing ones (and linking songs like in the list under discussion) seems like a Good Idea. Otherwise, someone should AfD all those individual playlists as well. --141.156.232.179 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Matts Pc Help

Contested prod. Promotion for another tiny company not in the same solar system as WP:CORP. Per the article, serves "a few customers a week and also 2 business using our web design services." -- Fan-1967 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom and WP:NOT (adverts). -- MarcoTolo 22:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and Wikipedia not being for advertising. Also, someone should inform Matt that his company's name uses improper grammar. --Wafulz 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prod'd it originally. Another article that makes me wish there was a speedy for spam. Dipics 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete What is the problem, I really don't agree with that ruling. He appears to simply wish to have an article about his business, it isn't hurting you. Anon 21:46, 27 September 2006 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.16.39 (talk • contribs)

• If we allowed this one, we'd have to allow ads for every business of this size, and we don't want ads at all, only articles. That would very much hurt us. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages. Fan-1967 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I still don't understand what part of the article is advertisement. It merely contains an external link to the website, no contact information/pricing structures etc. is provided.

• The website is contact information, and ads hardly ever include pricing. Fan-1967 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Malvern Murders

Non-notable novel. Article created by user:Samuel.tombs for a novel written by Kerry Tombs. Smells like an advert to me. -- RHaworth 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The text has been taken straight from the mentioned website - so its either vanity or copyvio. It was only published in August. -- Beardo 07:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Entirely non notable. Equendil Talk 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of unseen characters

Trivia. Unmaintainable. Large list of largely-unimportant characters that aren't even remotely related. Old nomination here >Radiant< 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to unseen character. The list is original research, or if you prefer, WP:SYN. It has no place in Wikipedia. YechielMan 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there's no discrimination between significant unseen characters like Columbo's wife, and completely obscure characters that were mentioned in one episode of a sitcom. Croxley 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this can't possibly be managed, also lacking in sources +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable and absurdly diffuse. Collabi 10:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as nn at this time, per WP:WEB. Luna Santin 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikitimeline

Delete seems non-notable and does not seem to match WP:WEB Echalone 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom and WP:WEB. The wiki has about ten editors and maybe 170 "articles". --Charlesknight 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, come back in a year or so if the wiki has grown. Punkmorten 08:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No Frontiers

Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete tho from the article it really would be hard to tell what it is. I guess if someone came along with real info about it, fine but otherwise ... --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing

This is nonsense. Really. It purports to be referenced but every other sentence seems to start with "allegedly". "Quebec bashing" scores about 500 ghits. Guy 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Radio-Canada, Sunday Sept 24, Les coulisses du pouvoir (weekly political program on federal tv!) starts the show off by saying one of their topics is "Quebec Bashing": http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/coulisses_du_pouvoir/ 69.156.25.163 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: I confirm that host Daniel Lessard states naturally: "[...] But first, Afghanistan and Quebec bashing with minister Maxime Bernier, after this." Then, a voice-off quotes the Jan Wong piece, then mentions the Quebecistan article, then mentions words from Don Cherry. Afterwards, in an interview with minister Bernier, Lessard once again uses naturally the phrase: "Quebec bashing, mister Bernier, (Bernier laughs, knowing what the subject will be) in lack of a better term in French ― The Globe and Mail again this week ― this article that you have read on Dawson, does it irritate you, personally?". Bernier: "shocking" and "no foundations". Lessard enumerates the examples of Wong, Quebecistan and Don Cherry, says that it happens "pretty regularly" and asks, about articles and words such as these: "Is it racism?" Then, Lessard discusses Jean Charest's and other politicians' response to the Wong affair, and any possibility of political recuperation, with Bernard Drainville, chief of the SRC (the network) office in Quebec City. In this exchange, Drainville, contrarily to some like the Globe and Mail editor, comes to the conclusion the politicians acted with moderation ("avec pondération"). One can verify all of this by watching the video available on the webpage linked above. This report is a very pertinent find. --Liberlogos 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article is heavily sourced, besides alleged is used only 4 times. Also a reason why it may not have many google hits is because the sources on the internet may be in French. I'm pretty sure that bashing wouldn't appear on a French site. T REX_speak 01:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - "Quebec bashing" scores 321 000 hits in www.google.ca and 292,000 in www.google.com . And that is a verifiable fact. As I wrote in the article's discussion page, the text needs important work on 1) the quality of English and 2) on making the subject more comprehensive, but the ceaseless bashing on Quebec in the English language media of Canada (especially the written press) is a real social phenomenon. Much has been written on the subject, in both English and French and the current controversy over Jan Wong's Globe & Mail article is making it clear that the issue is still ongoing. -- Mathieugp 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Matheiugp, you were already told on the talk page of the article how to check Google properly by using double-quotes. It's 500-650 hits depending on whether you use google.com or google.ca. If you don't include the double-quotes you could be including Quebec bashing the federal government, etc. Deet 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Doing an advanced search asking for the exact phrase of Quebec bashing alone, we now get 727 hits (www.google.ca) -- Mathieugp 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And that's still pretty low. And all this talk about, well it's a popular term in French, well guess what, those hits include ALL LANGUAGES. It's not that popular, and an extra 50 have probably been generated by just us talking about this all over Wikipedia and everyone's talk pages, etc. Deet 02:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• But is Quebec bashed endlessly in the English-language media? As a former Quebecker living in Toronto, and reading the Globe (can't say I spotted the article that has caused the ruckus), I don't see much in the way of Quebec-bashing ... there's probably more Alberta-bashing an definitely more US-bashing than anything. Was Wong even bashing Quebec? I got the impression she was talking about Francophone society more than the province ... not that I agree with her conclusions. But name the last article in the Globe that caused an issue? That aside, the question is, should the article exist? Is it accurate? Should it have a different name? Should it be merged with something? Just because a noun/verb combination scores high on Google it shouldn't have an article. I don't konw where 321,000 comes from. I just put in "Quebec bashing" (as a phrase) and I only get 501 hits. How did you get 321,000? But I get 2,160,000 hits for "window cleaning", which I note doesn't have an article. Nfitz 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain why bashing the mainstream francophone society of Quebec is NOT bashing Quebec itself??? 74% of Quebecers have some French ancestry, 80% are native French speakers, 82% adopted French as their main language in the privacy of their homes and 94% claim to be able to carry a conversation in French. Come one. That's not serious. You are getting 501 hits because you are putting double quotes around Quebec bashing. You are missing all instances where the phrase is not exactly Quebec bashing, but maybe bashing on Quebec or something similar. The default Google search will look for all of the words, so you don't need double quotes. If you do an advanced search and ask for the exact phrase of Quebec bashing alone, you still get 650 hits. -- Mathieugp 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's entirely different. Quebec is a multi-lingual province; the exampls I have seen seem to be bashing the pur laine themselves - and while the think they are Quebec, this is a very racist belief, and they are not Quebec. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain, with valid arguments, how the fact that Quebec has a multilingual population, something you have to expect in a nation of 7.5 million, changes the fact that when you attack the majority of Quebecers and the political and social institutions of all Quebecers, you are attacking the whole of Quebec? If the majority national group isn't allowed to identify to Quebec, who is? If the old-stock Franco-Quebecers are racist when they identify to Quebec, are old-stock British Canadians racists when they think of themselves as Canadians? I hope you realise how hopelessly wrong you are there seeing racism in the wrong place. -- Mathieugp 00:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Asking what is the last G&M article having raised issues is not an apt argument, for this article is not named "Quebec bashing in the Globe and Mail newspaper". The last article published in the general press to raise a ruckus was published only a month before ("The Rise of Quebecistan, in the other big Canadian newspaper). You don't see much Quebec bashing? ...read the article. Yes, Wong was bashing Quebec. She referred to the language laws that were passed by the Quebec legislature. "the question is, [...] Is it accurate?" Look at the plethora of references. "That aside, the question is, [...] Should it have a different name? Should it be merged with something?" That is not exactely the question at hand: this is a deletion nomination. Those issues are raised in different fashions. "the question is, should the article exist?" That's the question. The answer is yes. Books (as noted below) and hundreds of articles (as also noted below) have commented and studied the phenomenon. The opinion that it exists is held widely in all political sides in Quebec (see below). --Liberlogos 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - "Allegedly" has specifically been used to carefully counter criticism of "bias" and deletion nominations. Since the subject is controversial, any mention that says "The phenomenon exists [end of the line]." will get the article into trouble. Now, you're nominating it for the exact opposite reason, which is curious. The fact is that, in the Quebec society, in all political sides, it is widely believed to exist (see "There's a sort of trend." - Denis Coderre, Liberal MP), [71] and the abundance of references makes that argument successfully. Books (Three volumes of The Black Book of English Canada from Normand Lester, L'obsession ethnique from Guy Bouthillier...) and hundreds of articles (see "Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media" by Michel David and the dozens more referrenced in the article) have commented and studied the phenomenon. --Liberlogos 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the article being about the allegations, the issue at hand is not whether the phenomenon exists, which is at least an opinion, but if the allegations exist, which is a referenced fact. --Liberlogos 09:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - ... if only because the reason given by Guy to have the article deleted is just an unsubstantiated opinion that the article is "nonsense". To others, the article does have meaning and is useful in that it documents what numerous people believe to be a sociological phenomenon. D. Mx.

• O RLY? I guarantee you that I can find at least as amny sources bashing London as you have here for Quebec. The whole article is a POV fork of Quebec, a criticism section which should never have existed in the first place. Maybe this belongs at Wikitravel, but the term is not in widespread use and the content is hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Guy 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1) London is not a nation. 2) When an article does not have the adequate neutral point of view, we fix it, we don't delete it, especially when it references some 60 articles in two languages. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 1) The rapid growth of the article and the number of people who have contributed to it seems indicates there is a place for it. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 2) In particular in the case of Jan Wong, Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Jean Charest got involved, and there was a unanimous vote of the Canadian House of Commons. Google numbers aside, we're talking about a major event on the Canadian scene. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3) If there wasn't a Quebec Bashing page, it would be harder to make links between the different events of diffamation linked to the different individuals involved. 69.159.89.248 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• uh hang on, your only supposed to vote once ... how many sockpuppets do you have? Nfitz 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Simple explanation: he's new. If the intentions had been malignant, he would have signed with different handles. Assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. --Liberlogos 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• sorry, I thought it was argument by argument, not vote by vote. (my provider reassigns me a new IP each time) 69.156.73.134 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• How do you know the sex of the poster is male? Nfitz 05:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• LOL. I usually try to always use gender-neutral language when referring to users without userpages defining sex. That's a common Wikipedia discussion issue. It slipped this time. Also, in French, the masculine gender can refer to both sexes. You raising this on a deletion debate is funny. --Liberlogos 05:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• That we would suddenly have two people 69.159.89.248 and 69.159.89.248 suddenly contributing to the debate, who have never before posted to Wikipedia I find rather funny too. I don't bite the newcomers when they edit the Wacko Jacko article, to note his sexual perversions ... but in my experience, newcomers don't normally jump into deletion discussions! But you are correct, I should assume good faith - and I note that I am in violation of that. Nfitz 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one raising my eyebrows on how many of the commentators here, have never felt it worthy to contibute to Wikipedia before this AFD was issued? Nfitz 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the controversy, right now, dozens, hundreds of Quebecers, and some outside Quebec, are googling "Quebec bashing". As I am writing this, the googlesearch has the Wikipedia article in question in 7th place on the first result page and the one from the French-language Wikipédia in 6th place on the first result page. Many of the people finding this page have never contributed to Wikipedia. This article has been featured on Vigile.net, a popular website with a majority of readers that have never contributed to Wikipedia (and many may not know about it). This is probably a big part of the explanation. Also, as noted below, this is an issue that "burns many" people and therefor an attempt to erase this in a sphere where it is less well-known, the English-speaking world (which could be seen by them as historical revisionism), will draw more people in trying to avoid it. --Liberlogos 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, regions make fun of and denigrate other regions. Quebec is not anything special in this regard. For example, in the U.S., the South is called racist and backward, the West Coast liberal, The Plain States simple, New England/Upper East Coast snobby and any agricultural region is filled with racists, zoophiles, homophobes and pedophile preachers. If the article is kept, then I think that all of the references should be in English except for unique content that is both necessary for the article and unavailable in English. The vast majority of contributors cannot read French and are forced to rely other users and automatic translators, which are not very accurate, to verify the references. -- Kjkolb 08:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Quebec IS special in this regard, I'm sorry; and specificity is not grounds to judge the right of an article to exist, and you argue the existence of specificity as reason to delete while the article notes that it is alleged, examines the allegations, does not authoritatively state it exists, and while many articles on alleged, disputed (even false by proof) things exist on Wikipedia (Flat Earth#Modern Flat Earthers, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Homosexual recruitment, UFO, Thetans & Engrams from Scientology as well as dozens of events in various religions, Atlantis, Creationism, New Anti-Semitism, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Examination of Holocaust denial in that the non-existence is alleged of course, Islamofascism, Gay Mafia, etc.; see also Category:Conspiracy theories). Furthermore, to cite WP:REF: "do give references in other languages where appropriate." The subject is not widely discussed in English. English references have been used when found. As the article states, the alleged phenomenon is "denounced in Quebec", therefor most denounciations will inevitably be mostly in French. --Liberlogos 08:34, 24 eptember 2006 (UTC)

• Quebec IS NOT special in this regards - there are a group of people within Quebec, that believe they are the centre of the universe, but reality is, that the English-language media isn't generally that interested in Quebec, and is far more likely to be picking on the United States. However I don't see anything wrong with having French references - enough English-speaking people have understanding of French to confirm the validity of the references. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• We know that systematic denigration of entire national groups, gender groups, religious groups etc, for political reason is common. Each case has for certain been the subject of many books and doctoral thesises. Using available material, we are for sure able to write something good, neutral, encyclopedic on these subjects. Various books have already been written (some translated to English) in reaction to the constant flow of disinformation on Quebec and it is currently exploding in the news RIGHT NOW. the Prime Minister of Canada wrote a letter to the Globe & Mail to ask them to apologize for publishing an article. This is a first in the history of Canada and that alone would deserve an article! I believe the Quebec bashing article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. It's only a question of rephrasing sentences where the "narrator" appears to take sides. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• I said that it was fine to use foreign language references when the content could not be found in English and was necessary for the article. I am a habitual qualifier. I like my statements to be correct in all foreseeable situations. ;-)
• I might be in favor of deleting some of the less notable articles that you mention (flat earthers, Moon landing hoax accusations (could be briefly mentioned in Moon landing article), thetans & engrams (maybe deletion, but merging into another article might be a better solution), Saddam & al Qaeda (could be briefly mentioned in respective articles)), but I would have to check them out first. However, your examples of articles on things that are false or do not exist is not relevant to the reasoning that I gave, which is that bashing between regions is not notable, specifically, not notable enough for its own article. Mentioning that there is perceived Quebec bashing in the article on Quebec would be be more appropriate, in my opinion. A better example article would be a whole article about the bashing of a region by the rest of the country. The most well known case of regional bashing that I am aware of is the Southern United States vs. the rest of the U.S., but there is not an article about it as far as I can find. If the bashing of Quebec is so severe or is perceived to be so severe by Quebec residents as to warrant its own article, why is the subject not widely discussed in English? 8% of the population in Quebec speaks English and many people are multilingual. Also, there are many English speakers outside Quebec that should be writing about it if it is such a big issue. Finally, how is Quebec special in regards to regional bashing, as you say? -- Kjkolb 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• First, you are not an authority in deciding if topic A is special enough or not special enough to enter Wikipedia. If that is the core of your argument, I suggest you find a better one because it is not valid. Second, yes the issue is badly, badly covered in the very English media doing the bashing, but there are nevertheless some good articles on it by (off the top of my head) Ray Conlogue in the Globe & Mail and Josée Legault in the Montreal Gazette. Again, the issue involves a long series of events over a period of 10 years, including court cases and various books written. The article needs to better details those events. Right now, it gives a short, not very clear description of the phenomenon then goes on to detail some of the reactions in right away. The article is worth keeping in that it can easily improve on its weaknesses. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that I am an authority on what is special enough to have an article, as is any experienced Wikipedian. This is what we decide on AfD - whether things are notable enough to have an article, whether it is original research, whether it is hopelessly NNPOV, whether it is a hoax and various other decisions. I wrote a further reply to your comments, but I do not think continuing the discussion would be useful for either of us and that we should just agree to disagree. -- Kjkolb 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I thought that there is some value in this article, and I have tried to improve it in constructive ways, but the primary author has reverted virtually everything I have done, and seems to be on some kind of mission of original research here, rather than writing a collaborative article. This would be less frustrating, but with his poor English, some of his reversions have restored words that were not used in the correct form (with the primary author citing the dictionary to justify his misuse of the English language). The author also seems to have a lot of bias, being under the mistaken belief that the Canadian English media have some kind of particular axe to grind with Quebec, which is a very naive and insular understanding of how Canada works, for if they had spent any time in TROC they would see that the media tends to pick on everyone, with Quebec being less of a target than say Alberta or in particular The United States. While I think there may be some validity in having an article here, or perhaps somewhere more neutral like Criticism of Quebec. Nfitz 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• *Move to Criticism of Quebec or Perceptions of Quebec-bashing or at last Quebec-bashing and rewrite to remove bias, and trivial examples. Nfitz 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I do not have a bias and I do not think all the examples were illegitimate criticism. You have shown bad faith in your comments about the legibility of the text. You have contested "high racism" because you somehow think high can't describe something high. This is where I used the dictionnary. Are you sure you're not the non-native English speaker with a shaky mastery of the language? The article isn't in Chinese, by God, and I will defend my English of which I am proud. You have tried to remove whole pertinent sections of notorious events and I have acted in what I believed to be the interests of Wikipedia. I have tried to make this collaborative. I have left what I could leave of your edits and have addressed every single point of linguistics you have raised. One of the main refuters here, Mathieugp, has lived IN Alberta, English Canada; he know what he's talking about, and I'm a strong anglophile, who went to an English-language university, that knows the English-speaking world. --Liberlogos 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• That I have shown bad faith, but no assuming you don't have bias - I'm sorry, I should have phrased that differently. But "high racism"? After a lifetime of speaking English, I have never encountered this term - therefore the use of it in an article is not going to explain what it means. I'm really unsure what you mean by high racism ... does this mean racism that is more pure than other forms of racism? Does this mean racism brought about from upon high? Does this mean "highly racist"? I honestly don't understand what is meant by this term, and I'm sure not a lot of others do either. Nfitz 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to temper my words and say that it seemed you could be of bad faith by for example nitpicking "high", but it's quite possible that they were good faith arguments. --Liberlogos 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kjkolb, and it's too vague a topic. Only 500 - 650 ghits depending on whether you use google.com or google.ca. What's next? Jack Layton bashing, U.S. automakers bashing, ... Deet 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Michel David, respected Le Devoir journalist: "Of course, Quebec-bashing is nothing new for the anglophone press, but it is so widespread these days that one wonders if it hasn't become a natural and acceptable expression of Canadian patriotism.", from article "Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media". Denis Coderre, Liberal MP: "There's a sort of trend." Normand Lester, renown journalist: " 'Canada loves you!' was shouted to Quebecers on the eve of the referendum of 1995... The close result of the consultation will get the better of the passion as sudden as intrusive that showed us English Canada; il will even set off against [Quebecers] a frenzy of verbal violence and hate like we had not seen for a long time. [...] So, English Canada is once again at war with Quebec. Since the referendum, it dreams of a new Battle of the Plains of Abraham, it dreams of ending things with Quebec." See also all the quotes in the article AND the Further Reading section. --Liberlogos 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem that widespread - when I asked when the last article in the Globe was (rather than an editorial from someone who isn't taken that seriously), the answer was an article in the Facist Post over a month ago - as if anyone takes that newspaper seriously!! :-) Nfitz 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. The article is about the allegations. The existence of *wide* cross-ideology *allegations* is *referenced* *verifiable* fact. The reader judges on the actual existence of the phenomenon after examination of the argument made by them. I noted above numerous examples of articles about allegations, some proved to be patently false. --Liberlogos 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This has been a hot-button topic in Quebec for over 10 years. I understand the concept makes some people cringe, but the its removal from the English edition of WP would be in itself an act of historical revisionism. In view of this on-going debate, I'm pulling the current version and I will translate it into French, ASAP. Bouchecl 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the problem is, the phrase "Quebec bashing" is virtually unknown in English. As a phrase, it seems to be a French term, rather than an English term. So this might be an appropriate place for such an article in the French Wikipedia where this was merely a stub ... but if nothing else it needs to have a different name in English. And a different bent, as there is a perception in Quebec that everyone is picking on them ... which isn't really observable elsewhere. Nfitz 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it should be made clear in the article that 1) it is a subtype of Francophobia, 2) it is not the norm in English Canada. As a Quebecois, I have encountered Quebec Bashing when I lived in the US or other provinces, but of course, it was coming from a minority of people. 132.212.92.162 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Necessary topic for canadians, with the latest incident it became north americanly known and, I would say, world known. Maybe the title doesn't represent this very well but the subject is really important. Lincher 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think I do not understand the arguments going against this page. "Quebec bashing" is an existing thread in some English-language media, just as France-bashing has existed in some British tabloids, especially at times of intense criticism of Europe. (unsigned comment by User:Clio Corteis)

• Distinguishing "Francophone society" and Quebec is ridiculous - Quebec's official language is French, just as the language of the USA is English, and ethnic diversity in origins in both societies would not render in any way pertinent a similar distinction between "English-speaking society" and the USA as two very distinct bodies. It would rightly seem nonsense to say criticizing the "English-speaking society" of the USA is not criticizing the USA.
• The real issue is the manner of criticism, not the proportional space it takes in the Canadian media. The criticism described as "Quebec bashing" is generally gratuitous and prejudiced, attempting to foster a general contempt of Quebec because it is different and French-speaking.
• The prejudiced character is the reason why both Prime ministers Harper of Canada and Charest of Quebec have asked the Globe & Mail, by letter, to express regret at the prejudiced article by Jan Wong. The Globe has refused and tried to drown the issue, on which other Toronto newspapers have strangely remained silent. The Globe & Mail cannot be dismissed as unimportant, as far as English-Canadian media go. As for the National Post, whether subjectively one takes it seriously or not should not be part of the argument. What matters is that "Quebec bashing" describes a phenomenon that does exist in the Toronto newspapers and often characterises the work of their Quebec correspondents ! Especially nowadays, after the departur of Graham Fraser and Ray Conlogue.
• See the latest column by Chantal Hebert in the Toronto Star - she is not their Quebec correspondent by the way, and is not biased against Quebec, but usually avoids commenting on Quebec bashing, as she confesses, but this time was revolted by the silence surrounding what the Globe & Mail has called "a minor uproar" when in fact the Canadian House of Commons has condemned the prejudiced reporting only last week.
• This silence in itself warrants the article : many are unaware of the phenomenon because other English-Canadian media neglect or avoid reporting on the debate these "Quebec bashing" incidents stir, even when they are at the core of a House of Commons motion.
• Why shouldn't a documented bias that infects many Toronto media not warrant an article ? Readers will make their own opinion when reading the article, its existence will simply make the facts accessible and discussion possible. Surely a positive effect, which is the effect we all hope accessible knowledge through Wikipedia should obtain. (previous unsigned comment by User:Clio Corteis)

• I'm not really that familiar with this incident in question - oddly enough, living in Toronto, this seems to be pretty much a non-issue in the media - seems to more of a self-persecution issue in the French media than anything else. That aside however that one would insist that the term should be "Quebec bashing" rather than something like "francophone bashing" seems to be a bit odd to me ... seems to be very much of the Quebec is French bent ... which is considered politically incorrect by most people. Perhaps that is why the phrase "Quebec bashing" seems to be not very common in the English media compared to the French media. As such, this seems to point to this not being the correct article name in English. Perhaps an alternative is Francophone perceptions of "Quebec bashing" in the English media? Nfitz 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The most respected political journalists in Quebec (Michel David, Michel C Auger, Chantal Hébert, André Pratte - certainly not all separatists) all pointed out how quickly the affair was brushed off in Toronto. In spite of letters by Harper and Charest. In spite of a unanimous vote by the House of Commons. It's never the same when it's Quebec, it's never as important. 132.212.92.162 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Give an example of how this is taken more seriously by the English media, when other provinces or governments are bashed? Perhaps the English media isn't making much fuss about this, because it's such a non-story. Second-rate columnist shoots her mouth off ... big deal, who gives a f? Why take her seriously ... in Saturday's paper she made a point of smoking in non-smoking areas - she's a much-raking journalist, that's all? I'd say more than anything, that this has become an issue in the Quebec media, is symptom of hyper-sensitivity of the Quebec media, to even the hint of criticism; and if that's the real issue, this article name needs to change. And it appears to be, as it seem important to include Howard Stern in the list of people bashing Quebec. I say if ones needs to use Howard Stern as an important example, then one can't be taken too seriously, and this whole topic is nothing but a farce!! Nfitz 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - While the article does have some minor POV issues (ie: implying that Howard Stern was being anything but his usual self in bashing Quebec), the article is well sourced, and the topic itself does exist. Though it would seem appropriate to counter with a Canada bashing article based on Quebec political attitudes regarding the rest of this nation. Resolute 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The entire article is massively PoV. By halfway through the article, I don't think I'd read more than two neutral sentences. In addition, the title itself is inherently biased. Finally, this concept is at its most basic level not neutral as it's only evident from one point of view. Incredibly unencyclopedic. -- Chabuk 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV : when an article is not written in an impartial way, we fix it, we don't just delete it calling it biased. Regarding the name of the article : When the Canadian Sponsorship Scandal exploded in the media, some people didn't like the expression. The Liberals denied that it was a scandal and that there had been fraud and corruption for a long time. Some people preferred to think of it as the "Liberal Sponsorship Scandal" (presumably people opposed to the Liberals). Some English language media used another term, "AdScam" for sensational effects. Using the same flawed arguments that are always used, some of the usual suspects of the English language press even tried to make it look like a Quebec specific issue, calling it the "Quebec Sponsorship Scandal" as if all of a sudden the fraud had not occured within the federal government, the government of Canada. Everyone was trying to bend things in their favor, to present their POV. In the end, the expression "Sponsorship Scandal" is the one that remained and is even used in the official documents of the Gomery Commission. The point is: the first expression that is used to name something often ends up being the most frequently used expression afterwards. Read on the Linux naming controversy for well-known example (well-known to the geek community at least).

"Quebec bashing" is the name that was first given to the phenomenon by English speakers in Canada. Francophones borrowed it, preferring it over many other French expressions (campagne de salissage, dénigrement du Québec, littérature haineuse etc.) Using another English term, now, all of a sudden, because two or three Wikipedians do not personnally like it is to be rejected because it is so obviously biased. Using another term now would make Wikipedia the only source not using Quebec bashing. -- Mathieugp 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous examples in the text; and none seem to use the term "Quebec bashing". If this term is indeed in common use, in the English langauge, then these are the wrong examples!

Naturally, all articles doing the bashing will not contain the expression "Quebec bashing", only those commenting the phenomenon will. Here are some examples in English :

* Bashing Quebec fashionable in anglo media, Michel David, Montreal Gazette, Friday 21 April 2000

* Letter to the Editor, Alec Cooper, Board Secretary, Voice of English Québec, March 8th, 2000

* Member of Federal Parliament denouncing offensive comments by Don Cherry and Conan O'Brien, Monday, February 16, 2004

* Stop Quebec Bashing, (unfortunately anonymous)

And I don't need to tell you there are many many more articles covering this topic in the French language press. -- Mathieugp 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The prime reason to for this particular portion of the debate, is to decide if the name (not the content) of the article is appropriate in the English; so examples from the French media are not relevent. It would appear that all the examples you cite are from within Quebec; what about examples of the use of this phrase from outside Quebec? It's ironic though, that the best reference there, the Montreal Gazette, used "Quebec-bashing" not "Quebec bashing"; however when I moved the article from "Quebec bashing" to what is the clearly proper grammar at "Quebec-bashing", it was reverted, by someone posting in this page, who had "never seen this way spelled"!!! Nfitz 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The third link is a transcript of a parliamentary discussion going on in Ottawa and the second one is from God knows who and where. Yet, you write "all the examples you cite are from within Quebec". I can't figure it out. As I wrote above "the issue is badly, badly covered in the very English media doing the bashing". Still, you want more link from outside Quebec? Here's two:

* Why build bridges to Quebec if Quebeckers could care less?, JEFFREY SIMPSON, Tuesday, December 20, 2005 – Page A25

* a loser, bebe, GRAHAM FRASER, The Star, Jan. 22, 2006

-- 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the third link, the parliamentry transcript, the only person who used the phrase "Quebec bashing" were: Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ); presumably he was speaking in French, literally used "Quebec bashing" and the words were translated as such ... I'd hardly use this as an example of how the word is used outside Quebec! The issue is badly covered in the English media, because there is no evidence that the English media is treating Quebec any differently than anywhere else. It's very rare to see an negative article about Quebec in the English media - why the French media seems to hunt out every single negative article and hype it, is beyond me! The new Globe and Star quotes are interesting ... again, note the hyphenation ... "Quebec-bashing" not "Quebec bashing" in both. However, the Star article is quoting a francophone, when the word bash is used, so this is can't be used as a source for how the word is used. Nfitz 23:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This text shows clearly how english Canadian medias treat Quebecker.. Quebec bashing has become a great way to express Canadian patriotism. The term Quebec Bashing ( or more clearly, Francophone Quebeckers bashing) is correct. The text is neutral. (unsigned comment my User:Jimmy210 12:57, 25 September 2006)

• DELETE -- This is an attack article, attacking individuals—some deceased—who cannot defend themselves. The article is rife with factual inaccuracies and logical errors (as well as containing poor grammar and diction). It is an attempt to protect an illegitimate political ideology from legitimate criticism; and, it purports to assert a non-existent pervasive "hostility." The "examples" given, are, in fact, an exhaustive list of all major and minor media criticism now existing in respect of the province of Quebec; and, therefore, they are not examples at all; thus, the "examples" purport to show a grand conspiracy against the French of the province of Quebec; when, in fact, there is no deluge of criticism. The exhaustiveness of the "examples" given reaches the absurd when even radio host Howard Stern's criticism is taken seriously; that, to say the least, is humorless. The article does not, as it appears to claim, merely inform. It by-passes legitimate criticism as purported "bashing," but fails to have a full command of the sources of criticism (the criticism of Richler's Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!, for example, shows that this book was either unread or misunderstood). This last assertion is the article's most fatal flaw. It doesn't criticize the primary sources so much as parroting the criticism of others; and, in that respect, the article is unoriginal and doesn't really add anything to the questionable material already available on the Internet. Its one-sidedness, its unbalanced tone, its tendentious sources, its errors and inaccuracies, furthermore, make the article patently un-encyclopedic.

--Lance6968 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As always, our favorite hard-banned user DW/Angelique/JillandJack/ALafontaine etc. is back with a new virgin user account to make all kinds of unfounded accusations. Why don't you read this interesting quote taken from page 22 of Immigration, Pluralism and Education by Marie McAndrew :

• THE BLURB ABOVE was attached to my recommendation for deletion of this "article"; and seems to imply that I am someone therein mentioned; I am not. It is manifestly evident that there is a gang of militants behind this clearly flawed "article"; who are pursuing the propagation of its contents with ferocity comparable to jihad. Does Wikipedia not have internal controls over its medium being hi-jacked? That this aforementioned gang has an unsavory agenda should be clear and alarming. I, therefore, must recommend a STRONG DELETE.

--Lance6968 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"[..] the extremely reductionist analysis of this issue carried out by the anglophone media outside Québec is to be deplored. Rather than having to acknowledge the fact that the French-language school system was sharing the international controversies regarding the balance to be found between the public space and the individual rights on the one hand, and religious and cultural diversity on the other, it chose to present the case as another proof of the hypotheses that tribalism would still [be] the dominant mode of ethnic relations in Québec. This should not come as a surprise when one knows the tendency of the anglophone media to ethnicise, and even in certain cases, to demonise the entire nationalist movement, and, by extension, the francophone population in Québec (see Cisco and Gagné, “Le Québec vu par le Canada anglais”, Voir, 18-24 June 1998 and M. Potvin (in collaboration with M. McAndrew), “Les dérapages racistes à l’égard du Québec au Canada anglais depuis 1995”. Politique et Sociétés, vol. 18, no 2, 1999, p. 101-132)."

-- Mathieugp 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the phenomenon exists it he public consciousness of Quebec, and it is therefore encyclopedic. I (as a unilingual Anglophone) have also fixed the grammar in the intro. An article should not be deleted because it was written by ESL writers. Kevlar67 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I just quit a job in Montreal in an english-speaking environment because not a week would go by without me hearing a comment about how conservative, backward, catholic, etc. Quebec society was. OUT OF THE BLUE, I would be lectured by a variety of people about: antisemitism, my oppression of english speakers, racism, aboriginal rights, fascism in Quebec (with the suggestion that it lurked in me as well),etc. In another anglophone work environment, I was told the continued existence of French in Canada was a historical mistake, and that gratefully we would soon disappear. I witness more or less blatant forms of prejudice towards either Quebec or francophone Quebeckers on a regular basis. It is a very real phenomenon, which fosters divisiveness and misunderstanding. Why are people like me contributing for the first time??? Because it is an issue that burns many of us directly, and recent events have brought it to the forefront. (unsigned comment by 66.131.133.47)

• Strong Keep The arguments against are specious or attest forms of disdian and/or ignorance of Quebec and the said phenomenon, Quebec bashing.

The term exists, the phenomenon exists, the article documents and explains them through examples, frome more serious to less serious media, but usually important media, such as the Globe & Mail. Here's an example of the expression, as used in a blog : "I wanted to share this story with you, since this is not really being covered in the English Canadian media, because in Canada, it's apparently an impossible task to get the exact same news in two languages, something they actually do in Europe (...) I can't say that I'm suprised this is coming from the Globe & Mail, this isn't the first time they've carried on this Quebec bashing". [72] Thus, a term that is used while the examples are seldom reported on or reflected upon in English-Canadian papers certainly warrants an article in a free encyclopedia. One will immediately know from this article what "Quebec bashing" refers to, without being coerced into what to think about the examples. Apparently people here have shown they managed to develop very different opinions of them. The will of some to eliminate even the discussion of the topic shows the actual encyclopedic use of this article : spread knowledge, counter ignorance. Clio Corteis

Do some people view the very existence of this article as a danger? There seems to be a lot of resentment and suspicion in some of the comments suggesting to delete it. If a certain group perceives to be repeatedly targeted by a certain set of prejudices, can they not create an article which describes the phenomenon? If there exist books, articles, etc. which counter the perceived phenomenon of Quebec bashing, then include them in the article. (unsigned comment by 66.131.133.47)

• Delete An attack article with lots of references but little to connect them to what the term is claimed to mean. The problem of assertions of "ownership" and that at the time this article was nominated it was all a one-man show since he had moved the one other contributors input to the talk page compound the problem. Yes, the existence of this and other attack articles is a danger. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A danger of what? Of informing people of an ongoing issue exploding in the news right now with the Prime minister of Canada, the Canadian House of Commons and the Premier of Quebec denouncing it? When is an issue worthy of mention in Wikipedia? An attack on what and by whom anyway? Since the very beginning, I say that there IS a minor neutrality problem with the article, as you said because it is not made explicit who is the "owner" of such and such claim and also because the English was not always correct. That can be fixed and that is why there is a copy edit tag on the article. Since when do imperfect articles deserve to be deleted? We understand that many people cannot go and read the French articles and verify for themselves: that's a problem. Because of that, the copyediting job will have to include the addition of more translated quotations. If you can translate from French to English, you are welcomed to help the Wikipedian community to improve this article. -- Mathieugp 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BY THE WAY: Wikipedia's Deletion policy explicitely states, under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed", that if an article is "biased or has lots of POV", the solution is to "list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention". People who support deletion: find a better reason. POVs, even when there are a lot of them, are not a valid reason to suggest deletion. I think this should close the issue. -- Mathieugp 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The danger is revisionism. The allegations exist and bring many reasonable points that indicate a phenomenon could exist. Therefor, it is hard not to see such a deletion as whitewashing. --Liberlogos 11:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's certainly true that an anti-Quebec phenomenon exists in some media, and we've even seen it crop up on Wikipedia in the edits of certain users who tended to vastly overplay any example of a Quebec political or cultural figure making a racially or ethnically biased statement against anglophones, while simultaneously burying examples of English Canadian figures doing the same against francophones. (I won't name them lest I accidentally invoke them, but you do all remember who I'm talking about, right?) But at the same time, "bashing" is a word that can be (and probably has been, by now) added to absolutely any noun in the world in response to any negative statement whatsoever about that noun. Dog bashing, cat bashing, America bashing, Canada bashing, gay bashing, Bush bashing, Jew bashing, and on, and so forth, and that doesn't make every noun string composed of "(insert noun here) bashing" worthy of an article — nine times out of ten, the phrase represents a POV war more than anything else.

I would also take issue with the notion that Quebec-bashing sentiment represents some kind of mainstream of Canadian media opinion; any article that posits wingnuts like Diane Francis, Don Cherry or Howard Galganov as some kind of norm in Canadian media needs a reality check. Not to mention that I really don't think we can conflate Lawrence Martin's criticism of Lucien Bouchard, fair or not, with some kind of condemnation of Quebec society as a whole. (Well, okay, maybe if we wanted to depict Bouchard as some kind of Fisher King, but I think I can safely assume that we don't want to do that.)

All of that said, I don't fundamentally object to the article, given that we also have things like Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism, but it certainly needs a POV scrub. I'd also suggest that we move the title from "Quebec bashing" to something closer to the "Anti-Canadianism"/"Anti-Americanism" title convention. But if those things are done, I'm perfectly fine with a keep. Bearcat 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with major changes, as I think the perception of Quebec in English media is a noteworthy subject. I don't like the "X bashing" formula for titles, and the phrase "Quebec bashing" is absolutely not notable in itself in Canadian English.

My main complaint with the article is that it should be placed in a larger context of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Though it is impeccably sourced and the material included is generally appropriate, the extreme focus on the negative makes it very difficult for me to believe that this article was not conceived with a polemical purpose in mind. Reading the Themes alone makes one think the anglos are a bunch of noose-wielding Orangemen.

One example of the slant of the writing is the Jan Wong bit: it sources a large number of Quebecers as criticizing her idiotic article, but the only Canadian from outside Quebec quoted is Harper. Of course Quebecers are going to be more incensed by Wong's comments than other Canadians, as the subject was their own culture. But there was a furious reaction against Wong throughout English Canadian media, and the strange omission of this gives the impression that the non-Quebec anglo media was indifferent or supportive of Wong's comments. --Saforrest 07:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments and good words. I quoted not only Harper, but also the G&M editorial (which was not on the same side as Harper and most Quebec journalists but that was their decision). I simply could not unearth that many more comments positive or negative from English Canada (i.e. the territorial entity, as I quoted all Anglo-Quebecers I could find: The Gazette, Macpherson, Jedwab...) and I stressed that by quoting the Globe saying that, in English Canada, the reaction has been, I quote, "considerably more muted", which addressed the issue the best I could with the available material. It's the Globe that seems to validate the idea of indifference. Now, I have just heard something on radio archives on the net that could show an opposite English Canadian voice... from a former Anglo-Quebecois, told on Quebec French-speaking radio (and even then, some things are not clear about what he said, which could make inclusion difficult).

So: do suggest editorials, columns or other pertinent finds from English Canada from either sides if you find some, with the appropriate sources. The "Themes" section is not pretty, but they're all things you find in there (not one slightly contentious theme is nor referenced), in what is stressed to be "allegated examples of Quebec bashing", not "typical, mainstream, general English Canadian press". The debate on how much this represents an opinion in English Canada is mentioned in the introduction and developping on this is next on my list.

The title is just the expression most common, and that is stressed also in the very first sentence. It's like the article Gay Mafia. People don't go, about the wikipedia title: "well, it's not exactely a mafia; would 'cartel' be better? How about 'syndicate'? Maybe we should try 'commonly motivated group of folks of a homophile tendency with a non-pre-judged possible but not proven and even disputed goal'. It's just the word people have stuck to it; Wikipedia doesn't say they're a mafia, those people do. You raise that this should "be placed in a larger context of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada". That's what the "Context" section was added for; it's new but it attempts to do this and, at the very least, does so partially. --Liberlogos 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - definetely a real phenomenon, widely commented on in the media. All articles have their problems, especially when new, they will be ironed out with time. Peregrine981 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I may not agree with every arguement made in support of this article, but this is as Peregrine981 says, "a real phenomenon" - on par, I would argue, with "Ottawa bashing" and second only to "Toronto bashing" (which receives over twice as many ghits). I'm also in agreement with Bearcat - as it stands the article needs a good bit of attention regarding NPOV. Victoriagirl 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) In the interest of chronology, my vote change is discussed below.
• Keep, although it should be renamed Anti-Quebec sentiment. It is definitely a sentiment that exists in large parts of Canada (unfortunately). CrazyC83 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Quebec bashing is but one subset of Anti-Quebecois sentiment; this could not be an apt title, I believe. I should get working on an article on this sometime. --Liberlogos 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Rereading all comments above, I've come to share the view expressed by some that the title be brought into line with what Bearcat describes as Anti-Canadianism/Anti-Americanism title conventions. Yes, "Quebec bashing" (795 ghits) is a phrase that is used on occasion, but so is "Canada bashing" (12,000 ghits) and "America bashing" (163,000 ghits) - neither of which have Wikipedia entries. Examples of "Canada bashing" and "America bashing" are provided within, respectively, the Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Americanism articles. Frankly, I don't see "Quebec bashing" as a subset of Anti-Quebec sentiment. I wonder, what are the others? I fear the determination as to what is "Quebec bashing" and what isn't - while still being considered Anti-Quebec sentiment - would be highly subjective. Victoriagirl 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite or delete. Weaselwords notwithstanding, the article is blatantly POV presuming "Quebec Bashing" is wrong. Since when is free speech wrong? The physical bashing of a live person is wrong, the metaphorical bashing of a social movement is not necessarily so. Inciting to hatred is (in Canada) illegal, but there is nothing immoral about free speech. A balanced article would be OK. Food for thought: Should there be a Canada Bashing article? (No.) Comedian Yvon Deschamps often does routines about Anglos speaking incorrect French, without anyone in the Anglo community complaining, but I remember a stand up routine in English about how silly Clint Eastwood sounds when Dirty Harry is dubbed into French (the joke being he would say "Aiyoye!" instead of "Ouch!") No one dared to laugh and the comic switched to less controversial material. Has Québec bashing become a topic because we are oversensitive? I wonder sometimes. Vincent 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep no matter what it's called, it happens, and it's rather widespread. --Chris S. 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With a certain degree of regret, I change my vote (above). My reasoning is four-fold:

1) While I agree that the term "Quebec bashing" is in usage, I have not been able to find a definition of the term outside of this article. Furthermore, I do not agree with the definition and, it would appear, I am not alone.[73] [74] [75] Quite obviously, one cannot create an article around a term for which there is no precise definition.

2) With the exception of Japan, no other geopolitical entity or ethnic group has a similarly titled article, this despite more prevelant usage. To repeat a previous observation, there is no Wikipedia article entitled "America bashing" despite a ghit of 161,000 (over 206 times greater that the 779 ghit for "Quebec bashing"). Fair or unfair, criticisms of the United States are included in Wikipedia's Anti-Americanism article.

For both 1) and 2) : The article Anti-Americanism a complete mess. The first few lines make it clear the contributors failed to properly define the subject "refers to a prejudice against the government, culture, or people of the United States. In practice, a broad range of attitudes and actions critical of or opposed to the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism and the applicability of the term is often disputed." Should we also delete this article too? Some people are strong on the delete button. The dicussion on the definition is important and not over. You are invited to come back. -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

3) It is my opinion that since the nomination the article has moved farther from the policy of neutral point of view. Moreover, it contains elements of original research. The attempt to define "Quebec bashing" is one obvious example. I will single out the final sentences in the "Themes" section as another example: "They [Quebec bashers] will also sometimes emphasize the superiority of English Canadian or Anglo-Saxon conceptions of democracy, individual liberty and multiculturalism, as well as the world ascendancy of English Canadian tolerance of dissent or "treason", claiming that "only in Canada" could such things be tolerated. Because of these higher morals and principles, Quebec is portrayed as being kept away from sliding into a more somber state only by its association with Canada and its leaders." To whom, one wonders, does this theory belong?

This should indeed be attributed to the right person. Using an unidentified "They" here is one of the reason the copyedit tag is there. But by policy this does not justify a delete. -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

4) I take issue with the growing reliance on Vigal.net as a third-party source for articles cited. Of the 83 unique links provided as references, Vigil.net provides 47 (57 percent). Leaving aside issues of transcription and copyright - it would appear they are posting at least some articles without permission - the reader is constantly being directed to a website with a clear political agenda (their collection of articles on Mordecai Richler, for example, is titled "Le salisseur-en-chef").

Unfortunately for us, the websites of major newspaper sites do not keep a history of their articles. They probably want us to pay for that... ;-) We should link to the copy of the article on the original instead of Vigile.net whenever possible, but I am afraid it will only work for recent material (after 2000 I guees). -- Mathieugp 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A final comment. I understand that Wikipedia is anything but static and that articles are written collaboratively. If this article survives - as it likely will - I will do my best, in good faith, to bring it up to standard. I encourage others to participate. Victoriagirl 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm disapointed by your change of heart, but I respect it. Vigile.net is being relied on because, its archive, standing since 1995, is much more stable than those of most of the newspapers concerned. When the link goes dead for the article on the newspaper's website, chances are the link on Vigile will still be there and remain for years and years to come. Vigile is a press coverage and archive service. Its partisan aspect does not interfere with its archiving: the articles are word for word those from the Globe, the Post, the Devoir, the Presse, etc. Vigile is not the source, these papers are; Vigile is used only for the safety its text storage provides. Also, some of these articles are online, but protected from non-subscribers on the original newspapers' websites. If somehow Vigile was still a problem, most could be found elsewhere, we'd change the links and that would be that. I am very surprised to read that you think it has become actually less NPOV: since the nomination, not only useful tweaking of the existing text has occured but also the addition of the sections "Debate" and "Different depictions" that greatly temper the article, as well as the section "Context", that mentions the Parizeau referendum speech and the Michaud Affair, as well as the finding of an English Canadian criticism (in an article) for Wong and a passage added about her talking about the Devoir cartoon.

If you disagree with the title, that's entirely another debate and Wikipedia has its own different way of dealing with this (templates and talk pages). First, I'll say that, golly, Googlesearches aren't The supreme reference on everything. Also, comparing "America bashing" with "Quebec bashing" is not apt for a number of reasons. The United States has exponentially more population and world influence and relations than Quebec. But as importantly if not more, the fact that the expression is in English tricks us into false analogies and analysis. "America bashing" will be discussed in English (within and without the USA), where the words are not a colloquialism, not a loaned expression, it's a natural assembling of two English words and therefor will appear much more easily. "Quebec bashing", will be discussed in French (mostly within Quebec exclusively, in a much smaller population). It is a loaned expression from another language and is not therefor a natural assembling of words; it will be used only when refering to that specific expression. Finally, I have seen your attempts to contribute constructively to the article; thank you. --Liberlogos 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I, too, am disappointed that I felt obliged to change my vote. Again, while I think that there is most certainly a place on Wikipedia for an article dealing with Anti-Quebec sentiment, my primary concern is that the title "Quebec bashing" has not been properly defined. Respectfully, that you've defined it as one subset of Anti-Quebecois sentiment leads me to wonder how many other articles are to follow - and, as I've previously written, exactly where the line is to be drawn. I would prefer one comprehensive article - again, to belabour the point, like Wikipedia's Anti-Americanism and Anti-Canadianism - than a vaguely defined series. Point taken concerning ghits and the relative populations and influence of Quebec and the United States - though I hasten to add that "Toronto bashing" has 841,000 ghits, while the population of the city (and I daresay, its influence) is less than that of Quebec. Though I would argue the contrary, I do recognize the possibility that "Quebec bashing" might be a term used more amongst French-speakers. If so, might it not be a term considered for redirection on the English-language edition of Wiki? Just a thought.

Point also taken concerning Vigile.net's archives. That said, I hold true to the idea that the source is the source. If a link does go dead, so be it - in this country confirmation requires nothing more than a trip to a major library. Outside Canada, I suppose one might have to query a fellow Wikipedian. Inconvenient, yes - but I maintain that it is inappropriate to rely on a third-party source, particularly one with a clear-cut political agenda. While I don't for a moment believe that the articles found on Vigil have in any way been altered, I would find myself unable to defend the site against such an accusation - particularly as, again, these pieces seem to have been archived without permission.

My thanks for your recognition. I look forward to contributing further in the future.Victoriagirl 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I resent the fact that a user has inserted his own comments into my communication (above - 19:58, 30 September 2006). Not only is the act a clear violation of Wiki policy, it is serves to confuse as this occured after another user had responded to my comments (to which I had in turn responded). That said, I will address Mathieugp's comments. I'm afraid the quality of the Anti-Americanism article is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that "Anti-Americanism" is a well-defined term. Among other dictionaries, "Anti-Americanism" is defined within the pages of The Oxford English Dictionary (which cites the first usage of the term as having taken place in 1844). The fact is that we have yet, despite all our work, found any definition of "Quebec bashing". I maintain that to build an article around a term that has yet to be defined outside of Wikipedia is, simply put, original research. I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source.Victoriagirl 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• A Disquieting Degeneration into outright antisemitism. I shall reproduce verbatim the patent nonsense under the rubric “Esther Delisle”:

“Esther Delisle received an education in politic [sic] with israelis [sic] researcher specialist in nazi and antisemitic speech [sic] before she study history [sic]. She give speech for the B'nai Brith organisation in synagogue [sic].”

So what is the implication, or relevance, of the unreferenced assertion that: “Esther Delisle received an education in politic [sic] with israelis [sic] researcher specialist in nazi and antisemitic speech [sic] before she study history [sic]. She give speech for the B'nai Brith organisation in synagogue [sic]”?

And, yes, this does sound like Borat from Khazakstan. Clearly, this nonsense reflects the rampant antisemitism of the “movement” that the author of this “article” is apparently a member of.

For those who are unable to see the implication, however, let me explain.

The strange reasoning is that no “pure wool” French Canadian would study in Israel or, worse, attend a Synagogue. In other words Delisle is being dismissed as a “Jew”; notwithstanding that she is both French and Roman Catholic; just not “pure” enough.

--Lance6968 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That passage was added by one individual whose only contribution was this. I, the main contributer to the article, am actually the one who put the "clean-up" tag and I had erased completly another similar addition to the same section. If it proves anything about my edits, it's that I'm much much less biased than you want to desperately portray me, and it's dishonest (or badly researched) to try to make people think this excerpt represents the work of the main contributer, or the whole article. The passage in question is a mess. It's undermining the article. I'm pulling it from the text. Do not speculate on my personal political opinions; I'm contributing here as a Wikipedian and citizen of the world. Also, as the article proves, this is a cross-ideology issue. About Borat: now, who's watching "silly television show"? --Liberlogos 07:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but re-word it. This is just insane. i thought wikipedia disproved of insulting and bashing other cultures. my vote is to either word it in a way so that it is inoffensive towards quebecois viewers (or those that may seem a bit annoyed/angered/hurt), or to simply delete and protect. Yes, the topic is legitimately useful for researching the culture of English Canada versus French Canada, but it shouldn't be done in a mean-spirited light. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm changing my mind yet again. While there is value of having an article on this subject - this is not the article. Attempts to distill the article down have failed, and the article is getting even longer and unwieldy, full of much material that just doesn't belong here. Best to delete the entire article, and start again in a few months with different participants, with different perspectives. Nfitz 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If moving is a better option, I agree with Victoriagirl that it should be moved to Anti-Quebec Sentiment or something similiar. Nfitz 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh darnit. People, this article examines the phenomenon of many people *saying* there's "Quebec bashing", Wikipedia doesn't ever use "bashing" itself, authoritatively ("it is a term used by people" and "it has been called", not "Quebec has been bashed especially since..."). It's the subject of the article; why remove it from the title? I know it's not clear to people outside but, to a great number of French-speaking people in Quebec, the words "Quebec bashing" spring to mind instantly something very clear, while something else would be more nebulous. As I was saying above, do we bust our heads in changing the title of Gay Mafia? Do we go at Cheese-eating surrender monkeys saying "Are they really into all cheeses, or is it more of a Camembert thing? Monkeys is a little too narrow, some of them act more like lemurs." An attempt to change the name seems distorting. But I am not entierly closed to the idea. This will be decided in a *different forum*. If a name had to be chosen, it would have to resemble this: Anti-Quebecois sentiment in the media since the Quiet Revolution. We must fix it in time: it makes sense since the current alleged media bias is linked to the emergence of the modern Quebec nationalism and if we don't, there's a lot of stuff from the 19th century papers we'll have to rake up, and I feel that for now this can be addressed in the future parent page Anti-Quebecois sentiment (it's a redirect as I'm writing this; long story). --Liberlogos 11:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was kind of fond of Francophone perceptions of "Quebec bashing" in the English media. Seriously though, there seems to be way too much original research in this article. For such a simple concept, to need so many references, rather than 2 or 3 single references, seems to imply to me that most of this article is original research and should be deleted. Nfitz 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, let me remind you that the expression was used naturally *on the public broadcaster* (CBC, or rather SRC, see top of page).-- unsigned contribution by Liberlogos 11:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC

In which case, the phrase was used in a French-language broadcast. The use of a term in by a foreign-language outlet has no bearing on it's usage in the English Wikipedia. Nfitz 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Anti-Quebec media bias might be encyclopedic, but not this. --Alcuin 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alder Coppice Primary School

Non notable primary school Pally01 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the new WP:SCHOOLS. Being under Ofsted special measures means it IS the subject of a reliable source independent of the school itself (ie the Ofsted report). Notability is a fairly wooly concept - clearly if a subject is covered by such sources then they consider it notable, and (IMHO) therefore Wikipedia should too. Cynical 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redrirect to Sedgley. WP:SCHOOLS says it has to be the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete few if any primary schools are actually notable. Every single school in the country has an OFSTED. Guy 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jesus f**king christ, if we start keeping every primary school, I might quit WP altogether. -- Kicking222 13:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jesus f**king christ, if we start deleting every primary school, I might quit WP altogether (actually that's pure hyperbole, like the comment above). Most, if not all, primary schools are actually notable (but notability is purely subjective and thus has no real meaning). Let's make wikipedia into a useful encyclopedia by including articles on every possible subject, including every school on the planet. --JJay 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, according to WP:SCHOOL most schools in the UK meet its criteria for having a separate article. As welll, see User:JYolkowski/Notability for why lack of notability is not a reason for deletion. For those that don't want this school to have its own article I would recommend looking at editorial actions such as merging, instead of deletion. JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete Ofsted reports are trivial and generic. Catchpole 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. It doesn't merit an entire article page in its current form. If it is expanded in the future the page can be forked off. — RJH (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is verifiable and meets proposed school guidelines Yuckfoo 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. And discount every reference to the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, because they are just that, proposed. There is nothing at all notable about a primary school, even one where OFSTED rates it as performing so badly it requires special measures. The school is not inherently notable by existing, nor even by its existence being verified. Every school is not sacred. This is a ten a penny primary school with no inherent notability. It fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate load of guff precisely because it is indiscriminate. We'll list every sewage farm next, just because someone can find it on a map. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article denotes subject is clearly notable (like all other schools). Subject and its notability are verified by an Ofsted report. Nomination of any school for deletion is a waste of everyone's time involved, as these articles should be allowed organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is an assertion, not an objectively provable fact. In what way is a primary school more notable than a long-established corner shop? By reference to objectively provable metrics? Guy 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For all of the reasons provided in the past by oh so many editors. There is no consensus that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons established within User:Silensor/Schools as well as the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Silensor 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because POLICY is VERIFIABILITY, this is verifiable... "non notable" is not and has never been policy.  ALKIVAR™ 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor and Alkivar. --Myles Long 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Go duke this out at WP:SCHOOLS please people. RFerreira 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, there is nothing at all that compels people to do this. If that proposed guideline ever gets accepted then it can be followed. Until then it's a pretty insignificant primary school that had a hot air balloon launched in its grounds. This is a nomination for deletion which seems to have attracted the "Keep it at any cost" brigade. It is simply not worthy of inclusion. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That is your opinion jack, and you're perfectly entitled to it. RFerreira 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, yes it is. I challenge you to edit this school's article to show and assert its notability. There is too much "keep" but not enough action. The challenge is not personal, it's directed at anyone who just gives a "keep" opinion on an article on a primary school that simply exists. If the article is worth keeping it's worth fighting for by improving it to put its worth beyond any doubt. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment there do9esn't appear to be enough verifiable information to create a proverbly NPOV article.Geni 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Clan (RuneScape)

Looking at the recent runescape pages that got deleted, does this stand a chance? no. Is this useful to a wide audience apart from runescape players? no. Does it deserve to stay? That's up to you to decide, but i say no. J.J.Sagnella 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This doesn't have any information in it at all. Also, I took a stab at the category. --Wafulz 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

okay thanks for sorting that out. I'll now know for next time. J.J.Sagnella 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seriously, can someone inform the RuneScape community and let them know that Wikipedia is not a game guide? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, we know that. This is a rogue subpage and we are getting rid of our game guides. J.J.Sagnella 08:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to clan (computer gaming). There's basically nothing specific to Runescape in here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect boldly by MLA :) Daniel.Bryant 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutron (Imperial Guard)

Naming conventions should have put this article at Neutron (comics), which was a redirect page to a group he is a member of. I moved the Neutron article to Neutron (comics) and now this page is unnecessary. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirected boldly to where the information has been moved to at Neutron (comics). It's fine as a redirect, no need to delete. Suggest close of this AfD. MLA 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Hiew

Twice deprodded, albeit by anonymous editors, and not given a proper reason. Diverting to AfD. Her only claim to fame is appearing on EastEnders, and that's her only IMDB credit, so she fails WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: EastEnders is very big in Britain and some other countries, though. Whether this is enough, who knows? But she might be well known over here - I'm afraid I don't really keep up much on entertainment news. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

delete - a very minor role about 12 years ago - they have had the same postman on eastenders for about twenty years, he's not got an article. --Charlesknight 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a large part of why I placed the AfD: she only appeared in one series of the show, and she's not linked to an article on her character. Plus, that's her only IMDB credit; it's not like she's done other acting since. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Her only Wikipedia link appears to be in List of previous EastEnders characters by year of exit#Left in 1992, but her character is red-linked. OTOH, she seems to be the least notable of the cast members who left that year. --141.156.232.179 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: - Not suitable for Wikipedia as the subject didn't have a truly major role and they fail WP:BIO --172.212.27.196 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, hopeless vanity Guy 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Greg 2: tHE dATE

Non-notable independent short film that does not meet the guidelines of WP:V. Vanity -Nv8200p talk 22:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VANITY. Hello32020 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Creative MuVo

it should be deleted because the muvo products were never that popular. we should delete it! Jmclark911 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Um Not exactly a valid reason for deletion?--172.161.201.81 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be accurate, comparable with similar electronic devices in terms of coverage. Choess 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I re-wrote this article not long ago and keep it current as when neccesary. The MuVo range is one of the largest and the information provided here is useful (IMHO). --Pbeesley1989 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there was only 1 muvo ever sold, this article would be worth keeping
• Keep That's the equivalent of saying "What occurred in 1287 isn't really that popular either. We should DELETE that year!" --67.63.17.27 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why kind of response is that? I say keep... lol, but seriously... make a better reason. Reeves 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Redesses

Non-notable college band with no albums. Cannot find their website on Google or Alexa, and their offical website (on MySpace) currently has 552 views SergeantBolt (t,c) 23:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD A7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossley Heath Grammar School

too much cruft (from a student) Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Cruft is not a reason to delete an article. Most secondary schools are inherently notable and this one is a grammar school over a century old. -- Necrothesp 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, while this article isn't perfect atm, it seems entirely reasonable that there's lots of verifiable information about this school out there. JYolkowski // talk 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Holy Cow! -- It does what every other school does, it has also done nothing notable, school cruft, so EXTERMINATE!. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Notable" isn't something that you do. The word "notable" means, literally, "worthy of note". Since notes are written records, the word "notable" essentially refers to something that is likely to have written records about it (which, since we're writing an encyclopedia here, is a good thing because we need those as sources). Based on what's in the article right now, it seems quite likely that quite a bit has been written about the school over the ages, making it "notable". JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — School meets the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines due to it's age, so it doesn't need to be merged. But the text needs references and some judicious editing and culling. — RJH (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it meets proposed schools guidelines so no need to merge improve by editing Yuckfoo 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup I know a lot abut this school, I'll clean it up to the best I can. Also, a user mentioned that it does nothing more than any other school. Well, most other schools have an article on here so why shouldn't this one? 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Unsourced, info already exists in Halifax. Catchpole 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Far exceeds the standards proposed by WP:SCHOOLS, there is already an entire book written about this school, I think we can afford this small article. Silensor 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Naconkantari 03:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

All articles in Category:Naruto episodes

Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info. Frenchman113 on wheels! 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit - I'm afd nominating every article in the category, they're all non-notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 23:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. A ton of people have been saying that this stuff should be kept because it's important to have plot summaries. That's why I'll kindly point out Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II.

• Delete: per Frenchman113. (heh, on wheels) I never really supported the decision to make articles out of the episodes in the first place. The Splendiferous Gegiford 01:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Like most shows on wikipedia there are seprete pages for the episodes. So I think its stupid. Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info So what do you think of all the links I provided... Are all they fancruft to????
  • List of Rugrats episodes
  • 24 (season 5)#Episode_summaries
  • List of Prison Break episodes
  • List of Malcolm in the Middle_episodes
  • List of Will & Grace episodes
  • List of The Simpsons episodes
  • Category:Pokémon episodes
  • Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episodes
  • List of King of the Hill episodes
  • List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes
• I hope I made my point

  There are alot more (Bobabobabo 01:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

• Lists of episodes are ok, individual articles on each episode is NOT. It violates WP:OR and WP:NOT.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia catalogues knowledge. Each of the articles speaks solely to the content of the episode. There may be times when the article is more of a note than an article, but it still contains information. I have read through the articles; I have read Volumes 1 through 11 of Naruto. These articles are fairly accurate -- barring some translation issues yet to be completely cleared up. I believe some articles may need to be combined and/or clean-up, but none of them should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalvatoreRichardGomes (talk • contribs) 2006-09-24 02:25:32
• Keep per above for now. Currently, (as I am aware of) there is no policy forbidding episode articles. Personally I think only notable episodes should merit their own article (like those who create considerable hype/controversy). But like Bobabobabo pointed out there are countless other shows with individual episode articles. If you (Frenchman113) want to tackle this issue I suggest you propose a policy and discuss this issue with the community. Wikipedia:Notability talk page would be a good start. - Tutmosis 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) even better. - Tutmosis 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this be in categories for deletion. JASpencer 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No. CFD deals with deleting/renaming categories, not with deleting articles. Uncle G 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research. If individual episodes of television shows have not already been documented individually outside of Wikipedia, they may not be documented individually in Wikipedia. Some examples: There are plenty of people who have documented individual The Simpsons episodes on the World Wide Web, and people have even published books about Babylon 5 episodes (e.g. ISBN 1590920376 and ISBN 1590920392); whereas most soap operas do not have episode guides. For this series, you can find people publishing episode guides outside of Wikipedia here, here, here, here, here and many other places. Uncle G 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it's fancruft, and I've never been able to sit through even half an episode, but using a bot to AfD 200 articles (that's correct ... 200 episode articles) in one swell foop just gives bad faith a Bad Name, IMHO. I wish that a show like King of the Hill had such an encyclopedic standing, since it appears to only have 1/10th as many articles. --141.156.232.179 12:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've voted Delete at the top, but I'd like to clarify my stance. There is no information in any of those articles not already covered in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II, both of which are absurdly long. Further, there is no possibility to make these articles more than just Original Research and fancruft.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep keep keep keep keep all We've had this discussion before, and I've mad my views clear every time: Synopses of notable television shows are no different than synopses of notable films or video games. They are significant, and they can be encyclopedic, and there's no reason to get rid of them. -- Kicking222 13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please consider changing your vote, the information in the Episode articles are just copies of the data in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Psc6 15:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP per WP:TV WP:LOE--Psc6 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please do not say that using an episode itself is original research, as it's not. The episodes themselves are the source. In addition, Naruot is a pretty notible show. Is it Pokemon, The Simpsons, or Star Trek? No. But is has spawned things in Japanese youth culture, among other things; that said, I agree with Tutmosis that the best thing would be to have singular articles of only the most notible ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫
• Keep Like anybody wants to read the summary of a saga. Maybe they would, but it'd be better to look for the episodes and points in the timeline you care about. The reason these pages should be kept is for the reasons that the plot pages are too huge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slammenhousa (talk • contribs) .
• Delete some Ok, there are some viable episodes in there. There are others that consist of the title and almost nothing else. i.e. "I want to fight you! Finally they clash, Sasuke vs Naruto (Japanese: オマエと戦いたい！ついに激突 サスケVSナルト - Omae to tatakaitai! Tsui ni gekitotsu Sasuke tai Naruto) is episode 107 of the anime series Naruto. The episode's storyline is the first part of the Sasuke Retrieval manga arc." Some editors love to create pages just to fill in series boxed. (I know! I do it on an outside fandom wiki.) I do not think every individual episode of a TV show is notable enough Wikipedia, but we have no one but Jimmy Wales to blame for their inclusion. --Kunzite 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all for two reasons. First, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes recommends merging instead of deletion (although at least some of these articles could probably stand on their own and don't need to be merged). Second, there's far too many articles nominated here to be able to research the encyclopedia-worthiness of every single one. JYolkowski // talk 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; merge as needed, relist particularly problematic episode articles individually. This is a massively overbroad nomination; I've always said "AfD Isn't Cleanup", and I say for emphasis that "AfD Isn't the 20-Megaton Nuke to Level Tons of Cruft at Once" either. There's limits to what's sensible to bundle in one AfD, and one just doesn't nominate entire category of 200 articles up for deletion at once! Just look at what's happening with the esoteric programming language stuff right now: massive AfD that got reversed and is now being carried out again really slowly, as it should. And that was far less than 200 articles! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Individual articles for each episode is a way of condensing the main article about the series without omitting data. If these articles are simply cut-n-pastes of parts of the main article, then the main article can be precised with impunity. In my opinion, deleting the individual articles is not an appropriate response to the duplication. And I share the reservations about the scope of this nomination; it is de trop. —Theo (Talk) 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up per Salvatore --Alexie 18:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• EVERYONE READ THE COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING!. How many times do I have to say that all of the articles listed here are redundant?! There is nothing that isn't already covered in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II --Frenchman113 on wheels! 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It still doesn't make me wanna change my votes. --Alexie 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think profanity and yelling will help your cause much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Comment. Oddly for some reason the anime filler arc episodes are NOT listed in the manga plot summaries Frenchman113. and that consist of EVERYTHING episode 136-202+ and so on until the episodes once again coincide with the manga story arcs you are so rampant to keep pointing too.71.71.79.235 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. As the nominator has already pointed out, appropriate plot summaries already exist, so no merging is necessary. — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I agree that some of these articles are useless for now, but still... I mean, over 200 articles. There's bound to be at least something in there of encyclopedic value. Also, if you'd notice, some of these are not done. Rather than complain about them, why not expand them until they are of encyclopedic value. Or, perhaps, we can merge by arc if the articles are small enough... You Can't See Me! 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And I forgot to mention: True there are appropriate plot summaries that already exist. However, if that was a viable excuse, well, Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles would it? Everything on Wikipedia is a compilation of information from appropriate sources. Anyone can go onto google and find an article on President Bush, stem cell research, immigration, the Revolutionary War, tuberculosis, Mario Tennis, and the like. Including the topic at hand: Episode Summaries. Though I have to say, it's much harder to find plot summaries for specific episodes of a television series taking place in a fictional universe than any of the other topics listed above. You Can't See Me! 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ridiculously overbearing level of precedent. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why this and not the articles listed at the top? One wonders why you take personal offense to this --pahsons 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merge as needed per wwwolf and others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This AfD is a mess. And if you've got a problem with individual episode articles, why haven't you nominated all the South Park episode articles? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Because the nomination at hand is to keep or delete all Naruto episode summaries, I vote to let them live. However, I fail to see how an article on every single episode is necessary, especially when their synopsis is only a "paragraph" in length or simply nonexistent. If ever there is a nomination to delete only these overly short articles, then I will probably vote to delete them. ~SnapperTo 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also, calling everyone who votes to keep these articles your foe is very mature. ~SnapperTo 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep: We should definitely keep the episodes!! For one thing, I spent hours writing some of those articles myself!! Wikipedia is an international forum and there's those who can't watch the episodes for whatever reason!! It's not like we're posting episode downloads here and the summaries don't really have episode images!! I think if Naruto fans knew what were going on in the episodes it would encourage them to buy the DVDs!! So I say we keep the articles!!

  Comment: Wikipedia doesn't exist "to encourage people to buy the DVDs". Images or lack of them aren't the issue here either; nor does the fact someone spent a lot of time on an article make it a valid reason for keeping them. As I said above, my opinion is that the best thing to do is keep the most notible episodes, but this particular AFD isn't the best way of going about a consensus toward that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Someone "spending a lot of time on an article" is not a valid reason to keep. People spend lots of time writing fanfiction or concocting lists of left-handed Star Trek characters. Those articles are usually removed. In the case of TV episodes, even though they may be non-notable, they're usually kept because of precedent. --Kunzite 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up I have to admit, the filler episodes don't need an article but everything in the main story plot should be kept.Verde830 15:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  In terms of a series, every episode is important. Even if the manga is the original source, facts in the articles are taken from the fillers, as well. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there's a clear precedent for having articles on episodes of a show. If you'd like to delete all such articles, then you can try starting a discussion on that. Otherwise, episodes of notable shows are generally notable via WP:POKEMON. Cool3 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --TheYmode 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It should be in Jeffklib 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merging as needed per wwwolf. -Aknorals 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep'em, clean those in need of cleaning. Skalman
• Keep The precedent is rather ridiculous. Aside from South Park, there are Friends, Seinfeld and the list goes on. The fact that people have written so extensively about it proves that the show is notable enough to merit this. Mergers or expansions are called for, not deletion. An episode summary logically offers an opportunity for a more detailed and specific synopsis than an overall plot summary. If the episode descriptions were specific than the Plot of Naruto and Naruto II sections which some people have called too long could be reduced without a great loss of information, though reducing the plot pages may not be possible in any event simply because Naruto has a long and fairly intricate plot.Rayfire 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bad reason to be deleting. All this needs is a little cleaning. Jerwong 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up It seems that some, if not most, of the episodes in question, primarily those in the beginning, have enough information to warrant individual articles. However, two or three episode long filler arcs should be merged into one article. As for the ones that basically have a name and an episode number, more information needs to be gathered. However, if we were to delete every episode from the list in favor of a brief summary, we could in theory delete every stub here in favor of a massive compilation of related, yet vague, information. The individual episode descriptors expound on the information given in the summary, but to actually add that information to the summary itself would make it too unwieldy. MasterRadius 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete -- Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. The fact that it is on computers doesn't change that. A list of episodes with title, date of first airing and a 2-3 sentence plot synopsis is fine. But no print encyclopedia would have entire articles about who looked at whom, who looked sad, etc. That just isn't encyclopedic content. I looked through "Bushy Brow's Pledge". It is absolutely ridiculous. There is FAR too much detail for an encyclopedia article on a single episode. A "plot summary" is not a scene-by-scene description!

  We have to keep in mind that WP does not have unlimited bandwidth and disk space. If fans want to describe hundreds of episodes in so much detail, they should set up a website, not clog up a non-profit public general encyclopedia site with tons of information that less than one site visitor in 100,000 wants to see. RickReinckens 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  Assume 15kb per article with 200 articles. That's 3000kb. It fits on a floppy disk. It's not clogging anything. You're just posing a ridiculously unlikely scenario. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, can we close this per WP:SNOW? The result should be obvious by this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is this not a database of knowledge? If you delete this article just because you didn't want to know about it ahead of time, then aren't you defeating the purpose of having a database of knowledge in the first place? Hmn. This seems like a rather ridiculous discussion to have. A synopsis is a synopsis whether you like it or not. If you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Close the topic and leave the episodes alone, already.

This is true, however, articles still need to fall within WP:NN, which is the main issue here. By the logic you're presenting, I could make a page about myself and it should be allowed because it's still knowledge. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that Frenchman113 is voting to delete ALL of the articles in question, not just the less-notable ones. It actually seems to me that Frenchman is voting on this not out of concern fo bandwidth and space, but out of personal bias against the show. Think about it: Frenchy used a bot to list every single episode under AfD, meaning he didn't even check them for content- he just deemed them unworthy, offering was that it was "Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info" as his justification. It has been clarified that most people who voted on this want to keep it, albeit with minor changes in some cases, but the few who claim deletion a definite edict have or can have their views disproved, save for their dislike of anime. Furthermore, the Frenchman rersorts to personal attacks on a regular basis, even referring to those who vote against him his "foes". Truthfully, if this really warranted such an extreme clause of deletion, we wouldn't be talking about it; it'd be gone already. The fact that this "conversation", if you can call it that, is being held means it needs to stay. If you feel we should clean it up, don't vote here; start a new discussion regarding its reorganization. However, under no circumstances should we delete over 200 articles just because some french guy labels them as "fancruft".MasterRadius 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC), and the horse you rode in on

I looked at Frenchman's user page, and saw an infobox that noted he hates anime. Why am I not suprised? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 08:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: --Al1976 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: By logic of the nominator, all episode listings should be taken down. However, I do not see any of the others up for AFD. If anything needs to be done, a few of the articles could be cleaned up. Diametes T. Jackson 07:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: At worst, this is a work in progress. Yes, a print encyclopedia would not have detailed summaries of every episode, but WP is better as an encyclopedia for having them, and its hardly a huge burden in terms of K. The plot summaries may contain some of the same information, but a history of WW2 may contain reference to battles that have their own pages. I also vote that we end this now, seeing that the keep vote is overwhelming. Note also that while a plot summary is not enough for a good article, "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles..." I would say that the episode pages are most certainly aspects of the larger Naruto articles. Plunge 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

this should not be deleted

• Delete Some Most of it is rendunant. We should just keep the important episodes like what Power Rangers does. Silver95280 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Delete Some", in this particular case, is like taking 200 criminals (a bunch of serial killers, a bunch of bicycle thieves, all named Fred Fooman with different middle initials) to courtroom one bright day and then recommending "oh, yeah, give a few life sentences." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• It should be kept. Indeed, I just stumbled here only because I was looking for a list of naruto episodes and exact titles. The first place I looked was wikipedia for a reason.
• it should stay. It just helped me, Who knows who else it has helped and will helped. Keep it.Same for all TV shows.

If it is too much of a clutter for the main wikipedia site. Maybe what should happen should be a branch off of TV shows. In the same sense of wikiquotes or wikitionary. Once again, I say KeepRhythmic01 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, it's been eight days now. Shouldn't this be closed? The consensus is obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just request an admin to close this AfD overon WP:AN. They're pretty receptive toward requests to close old AfDs. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nathan Damweber

OK, so his thesis got published in a journal. As a rule, one journal article does not equal encyclopedic notability. I think this is below the threshold. Since the article may well have been started by the person who is the subject of the article, and an earlier {{notability}} was anonymously removed, I figured this at least merits discussion here. Sound like an impressive young man, could well be notable in the future but: notability first, encyclopedia article later. - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Leaning toward delete unless more notability can be shown. Perfectly OK with userfying it. - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PROF by a long chalk and so WP:VAIN that I nominate it for inclusion in WP:BJAODN.... The painting of Mr. Damweber posing dramatically with Karl Marx made my day. I hope its the first of a series - does Nathan have paintings of himself doing a black power fist salute with Malcolm X or perhaps posed deep in thought with Noam Chomsky planned? Will the paintings get hung in his living room or do his students get to admire them in his classroom? Bwithh 03:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Bwithh. 1ne 07:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm with Bwithh on this one. WP:VAIN, but it made me laugh. Em-jay-es 08:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Definite BJAODN material, love the painting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Someone may also wish to AfD Ross Global Academy, created a few weeks later by the same editor as Nathan Damweber ... which is apparently the only article linked to it. <Sigh!> --141.156.232.179 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to have only this one paper. Espresso Addict 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Espresso Addict Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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