Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 21

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 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (3rd nomination)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

Just wondering, why is this tagged for Deletion, there is nothing wrong with it. Every other famous Internet person has a youtube page so why can he not?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party 8 minigames

List of Mario Party 8 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also in this nomination:

• List of Mario Party 6 minigames
• List of Mario Party 7 minigames

Listcruft that is much better suited for a video game wiki. Previous mini-game lists for Rayman Raving Rabbids and Super Monkey Ball have been deleted or turned into redirects. Mini-games are important: but an entire list on them all is game guide content. If people want to know all that detail: they can check gamefaqs. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a video game guide, period. RobJ1981 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete i would say this subject is notable, but unencyclopedic as it reads more like a walkthrough of each minigame. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  "more like a walkthrough"? more than what?

• Comment: I wouldn't go that far. It's just a short list of confirmed minigames for an upcoming game. It doesn't really read like a walkthrough, does it? --Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Could someone tack on the following to this debate: List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames. Similar listcruft pages. I managed to put the correct AFD notice on them (which links here), but I can't get the next part of the process to work. RobJ1981 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: RobJ, will you shut up about Game FAQs?! It doesn't matter that you can check it. Different sites are allowed to have the same info on them. Please read McKay's comment on the talk page for MP8. Henchman 2000 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Notable subject, citing reliable published sources. Shouldn't be deleted. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Author of article)

• Strong Keep: Do you want this edit war over or not? This is about the only reasonable solution. Henchman 2000 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it's part of a resolution, I know that isn't a reason, but it's got reliable published sources, it's written (or can be written) in an encyclopedic manner, it isn't an instruction guide. I challenge anyone to find some real policy that it fails. Barring that, there's consensus (on the Talk:Mario Party 8 page). McKay 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Rather blatant listcruft. Also being used by Henchman 2000 in an attempt to blackmail editors in order to stop the edit war over Mario Party 8 (and I quote "RobJ, if you want this edit war over, get an admin to speedy keep the pages conserned with this unnecesary Afd. If you don't, once again, we will be getting no-where."). The consensus on the aforementionted talk page only concerns the Mario Party 8 article, IIRC. Specifically, that lists will not be included, and prose will be used. This article was created by Bowsy after a suggestion from Messedrocker, not as part of a consensus decision AFAIK. Geoff B 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am not using this to blackmail other users, I don't even know what blackmail is. I am using it as a way to finally resolve the mini game dispute. Henchman 2000 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry is there somewhere that says that lists aren't allowed in wikipedia? There's nothing wrong with listcruft? Is there a policy on "listcruft" that I'm not aware of? McKay 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It needs to be noted: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Henchman_2000 determined Bowsy and Henchman use the same computer. The note at the bottom clearly states this: soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community.. I thought I would put this out, since both Henchman and Bowsy have posted here (clearly against the note at the case, which I'm sure they've read in the past). RobJ1981 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment for closing admin: Please read this VEEERY carefully before taking the above comment on board paying particular attention to the bolded areas:

  Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets. Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions. If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine. As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because "soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community". That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion. It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs. Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented.

If you do not believe this was said, ask Isotope23 yourself. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to point out that wikipedia operates on a "one person, one vote" and not a "one computer, one vote" basis. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The only reason Mario Party 8 minigames list isn't a game guide yet, is because the game isn't out yet. Look at the lists for 6 and 7: they clearly tell you how to play each game. That's game guide content not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into main article. Classic example of "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs". --- RockMFR 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is nothing like gamefaqs, this is merely a list of the minigames we know about in MP8. If there were something like "When trying to cross the tightrope, the player should lay his wiimote down on the ground, because then you'll stay balanced and win every time" That would be a gamefaq. This information is encyclopedic. McKay 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Gamefaqs isn't just a strategy guide website. If you ever take a look at the in-depth FAQs, there are detailed articles about the game.

Example: here

While it does contain strategy information, that's not all it consists of. Another example might be something like ::this. While not Mario Party related, it does illustrate that it doesn't have to be strategy related to be included on Gamefaqs, and just because it doesn't discuss game strategy doesn't mean it isn't information better handled by other sites. Gene S. Poole 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• At this point, the two other articles have been tacked onto the AFD. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft in all forms should be burninated*, and now, before it devolves into a game guide like the others. */homestar -M^ask 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  WHAT?!?!? The policies posted on WP:DELETE clearly state that if an article *could* be cleaned up, that it should be cleaned up, and not deleted. The principle here, is that if an article isn't encyclopedic, but could be, then vote "keep" and fix it. If you don't want to fix it yourself, that doesn't mean that you should vote delete, just let someone else fix it. If it's unfixable, that's what the delete is for. I can understand people who make this mistake, it's a rather common one. You on the other hand have made the opposite mistake, saying, in essence "well, it's encyclopedic now, but it's likely going to fall into ruin, so we may as well delete it now." this is the WRONG approach. The correct approach is to vote keep, and fix the other articles (for MP6,7...), because obviously they can be encyclopedic. McKay 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft by it's very nature is unencyclopedic. These things can never be unencyclopedic, which is exactly the reason that AfD exists, to get rid of articles such as these. And please dont come to my talkpage to tell me I need to retract my vote, its an incredibly sophomoric thing to do. -M^ask 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, to add, thanks for the steamroom, edit, you did that part wonderfully, exactly what its meant for :) -M^ask 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy or guideline that says listcruft should be deleted. In fact, there's an entire List guideline page on how lists should be used (WP:LIST). Furthermore, there is no inclusion criteria for lists except for the regular WP:NOTABLE guidelines, which this article clearly passes. In addition, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) clearly states "The potential for creating lists is infinite." though it does mention how useful lists are if too large, and it counsels that many wikipedians feel that some topics are unappropriate because of their unencyclopedic nature. Oh, and me asking you to retract your vote is not sophomoric. Sophomoric would have been to change your vote. I'm merely stating that you have no ground to stand on, so your vote should probably be changed (or overlooked by the administrators) McKay 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. WP:NOTABLE states "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Please, enlighten me, tell me where the minigames from the Mario Party series are the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. I agree, the games deserve the article, as they are the subject of such published works; the minigames of such games are not.

These lists, frankly, are unencyclopedic, and they contribute nothing to Wikipedia. Simply noting the names of the minigames contributes nothing; indeed the only person such a list would be of interest to would be someone who has already played the game and knows about the minigames; and adding descriptions of all the minigames makes such a list far too similar to an instruction manual. Witness [1]for clarification; although it's for the Mario Party-e, it has the exact same sort of information, and it's an instruction manual. This stuff isn't needed on Wikipedia. IMHO. YMMV. Gene S. Poole 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the manual you linked is specifically a how-to manual "press button b at such and such a time...". McKay 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an instruction manual which has descriptions of all the mini games. it does say how to do the minigames, and also has descriptions (i.e. Mario must catch the fish that princess peach requests without touching the wrong fish) which is essentially what we're looking at in the article. We have lists of the games, before the minigames were removed, we had descriptions of what the games were. That is what appears in your average video game manual, and as such falls within WP:NOT - see instruction manuals in the link I provided aboveGene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

not an indirect treatement, it almost appears as if the writer seems to think that the minigames are all the game is about videos: minigame, minigame, minigame, character selection, minigame, minigame (not an indirect treatment It seems to me like in a minigames game, the minigames themselves are notable, just like in the Harry Potter series, not much is written about the characters, yet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) says we should get articles on people like Ron Weasley and even Gregory Goyle. Also, we have List of characters in the Harry Potter books and even crazy lists like Students in Harry Potter's Year, Minor Slytherins, and Inquisitorial Squad. Really, are there any articles that even mention "Minor Slytherins"? No. Yet there's a list. We have hundreds of articles that give a direct treatment on the topic of the minigames in MP8. Notable? YES. McKay 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But just because such lists exist is not a reason to propagate the issue. Perhaps the lists mentioned above should not be on wikipedia, either. Consensus can change. As far as I can see the lists in question serve the same purpose as an instruction manual, something that is, in fact, mentioned as part of what wikipedia is not Gene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion summary:

• AMask: Listrcruft = deleted. Article fine now, but could get worse.
• McKay: what's your problem if it's fine now?
• AMask: listrcuft = unencyclopedic, purpose of AfD destroy stuff like this
• McKay: Wikipedia policy = lists are good. WP:NOTABLE guidelines apply?
• Gene: MP8mg = not notable, MP8mg = unencyclopedic because it's like this thing that fails WP:NOT
• McKay: It's like all these things which are included in WP.
• McKay: It's nothing like that thing that fails WP:NOT

Mask had problems, McKay responded to them, Gene had problems with McKay's responses, McKay responded to them. McKay 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. How exactly can they be encyclopedic? I can see the articles going a few ways: game guide/how to play guide (which it leans towards now, Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual or game guide), or just simply a list of mini-games. Both aren't suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm, how about the way they are now, with a list of games, and information about each game. Maybe more encyclopedic information could be added: like how they relate to previous games in series, how well they are received by players, pop-culture references in the games... I agree that how-to guides on how to play are WP:NOT appropriate, but the list currently doesn't have that, so it is obviously possible for the content to be encyclopedic. If you're worried that the article might turn non-encyclopedic, then watch the article and patrol changes. This is the wikipedia way. McKay 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: They are currenty encyclopedic. A game guide tells you the following 3 things:

1. The object of the game
2. THe controls of the game
3. Advice on how to win.

As the list contains only the first point, it is clearly not a gaming guide. Henchman 2000 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From Game guide:

The contents of a strategy guide varies from game genre to another. Typically, the guides contain:

• detailed gameplay information, for example, maneuvers that are not detailed in the manual

  not in the List of Mario Party 8 minigames (LMP8mg)

• complete maps of the game, which show the placement of all items (including hidden and hard-to-find ones)

  not in the LMP8mg

• detailed instructions for specific locations on how to proceed from there

  not in the LMP8mg

• explanations of puzzles

  not in the LMP8mg

• details of enemies, including techniques on defeating individual enemies (especially "boss" monsters)

  not in the LMP8mg

• checklist of collectible items

  not in the LMP8mg

• cheats and game editing, although this has been less common in official guides

  not in the LMP8mg

• walkthroughs to help the player complete levels

  not in the LMP8mg

As you can see, the LMP8mg is clearly not a game guide. McKay 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's listcruft leaning towards a game guide. As I've stated before: other mini-game lists have been in AFD and deleted: the most recent Rayman, and the most recent Super Monkey Ball as well. Both of which are mini-game collections (while SMB has a story mode, but it's still alot of mini-games). These precendents are more than enough to determine this another listcruft, much better suited for a gaming wiki. RobJ1981 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: RobJ, there is no such thing as a gaming wiki, and if there is, who cares, two wikis may have the same content and you clearly fail to understand this. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In accordance with WP:NOT Gene S. Poole 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, can you be more clear? Do you mean that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? While I agree that it isn't, this article is not a how-to guide. McKay 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  I wasn't calling it a how-to guide, but it serves the same purpose as an instruction manual, which is also mentioned. Gene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, let me be more clear. I think an instruction manual is a how-to guide. I think that "How" is the important word. Wikipedia and most dictionarys seem to agree with this definition. I think that the wikipedia article and the instruction manual serve entirely different purposes. the purpose of the instruction manual is to tell you how to press the buttons to play the game. On a similar note, strategy guides are very similar to instruction manuals. They tell a user how to use the controls to play effectively. The wikipedia article can present encyclopedic information without specifying how. It tells "what"s going on in the game. "what" the minigames look like. If there are current deviations from this, I think that they can be free from "how" and present valuable (non-indiscriminate) information. Be WP:BOLD and fix it. McKay 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Gene S. Poole, WP:NOT contains nothing against this list. Te closest thing I can find is a how-to guide, which it most certainly is not, see my comment about what a how-to guide really is. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: See above. I never stated it was a how to guide, rather closer to things found in an instruction manual, which is also mentionedGene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Merge to Mario Party 8. The subject is not notable nor broad enough to have an article of its own.--Orthologist 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is this fancruft, the sourcing absolutely sucks. None of the sources are secondary, YouTube vids are NOT what I call a source. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, the sourcing sucks. Be WP:BOLD and fix it. Having bad sources is not a valid reasoning for an AFD. Also, some (most?) of the sources are secondary: marioparty8.net, gametrailers.com, jeux-france.com, are all secondary sources. McKay 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP The entire topic (GAMES) should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable sources. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. It is about "time."

Those of us blessed with children, in any school, in any place in this world, know full well that this topic deserves a large and bright spot... in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation, in my opinion, to provide the world with current reliable information. If we lose the children, we lose the world. Help to make this institution more reliable for our schools? Sounds like a good idea to me. Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted Lee seems to have voted because he thinks Guy doesn't like him. The proof is here: [[2]]. Voting doesn't work like that. RobJ1981 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• My vote is my vote; should be taken with what I said. My vote stands. I mean what I say, and I say what I believe to be true. Please try to use good faith at Wikipedia. Thank you.Lee Nysted 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rob, this comment is somewhat inappropriate, first off, your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's not even circumstantial. Also, it's an ad hominiem attack. He presents points for his reasoning, if you want to attack the comment, you should attack those points. Also, his suggesstion of WP:AGF is a good one. McKay 06:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  While I dont think it was a bad idea for that point, I don't really think its strong enough to discount the vote, unlike the 2 meatpuppets up above, where one or both will be stricken from the final decision. Also, I was somewhat amused to literally see a "Think of the children!" argument. That will most likely not count as a real, WP-specific argument against deletion, but gave me my evening entertainment nonetheless. Thank you! -M^ask 07:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Please do not call Bowsy and Henchman meatpuppets. If you really think they are, start another sockpuppet case. However, do not directly say that they are meatpuppets unless the case is closed with that result. –Llama man^talk_contribs 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

   Policy is perfectly clear, they share the same computer, and there is doubt about whether they are one user or two seperate, regardless ofthat, they espouse the same views, and per WP:SOCK they can be assumed to be one person. I can refer to them as sockpuppets if you wish. -M^ask

   Comment: We are not meatpuppets. How many times must you be told this for you to relise? Above, there is proof by Isotope, Llama man. I am also going to give you this source. Pay heed to it or you may find a similar message on your talk page. Henchman 2000 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry AKMask, according to WP ruling, they are not sockpuppets. Also, according to WP:SOCK, Calling them meatpuppets is definitely a bit of a grey area, as they are not strictly single-purpose users. Both of them have hundreds of edits, and they are contributing in at least two disparate areas (Wii games Mario Party games video games, and Spongebob). They may have interest in WP as a whole, but are only capable of editing in those two areas. I'm not sure, but to be on the safe side, you probably shouldn't be calling them meatpuppets. McKay 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Might want to reread the sock finding page, chief, specifically the part that says both need to be careful about meatpuppetry; soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Both of you need to keep that in mind.. They have not taken this advice to heart, and are now clearly meatpuppets. Those 2 and puppets and I claim my five pounds. -M^ask 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC). -M^ask 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Knock it off, both of you. The closing admin will decide how much weight he or she wants to give the opinions from Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) as well as everyone else who participated here. Hurling accusations and labels will not change that. Please remain respectful and WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about the kind comments:

I must explain, if you can please excuse my use of your time; forgive my ignorance of much of the topic material itself?

I am a single father of 3 girls. (ages 11. 15. and 23.) I love Wikipedia; use it all the time. My children cannot use Wikipedia (as a factual reference) in our school system in Illinois, more often than not, because of either,

1. Lack of pertinent (up to date) content, or
2. lack of reliable sources, or most unfortunate,
3. The ability of vandals to change the truth, at will.

I mention " the children" because it is timely to consider that most companies with a vision for the future, plan for repeat users well into the next generation, or more. (e.g., I cite Apple, Inc. as a primary example of this.)

Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 15:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you don't think he's some guy whose reasons for Wikipedia don't matter to wikipedia, I'll note that his first point falls under "Wikipedia is not a Paper encyclopedia" our information can be up to date, and can fill niches that paper encyclopedias can't (like thousands of articles in Harry Potter categories)

Lack of sources falls under one of the WP trifecta WP:VERIFY.

and the third point falls under WP:VANDALISM.

So, his reasons are valid. McKay 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not plan for the next generation of users. We plan to be an encyclopedia of non-trivial, previously published material. Multiple, reliable, non-trivial works must be published on a subject for it to be included. It's nice you have kids you care about, but frankly, it doesn't matter in the context of Wikipedia. -M^ask 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My final comment to AKMask: Thank you. You just gave the most salient, transparent, and powerful reason on earth, why, the above article should stay, here today. Good for you. Cheers!Lee Nysted 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AKMask, his reasons are your reasons. I thought I made that clear in my post. If you're going to make logical progress, you're going to have to attack the issues of WP:NOTE and WP:RS (and "Encyclopedic" like others are doing to varying degrees of failure) Not just say "IT'S GOT TO BE NOTABLE!!!!!" We all know that it has to be notable, you've got to show that our efforts of showing that it is notable are fallacious. Also, I fear that Lee has left wikipedia because of this argument. His last post seemed so ... final. McKay 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[reindent]

Or, you know, I could just point out that we should follow the policy. Or attack it, as you suggest I do. I prefer my way better, the "we should have encyclopedic content as per policy" way, as I call it. -M^ask 16:36, 26 February 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 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 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

International Monarchist League

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

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

Keep, is this a joke? The IML is clearly notable. It has a large membership, is constantly called on to defend the monarchy, is administered by notable persons (e.g. Denis Walker), has countless other notable patrons and supporters. It is the largest monarchist group in the UK, and perhaps the largest united one in the world!--Couter-revolutionary 09:16, 21 February 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 no consensus --BigDT 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and POV. To the very least there is a problem of respect of Naming Conventions. Note that the article was created by a Single purpose account (User contributions). PS: At best, merge content into History of Europe. Tazmaniacs 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment - the article does smack of original research, and the selected list may be just opinion, but if the information can be substantiated with reliable sources, then the article might be a keeper. I've tagged it as unreferenced -- Whpq 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a good article, but it needs to cite its sources. Also, 'macrohistorical battles' is a contradiction in terms, so it needs renaming. AlexTiefling 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research per nom. Some historians place specific great importance on some of these battles, largely for contemporary reasons -- e.g. as a "macrohistorical" battle between Western and non-Western civilizations. There is no historical consensus that these battles were important in that sense. Certainly there is very little support for the idea that Thermopylae (between Greeks and Persians) can easily be shoehorned into a precursor of the Crusades and Christian-Muslim conflict. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil your illusion, but the Europeans have always used the fight against the Eastern civilizations as part of their cultural identity, not only against Muslims but against anything that came from the East since Roman times. Sometimes even defeats (such as Kosovo_Polje) are used to form national identity, while wars amongst the Europeans themselves are mostly regarded as tragedies Alf photoman 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My "illusion"? Alf photoman, please assume good faith and try not to get inside my head. How many Europeans identify with Thermopylae (Greeks and Victor Davis Hanson excepted)? --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and by the way the Greeks don't identify with Thermopylae, Macedonians sure do. But in central Europe the battle of Vienna is the great focal point of cultural identity, for the Balkans it is Kosovo Polje, for the French Poitiers and each of these battles were against Muslims. The great heroes such as Roldan, El Cid, Prinz Eugen and about a million more were always in battle against the Moors or Turks in popular culture, even though historically the reality is much more diverse ( El Cid for example had a better relationship with the Moorish rulers than with the Christian kings) . I think it is time to overcome this, but without understanding it Europeans never will Alf photoman 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but I happen to be a citizen of one of the nation you mentioned, and I absolutely disagree with you, and so do several millions of my fellow citizens. Please don't speak in the name of others people, and keep your anti-Muslim conceptions to a political forum. Tazmaniacs 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry but I fail to see how you can claim that my criticism of certain European identities formed in battles against Muslims is anti-Muslim, or is it that you need to be attacked? Alf photoman 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. The edit history shows the author is still working on the document and may be adding sources soon. The document is only about a month old. I do not see any attempt at talk or otherwise to get the author to provide sources. Unreferenced tag was added AFTER the AFD nomination. This nomination is rediculous to say the least and is biting of the head of a new contributor. I don't see any evidence provided to show that there is a big POV or OR.--Dacium 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you say it is a bad faith nomination? Recury 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The nominator never gave the author a change to supply the sources. Never tried to tag as un sourced. Makes claims about POV and OR without any real evidance. We should assume good faith, in that the author will provide the necessary sources eventually, say after the article has been tagged for a few months. Not while it still being written! The nominator also assumes it is a single purpose account, clearly this is not 'good faith' to a new user, but a clear attack upon him.--Dacium 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Notwithstanding the definition of single purpose account, you have to admit that this account has not done any other editing on Wikipedia. This does not prejudge of the future. I have "never gave the author a change (sic) to supply sources" for the simple reason that there is a very big Naming Conventions and Naming conflict on such an article. Its title itself makes it inherently biased and restricted. So, the Yugoslav Wars will not be included as "founding battles of European identity"? On which criterias? Maybe because they show that it is not the problem that I have a POV (while, of course, you are "moderate" and "neutral"), but because this article does not allow for NPOV. History of Europe does, and contents should be moved there, and this article deleted. This is, at worse, fascist propaganda, at best, incredible ignorance of the history of Europe, whatever you hear by this expression. Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • [Note: further comments have been moved to "comments subsection" below for better reading of the page. Hope that doesn't cause any problem to any one.]

• Keep, for now. It is evident that the article has been edited on a continuous basis since creation so one can assume that sources will be added, especially after being tagged as unsourced. The title could be a little better but that can be resolved by renaming and redirecting no need to delete Alf photoman 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• VERY STRONG Keep, for now. As Alf photoman noted, this article has been continuously edited, and its greatest weakness is sourcing, which is certainly correctable. I am sorry that this is viewed in a Christian versus Islamic perspective - but reality is that in Austria the seige of Vienna is viewed with at least as much reverance as Americans do Yorktown or Saratoga, and in both Germany and France, Tours/Poiters is viewed in the same light. I am sorry but the critics of this article mostly are doing so because of POV, not history. This has the makings of a very good article, and certainly can be sourced. KEEP! old windy bear 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, please don't engage other people under your flag. As already said, I happen to be a citizen of one of the country you mention, and I can assure you that, although one of the battle you've mentioned was often cited in elementary schools in the 19th century, we've done some (little) progress. Furthermore, I can also assure you that a very large part of my fellow citizens ignore the very existence of this battle, at best, they've heard about it when in elementary school. We more generally remember battles of the 19th and 20th century, sorry for any possible desillusions. Tazmaniacs 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this Article, it is already being sourced.I was asked to look at this article, and evaluate whether or not it needed deletion. It does not. The request is simple POV, and there has been no good faith shown, as the requester simply bitterly attacks all those who oppose deletion. oldwindybear has begun sourcing the article, and I will assist him, as will the original editor, I am sure. There is absolutely no need to evaluate this article because it offends POV of one or two very biased editors. Stillstudying 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Very biased? My bias was supported, during the negotiations concerning the TCE, in particular by: France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Cyprus, not to say Turkey, which, whether you like it or not, has started negotiations in 2003 with Bruxelles to enter the European Union. I am not the one to make a pseudo-historical articles which reminds textbooks of the late 19th century. Tazmaniacs 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or completely rewrite. Some of these battles have a controversial importance (e.g. battle of Tours - many say it was just a raid) or their inferred importance is of dubious relevance (e.g. battle of Chalons - what if Attila would have reached Atlantic Ocean?). Moreover to write a rather original theory of Europe's becoming following several battles commented by different scholars it is clearly an original research (not to say the already manifested concern - what is Europe or European civilization anyway?). Daizus 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Concept of article basically guarantees WP:OR. The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World already did this in 1851, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Akhilleus. Any salvageable can be moved to History of Europe. Khoikhoi 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Most academic sources agree that certain battles shaped the (evolution of) Europe. In other words, most historians agree on these battles. This means that as long as sufficient reliable academic sources are cited, there is no violation of WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:V. Perhaps we should avoid the use of the word "European civilization" (i.e. a debatable term) and replace it with "European history" or "Western civilization". If a minority view exists that certain battles did not shape European history, the criticism can be added. Sijo Ripa 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The title is a problem, not insurmountable. Let's give the contributors a chance to shape this & source it. If this is a subject that can be covered in History of Europe, it can just as easily be spun-off outside that article, in this article. Ewulp 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is my conclusion after minutiously reading all the stuff and comments. Technically, the article is OK, however it is grounding upon two erroneous premises:

1. the ideological premise of tacitly identifying Europe with Western (catholic ?) Europe
2. the methodological premise of supposing that “battles” are relevant at a macro-historical scale; this is conjectural history, a sort of pseudohistorical approach speculating upon “what if…?” (What if Napoleon would have won Waterloo ?); no professional historian engages in historical conjectures.

However, in order to save the work done, you could include the material to a History of Western Europe, mentioning these battles as “significant”, no more. --Vintila Barbu 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Vintila Barbu above. The problem is that individual battles usually do not have "macrohistorical" importance (Theromopylaye did not stop or destroyed Persians, it was the Athenian fleet and troops, during Battle of Vienna the Otoman Empire was past its former glory). Mongol invasion is missing as well as crusades and gradual destruction of Byzantine empire. An article on macrohistory (or European macrohistory) should precede this kind of list in any case. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • [Please do not vote twice, thanks]. Tazmaniacs 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• didn't mean to vote twice, it was my first time on one of these, I didn't realize this was a formal vote, so I removed it, sorry! old windy bear 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete entirely POV and content forking. Dahn 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral: it's an interesting topic but ripe for OR and POV-pushing. Maybe a better title could be found, with a better focus. Also, what about The Night Attack? The Battle of Vaslui? The Battle of Kosovo? Include these and others, or else rename it to "...Western European civilisation". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep: this is an article on an important and timely topic, and merits further development and improvements, not the ax. Yes, the title is kind of odd, and probably should be changed. And yes, there are more battles that could (or even should) be included -- besides the three named above, how about the Battle of Lepanto, or the Siege of Constantinople? I haven't thought this through, and one would need to make some hard choices before the list would become too long, but at the very least this article is thought-provoking, which is a good sign, in my book. (I must confess, I am also partial to Victor Davis Hanson--I like his stuff a lot.) So I say, give the article a chance! Turgidson 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The terms used in the article title would have to be explained at great length to justify it with respect to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The concept of the article appears to be controversial in that it assumes a non-problematic "European civilisation" whose existence is threatened by forces from outside. Factual information can easily be merged into more relevant topics --Dystopos 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep I created a wikipedia account because of votes like this. Political correctness rules the day. People don't want to accept the Greeks kicked the stuffing out of the Persians for 3 days though outnumbered 100-1. The Romans handed Attila his hind parts, and Charles kicked the Arabs clean out of Europe. But God forbid anyone tell the truth, least we offend someone's sensibilities. Keep this article, which is plainly true. Finishedwithschool 17:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ANARCHY, all right? Mind your language please. Tazmaniacs 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ANARCHY, You mind your own language. Other people here put up with your calling them anti-Muslim or Nazis for opposing your particular agenda, and you dare to say my language is violating wikidpedia rules? Mind your own manners. Finishedwithschool 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep appears to be well sourced from notable people. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Note: because of the long comments which followed an exchange of comments in the beginning of this Afd nomination, I've taken the liberty to move them here, for better reading of the page. I hope this doesn't disturb any one. Please include any long comments under this section. Tazmaniacs 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. First, please assume good faith. Second, how can you really argue that this is not OR, since it relies on the very ill-defined concept of "European civilization" (not even adressing the questions about which battles should be included in this so-called "macrohistory" - where does this concept comes from? - and on which criterias). And, notwithstanding the question of the coherence of the concept of "civilization", what do you call "Europe"? An geographical expression, as Charles de Gaulle used to say, which went from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural mountains? Or does it includes parts of Russia? Or should it exclude Russia, although it is a country which has been very closely related to European culture? Or do you mean European Union? What about Eastern Europe, which lived under a communist regime so long? And the UK, do they belong to Europe, although they're not part of the European continent? But fifty years ago the EU had only six countries, and before didn't exist (so how can you have battles defending the EU before its existence?) Alf photoman's opposition between "European civilization" and "Muslims" is POV, and was the subject of a strong debate between EU countries during the drafting of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), some arguing that "Christianism" was part of "European identity", while others argued that secularism was more important and that Europe was not inherently Christian (see History of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe#Mention of Christianity in the preamble). So, Jews are not part of "European civilization"? What a nice thought... So, why shouldn't we argue that "European civilization" was defended by the Third Reich, and that it's last battle, which it lost, was in 1945 against the Allies? PS: the very example of Charles Martel and the 721 Battle of Toulouse, which more or less tends to accredit the thesis that the 7 centuries (!) of Al-Andalus were some sort of parenthesis, not to say "alien parasite" on the Christian Europe, is not only OR, but simple racism and ignorance of the huge importance of Islam for this so-called "European civilization". A simple example would be to recall that Aristotle and Plato were transmitted to the Middle Ages thanks to the works of Muslim philosophesr such as Averroes, who was called "The Commentator" by Thomas Aquinas, founder of... the most important philosophical doctrine of Christianism on which today's Roman Catholic Church (which, sorry, does not represent that much Europeans any more, and this started since the Reformation in the 16th century). Not to recall the importance of the Persian Avicenna for Western philosophy, but the author of this article obviously ignores that philosophy is part of that "European civilization." Of course, some prefer to celebrate the Reconquista, the expulsion of the Muslims and the Jews, the Inquisition and the Crusades. Not in my name, sorry! Tazmaniacs 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you had 'good faith' you would have asked the author to supply source and confront him over POV issues. Instead you just bring the article straight here hoping the whole lot is chucked into the bin.--Dacium 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We should not assume that Adolf and his gang of loonies wanted to defend Europe or European culture because their self proclaimed intent was to supplant the European culture with their own amalgam of loonacities they were making up as they went along. By the way, I don't think that Attila and his gang were Muslims (but from the East), yet the battle against them (aiding the Romans) was what at the end of the day formed the Frank identity, which later formed the first Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (took 400 years but what the heck...) whose first aim was to convert Eastern Barbarians to Christianism (such as the Saxons, the Allemande and so on) and later the Moorish invaders (sic.) in Spain. And no, I don't think these battles formed the European civilization, but surely they formed the European identity. Alf photoman 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss what you think, but to discuss the legitimacy of this article. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, thank you. The disagreement between us is a clear sign that we don't agree on what "European identity" is, if there is such an "identity", so the article is built on sand and fascist POV. PS: beside, you obviously know nothing either of Nazi Germany if you claim that they didn't think they were defending "European civilization." Tazmaniacs 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they were intent on exterminating several vital components of European culture, such as the Slaws to start with and all other non-Aryans (whatever that is) to end with and their cultural achievements with it, besides especially in this case it is not what I think but I am citing (not verbatim) Mein Kampf. But certainly we don't seem to agree on what European identity, while you are quoting what it should be I am quoting what renowned authors define it as. And buy the way, I take offense in being labeled as fascist because too many of my family died because of them or fighting against them Alf photoman 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for offensing you. I have to insist that the title of this article is a source of continuing ideological debates which are best kept to a political forum, which Wikipedia is not. I am not quoting what "European identity" should be, I am pointing out that there is no single definition of that, as shown by the debate over the inclusion, or not, of Christianity to the preamble of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, debate which ended with the decision not to include it. I think this provides sufficient sources for my claim that this article is ill-named and should be deleted. Its author may include its content in History of Europe, where it belongs. I am not even adressing the concept of "macrohistory", in particular when it refers to "battles", sending for this to Fernand Braudel's work concerning long tendencies in history (he talked about the Mediterranean Sea, not about soldiers). Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets cool this, sincerely I don't like the content of the article either and I abhor the idea of wars being nation building, but that does not take away the evidence that it is factual, or at least generally accepted by historians. This has nothing to do with what we like or we don't like and that is the difference between history and the pamphlet of a political movement Alf photoman 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is precisely this: historians don't agree on what constitutes the "identity" of the "European civilisation" (assuming there is such an "European civilisation", which, for the sake of not engaging in philosophical debates, I will temporary accord you), much less on the concept of a "macrohistory" (if there really is such a concept), so the whole article falls under OR. The "factual evidence", as you put it, such as, let's say, the fact that there was in 732 a battle in Poitiers, headed on the French side by [[Charles Martel], does not entail the ideological interpretation that this event was a "macrohistorical battle" on which depended the fate of European existence. In fact, I don't see why, if the battle had been lost by Charles Martel, the existence of Europe would have been endangered. It would have been different, which is not the same. But the fact that Al-Andalus existed in modern Spain for 7th centuries did not "destroy European identity" (sic). All the factual events cited in this article should be moved to History of Europe, which is a NPOV title, and if the author wants to argue that they had "macrohistorical importance for the destiny of European civilization" (in particular the Christian part of this "civilization", leaving out Bosnians because, although they are a European ethnic group, they don't have the luck to fit into this ideological reading of history which excludes Muslims from it), well, let him argue that in a NPOV article: History of Europe. You can't seriously say this entry has got a NPOV name, and much less back-it up with serious sources. I have already cited the debate about the European Constitution, I think this is enough source for a Wikipedia debate. We all have more important things to do than political arguing here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Tazmaniacs that we need to wind down the level of rhetoric, and stop the naming calling first and foremost. Then a better title needs to be found. I personally do believe the article is worth keeping though its present title needs changing, and it needs to be sourced - it's biggest weakness is the lack of references, which I am beginning to rectify. As to Tours, I think Bury - one of the truly great giants in the field of history - said it best: John Bagnell Bury, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours… has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.” Let us discuss this rationally, and no one engage in accusing those of differing opinions of bad faith. old windy bear 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't build a 21st century Encyclopedia on historical accounts of the early 20th century. Would you imagine what kind of account of World War I it would do? With, for example, a section supporting the French views of the epoch, and calling Germans names, while the other would support Germany, and insult French? Or something about colonialism calling Black people "niggers" and "barbarians"? No, all my respect for Bury, but there have been some progress since in historical research and views, and Bury rather belongs to historiography, as do all historians from this period. This article should be deleted, because the name is very POV, and its content transfered (that's not difficult) to History of Europe. I can't see any other way to find a consensual decision, and I don't know why you don't consider this simple solution: the list of battles will remain, just as part of the History of Europe, instead of some Original Research concerning "macrohistory" (not to say "European civilization")? Tazmaniacs 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember the battle fought over Tours on wikipedia, it was really ugly - of course people don't mention Victor Davis Hanson and William E. Watson, two of the most respected historians of this era, both of whom say today that Tours was a battle of incredible importance. However, you may have suggested a way to settle this without a long drawn out fight - I would certainly be amicable to change the title and leave the list, remaining as some sort of subtitle to the History of Europe. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. We can debate the individual battles, such as Tours, afterwards, but I certainly think your suggestion that the list remain, but retitled to remove the offensive wording is a reasonable and fair solution. I owe you an apology for saying you were only acting out of POV. In attacking your motives, I was doing the very thing I was condemning, and I apologize. I like your idea of leaving the list of battles but retitling it, and old windy bear has begun referencing the entire article, and I will help him source each article. Stillstudying 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how historians are valued, but there are reputable scholars considering the battle of Tours of little importance (like Tomaž Mastnak for instance, which you will find in the same article on Tours). Also while mentioning Hanson, one should remember his main theory but also his conflicts like the one with Jared Diamond (the two proposing two different drives for progress: Hanson - an aggresive culture of warfare and pragmatism and "democratical values", Diamond - an environmental preconditioning), and realize that when some people argue for macrohistorical importance, actually they speak within an ideological framework, within a paradigm, therefore their assessment is strictly conditioned by their premises (and not by some premises with quasi-universal acceptance in various historiographies worldwide). My point is when someone invokes a historian like Hanson and represents his POV, he actually represents his whole theory of how the world is changing/progressing. Therefore even if a scholarly reference would argue for a series of battles (I am not sure if Hanson argues the battles he chose to be all of macrohistorical importance or just examples to promote his theory), that would be at best only a POV which furthermore needs balanced by other POVs. And last, but not at least, the POV supporting macrohistorical importance relies most often on speculation and at best analogies (for the case of Tours: that Islam would further advance in Europe, that Ummayads would have continued a conquest in Gaul or furthermore in other European lands, that the ascension of Charlemagne would have been eclipsed by the insuccess of Martel to stop the Muslim forces at Tours, that the situation of Gaul would be the same as the situation of Iberian peninsula etc.), which even when coming from scholars, they still should be taken as they are - simple claims, not actual arguments. Of course, it shouldn't be us, the editors, pointing that but we can invoke those scholars debunking these myths (and as I mentioned before, for the case we're discussing there are already references in the article on Tours). The burden of proof lies on those claiming the macrohistorical importance (i.e. the positive claim) and just saying the world would have been drastically changed it doesn't make it so. Daizus 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, every historian had his or her own perspective, or philosophy, which you could call point of view if you want. But the wikipedia policy is simple: we are barred, as editors, from interpreting anything, and can only cite the original scholars and their theories. So while Hanson may have had a framework he put Tours in, believing that it fit into his theory that the Carolingian control of Europe, and the feudal systems which would carry Europe through the Dark Ages after Rome's fall were assured by Charles Martel's signal victory at Tours, it really does not matter. We won't settle the Tours argument here - oldwindybear and others have been fighting that for years! But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance. Hanson believes even if it was not in the grand scheme of stopping Umayyad conquest of Europe, it certainly was in that it assured Frankish dominion of Europe, which led it safely into the Middle Ages after Rome's collapse. Watson is even more fervant in praising Martel. My point is, you said their saying this battle changed the world does not make it so - but it does for our purposes. Hanson and Watson, just to name two, make detailed and strong cases for why that battle was a crucial turning point in history. Hanson in particular is a very well thought of military historian, and his analysis of the battle is first rate. Watson is another very well known modern historian who has made a very detailed and complex argument that historically this battle determined the fate of Europe as we know it. We can only cite them, and those in opposition, and let the reader decide. Stillstudying 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance" - this is still to be proved. I haven't seen anywhere in this article, in the article on Tours (or any other battles listed in this article) any decent attempt to review scholarship and historiographies (possibly none of us has the ability or the knowledge to do it, then we should refrain from hiding behind assumed majorities). Let me browse few historians from my own bookshelves: Pierre Riche (1989) claims "the battle of Poitiers for some was an unimportant military action stopping a raid while for others was a significant event for the destiny of Charles Martel and the Carolingians" (nothing about an iminent conquest of Islam/Ummeyads, though), while the same author justified with another occasion (1962: due to constant Arab raids and invasions, the dukes of Aquitania called Charles Martel and thus the southern Gaul was ruined and gradually fell under Austrasian/Carolingian authority (nothing particular about the battle of Poitiers). According to Lucien Musset (1965), Charles Martel intercepted the Arab offensive (heading for St. Martin sanctuary to pillage it) and defeated them but that didn't stop the Arabs which kept invading the southern parts of France in the following years (730s). The significance of Charles Martel southern campaigns was that the Austrasians started to focus on this rich region and attempt to drag it under their authority. My concern is - who and how has estabilished the "mainstream" of interpretations is to value the battle of Tours (or any of these battles) of macrohistorical importance?

Hanson's perspective is not given at all, so the work of the editors is not complete until it is shown the macrohistorical significance given by Hanson is tributary to his specific and perhaps controversial view (like someone nicely observed in one of the paragraphs below, ultimately a Hegelian view). As already suggested, perhaps it would be a nicer/more fruitful discussion (or even article), the opposition of paradigms: to take a simple case based on two of our examples so far - a historian of Annales like Pierre Riche and a historian like Hanson. Daizus 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope we agree to merge this content into History of Europe on the grounds that this article is bound to be OR and subject of endless, tiring, debates. I thank Achileus for his quick, and to the point, comment, refering to the 1851 work, which shows all the problems lifted by this article. Note that at the time, scholars didn't even feel the need to say "Europe", as "World" was a synonym. Europeans found after World War I that there were other states to take into account. I also do agree with Daizus, who points out that the reason behind our controverse concerns the philosophical nature of this article, rather than a simple historical account (I'm sorry for having taking the point a bit too seriously, but it is, in fact, a serious matter, which clearly provides a dividing line, for philosophical & political matters - that mustn't stop us from speaking like... Greeks in an Assembly...).

Thus, it is impossible to try to NPOV it by providing sources from historians;
first, as we all known, history is not a science in the same sense as physics, and can only tend towards objectivity, without ever achieving it (see Paul Ricoeur's interesting account on this).
Second, this article does not concerns a historical debate but a philosophical reading of history, mainly based on Hegel's reading. It doesn't ask itself if X did happen? or how much was the cost of grain before the French Revolution? And how was the climate during the time preceding the French Revolution? - see the works of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie on the history of climate, which, although Ladurie is known for microhistory (:), is certainly of macrohistorical interest - dinosaurs, anyone? ) It is, of course, on purpose that I refer to historians, such as Braudel or Le Roy Ladurie, who claim that battles are, after all, events which belong to a short time-span compared to long-time span such as climates or geographical influences (work on the Mediterranean Sea, the real "hero" of history for Braudel, and which is the basis of any geopolitics - i.e. seeing long tendencies and continuities between the Russian Empire & the Soviet Union, not to say today's Putin's Russia...)
Thus, apart of the problem of a "Western civilization" (which is, I think, a concept a bit more convincing than "European civilization", especially today), and of a very ideological attempt at identity politics, which may have been done, or not, on purposes (but which explains why I adamantly refuse this pseudo-opposition between Islam and Christianism, which clearly is POV far from being mainstream), there is a real, philosophical problem, about the importance of battles in general, that is, of "macrohistorical battles". As someone pointed out at the very first of this Afd, "macrohistorical battle" is a contradiction in terms. Referring to the historians above, I agree with him. Beside merging the content of this article into History of Europe, Philosophy of history might be an article that will interest you — it is a passionating subject! To recall you that there are very different perspectives on this "philosophy of history", I'll recall Nietzsche's words here, concerning "Great Events":

Ye understand how to roar and obscure with ashes! Ye are the best

braggarts, and have sufficiently learned the art of making dregs boil.
Where ye are, there must always be dregs at hand, and much that is spongy, hollow, and compressed: it wanteth to have freedom.
'Freedom' ye all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them.
And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events--are not our noisiest, but our stillest hours.
Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; INAUDIBLY it revolveth.
And just own to it! Little had ever taken place when thy noise and smoke passed away. What, if a city did become a mummy, and a statue lay in the mud!
And this do I say also to the o'erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud...

Thus Spake Zarathustra, II, "On Great Events"

If there is such a thing as a "European civilization", one thing is sure: it is not a fixed, permanent, essential identity, to which we should refer to as a myth which must governs our politics. "European civilization" is what we make of it, and if ("with 'if', says a saying, "you can put Paris into a bottle"...) the Third Reich had won, than Europe would still exist, although it would be certainly sad. "If" Charles Martel had not won, than maybe Al Andalus would have extended itself, and the wonders of that place, and its tolerance towards Christians and Jews, and its amazing knowledge concerning architecture, medicine, philosophy, etc., would have permit Europe to avoid the Wars of Religion, the dark Middle Ages (which were not as dark as we think they were), and immediately pass to the bright Renaissance and then Enlightenment... One needn't be Muslim to acclaim the wonders of Al Andalus, especially compared to the dark period that succeeded to it, and not buy the fairy tale that "Islam" is a threat to so-called European identity. Around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve... indeed Tazmaniacs 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can support renaming this, or somehow putting it with the history of Europe. Tazmaniacs are you aware that Sir Arthur Clarke, the famous science fiction writer, helped create a number of computer models that postulated "what ifs" and asked what would have happened if, say, the Umyyad's had won at Tours, and Martel had been killed. The results are astonding. According to the computer models, Al Andalus would have extended itself, and Europe would have avoided all of the wars, the cruelities of the Middle Ages, the Crusades, with all the attendant violence and visciousness, and humanity would have reached the stars by now. I am not saying these models were correct, but they certainly exist, and make a strong argument that the pro-western bias is not necessarily correct, and Charles Martel, while a national hero in Germany and France, did not do the world good when he ended the expansion of Al Andalus Stillstudying 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NO Deletion!

NO DELETION, but I have no trouble agreeing to renaming the article and putting it with the History of Europe. As to the claim that Hanson did not address Tours as a battle of macrohistorical importance, please read "Culture and Carnage: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power." On page 167:

"Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates."

This is pretty clearly an analysis that states flatly that this battle was absolutely vital in the development of Europe as we know it today. Whether that is a "good" or "bad" thing depends on your perspective. William Watson, one of America's better known historians in this generation, says of Tours:

"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."

Noted educator Dexter B. Wakefield writes, "A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg." So for those who claim that Tours is not a landmark event in western history, sorry, most historians, early, mid, and modern, disagree. old windy bear 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most historians? How many historians have talked about this battle? Hundreds? Thousands? How many can you list? Even you quoted Hanson with "Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance". On what grounds do you assume these "recent scholars" are actually a minority? Hanson himself is not supporting this view. Daizus 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is being rewritten, and heavily sourced, and should be judged then

I did not write the article, but am rewriting it, putting in opposing viewpoints, and sourcing it massively. But the sources have to be cited correctly. People who depend on Hanson -- and it is understandable, as he is one of our foremost military historians! -- need to go READ Hanson, who very carefully dismantles the theory that Tours/Poitiers was merely a raid, and shows how Martel and his men put an end to the Islamic wave that had swept aside empires on three continents, see Hanson summarizing the long term influence historically of this battle, Page 167:.

"What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuence of the successful western defense of Europe. Flush from his victory at Poitiers, Charles went on to clear southern France from Islamic invaders for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundation of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and avaiable troops from local estates."

Hanson gives an extremely detailed military analysis of why this battle was so vital to western history - citing many times the sources for this being a macrohistorical victory "saving" Europe, "the great land" as it was called by the Umayyads, as he explains why those holding the thesis that it was merely a raid are historically and militarily wrong. Hanson cites Gibbon, Ranke, Creasy, Oman, Fuller, and quoted the great german military historian Hans Delbruck, who said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (The Barbarian Invasions, page 441.) After Tours, Hanson said, quoting Oman, "for the future we hear of Frankish invasions of Spain, not Saracen INvasions of Gaul!" (The Dark Ages Pages 476-918, 299). He talks about Martel's remarkable ability to unify warring tribes to face the Islamic invasion, quoting Constantine, War in the Middle Ages. Hanson closed his article by assessing why Europeans adapted so easily to modern warfare by saying on page 169:

"they were not the products of a nomadic horse people, tribal society, or even theocratic autocracy, but drew their heritige from tough foot soldiers...the type of men who formed a veritable wall of ice at Poitiers and so beat Abd ar-Rahman back."

You need to read Hanson's works, which very clearly and very systematically explain why this battle is of such huge macrohistorical importance, and why Charles and his infantry were able to withstand the supposedly invincible Islamic cavalry, page 157:

"The legions had crumbled not because of organizational weaknesses, technological backwardness, or even problems of command and dsicipline, but because of the dearth of free citizens who were willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization. Such spirited warriors the barbarians had, and when they absorbed the blueprint of roman militarism, a number of effective local western armies arose - as the Muslims learned at Poitiers." old windy bear 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a fan of Hanson, I've rather browsed Carnage & Culture, read some of his reviews and materials in press, watched some of his debates with Jared Diamond, and generally I wasn't impressed by his arguments and I've read better arguments from the other side.

On this topic, Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me that Islam and Western Europe Christianity are two monolithic entities to make their theories work for me. Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me their take on the alternative histories is the correct one (that the Islamic forces from Spain would indeed pursue to conquer Gaul, that if Martel would have lost a battle he'd have lose the entire Gaul to Arabs, that if Arabs eventually would have invaded the entire Gaul, the reconquest would be similar with Spanish Reconquista, etc., etc. - so many speculations and assertions and so little evidence for it).

Also when someone quotes rather obsolete historians really doesn't make a good impression (unless he tries to evoke a historiographical tradition). No offense, but historians relying on Gibbon are in my eyes like physicists relying on Newton. Relying on Creasy, von Ranke, Oman, Fuller looks also obsolete. I mean, they may have valueable ideas, but they can't be simply quoted as authorities for the historical studies of the 21st century! You can evoke them, but no more. Several decades it is a long time in this field, though I like their writing I have my inherent doubts even when I'm reading historians like Lucien Musset writing 4 decades ago. I know, I'm no position to reject secondary sources in being present in the Wiki articles (unless I bring scholars to support my position), but I can show you there's no way to persuade me in quoting massively rather outdated scholarship.

Oh, and on Hanson quoting Oman - I hope you know there were other Saracen invasions in Gaul after Tours. Like the plundering of Arles and the much of the Provence region in 734 or the later invasions in Burgundy. See also Martel's campaigns in southern Gaul in 736-7 which are documented even here on Wikipedia. Daizus 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote you on the talk page of the article, I am just beginning a rewrite of an article I did not write. If you want a great account of the invasions circa 734-737, see Fouracre or Antonio Santosuosso who maintains the defeat of the Muslim forces at the River Berre by Martel was far more important than Tours. I am just in the beginning stages - I honestly believe you will feel the article is fair when I am done. As to the accounts of Martel's campaigns in Gaul in 736-7, if you check the history, I wrote most of what is here. Please give me time - I have ordered Hitti's book, and other material I need to finish this rewrite. You know as well as I the major problem now is generalizations without sourcing. I am going to rewrite putting in all views, sourced heavily.

As to Hanson, I think his best work lies in his analysis of why heavy infantry was the key to Frankish domination, (the history of heavy infantry, what it was, et al) and his analysis of cavalry versus Knights, and mixed force armies. I think he is right on those issues - on Tours, frankly, despite the time gone by, Bury convinces me more than anyone except Watson, who is the best we have today. (just my opinion, and I do NOT put it in articles)old windy bear 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Old windy bear, you really ought to seriously consider arguments opposed to you by a number of users, in particular concerning WP:OR and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Please also consider Achilleus' citation of the 1851 The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Working on the article as it currently stands does not answer to the objections that a number of users have opposed to it, don't invest energy on that without taking into account these criticisms. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and when serious criticisms are done, it is best to hear them. Why don't you rather work on History of Europe which needs help, and where you can speak about the same subject if you want? Tazmaniacs 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tazmaniacs If I did not hear the criticisms, I would not have taken on the chore of correcting what was wrong with the article. I did not write it, but I felt you and several other people, whose work I respect, had raised some very legitimate critques that needed addressing if the article was to stay. Please realize I don't have a personal interest in what happens in this vote. I didn't write the article. Since the original editor had not begun correcting it, I decided to, and in fact, had asked another editor I respect greatly to help me. I agree with you in part on the naming conflict, I only entered this dispute because someone brought this entire issue to my attention, and I decided that the article was salvagable, but had to be completely rewritten and sourced. Remember, one tenet of our work on wikipedia is editors are encouraged to be bold, and try to correct errors in fact and form where they are found. I don't think my motives, especially considering I am not the original author - can be questioned for being anything other than a simple desire to make this a better article. I think as many people support it as want to delete it - but you have a very valid point that there is no point in working on an article which may be deleted. I will wait for the result of the vote before investing any further energy and time in it. The books I ordered will be useful for work on other military history Carolingian articles and medieval issues in any event. As to the issue of using older historians, Gibbon is still cited as the paramount historian on Rome, despite his work being over 200 years old! Creasy is cited by Paul Davis, Mike Grant, and Hanson, just to name three modern scholars. Bury is still regarded as the great authority by some of the foregoing on the later Roman Empire. I don't think just the age of the work renders it obsolete. In fact, this whole issue of what role the work of those historians should play is a very interesting ongoing academic conflict. old windy bear 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

when is the vote over?

It is pretty obvious the vote is in favor of keeping the article at least long enough to see if we can source it and rewrite and retitle it. When is the vote formally over, so we can begin correting the things which need doing? I have done some, but a LOT of work needs doing, and the way the vote looks, we need to get to it. (This vote does not mean the article is out of the woods, it just means, if it stays this way, that people want to see if can be corrected, which I pesonally think it can. I have asked a couple of really first rate editors to help, and I think it can be put in fine fettle. SO, when is the vote over, so we can get to it?)old windy bear 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to wait for the discussion to close before improving the article. Effective efforts to address the POV and original research problems mentioned above would certainly be a factor in this debate. --Dystopos 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had originally stopped because Tazmaniacs strongly suggested - see above - that i wait until the vote was over. If you go look at the article, I have been steadily working on it, though not to the extent I intend to. I intend to rewrite it completely, once we - and I need input from other editors - agree on which battles to list, from which books to pull the list. On the battles presently in the article, look at the recent changes, and I think you will see a huge difference already. old windy bear 02:36, 28 February 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 Merge to Heartland League. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

Mid-America League

Mid-America League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball league which operated for one season. Don't be fooled by the blue links for the teams - they just redirect back to the league page. Just 436 Ghits for any league named Mid-America League, which falls to 80 when the word baseball is added. League later became the Heartland League, so if anything, this information should go there. fuzzy510 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article itself does a good enough explanation of how it isn't notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Fuzzy510. What a suspiciously-created article, complete with all teams as circular links! I doubt that any of these teams have a hope of being notable enough to have their own page, so the links to them are silly—I have removed them. But as to the nom, what makes a league "notable"? "Small, small geography, short-lived" is certainly gonna cut down on the ghits (which isn't the be-all/end-all of notability anyway). I just added a ref to the article, which itself cites two published and reliable-sounding sources, so the thing is at least worthy of coverage in published works about minor-league baseball. But given that there's not much to say and the league was short-lived (reincarnating as another short-lived one about which there also doesn't appear to be much to say) maybe better to have a single article about them and their timeline than two more isolated articles. DMacks 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Violation of WP:V and WP:RS, since only source is an article from another wiki. This particular piece of information cannot be verified.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That ref, itself not reliable on its face, does list several hard-copy refs, which I have now added to the WP article. Don't know for certain the exact contents of those texts (hello pre-everything-digital age), but they do actually exist and seem likely that they would contain info to support the WP article. DMacks 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into latter team's article, per fuzzy. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Heartland League, which appears to be largely the same operation, just with a different name. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge --Mattarata 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Resolute 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. C56C 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Heartland League. Daniel5127 | Talk 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvageable per above. John Reaves (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge --MarlaB 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has now been referenced and generally contains relevant information, one to keep.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per pretty much everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Heartland League per the reference I added to the Mid-America League article. Someone interested in independent baseball may wish to review the articles contributed to by 24.14.74.243 with the idea of merging many of them into Independent baseball-- Jreferee 16:17, 21 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Miss Venezuela 2001

Miss Venezuela 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft:winners name already in the main article (which is a train wreck in itself). User is creating them from 2006 backwards, so 2000 will probably appear by the time this AfD is complete. Edit: it has (here), and it's been CSD A7'd

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

Miss_Venezuela_2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss_Venezuela_2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss_Venezuela_2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss_Venezuela_2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss_Venezuela_2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EliminatorJR 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also adding the following related pages to this AfD (for consistency), although I oppose deletion: -- Black Falcon 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Miss_Venezuela_1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss_Venezuela_2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Weak Delete As the articles stand, they are not worth keeping. However, if some real content (and sources) are added, they should be kept. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see a need for separate articles on each year. And nom is right about the main article. It could be cut to a quarter its size and probably much more than that. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of people, the articles are not verifiable, they do not provide reliable sources, and then can be merged into Miss Venezuela.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep because in my mind i do think this article can be expanded and could be made into a good articleOo7565 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While it is merely a list at the moment, its useful info and has the potential to be a good stub with an appropriate blurb at the top. If I wanted info about the comp, this would be better than nothing, and you'd be surprised, more people are willing to edit an existing article to fill with info than are willing to create a new one - because they get shot down so quickly. Therefore if it exists, people will be able to write about it. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. THE KING 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you wanted to know about the competition, wouldn't the Miss Venezuela article answer most of your questions? The individual pages don't answer any new questions except who won in a specific year (which sounds like a question that a directory could answer for you). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per The King. Also, similar lists exist for Miss Universe and Miss America. Having articles on each year of Miss Venezuela encourages us to give other countries' pageants fair coverage and therefore helps counter systemic bias. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. I don't see why the winners shouldn't be added to Miss Venezuela. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per The King. The articles have existed less than a day before they were nominated for deletion. However, I would urge the articles' creator to address the concerns raised in this AfD (adding other real-world content, but most importantly sourcing the information) before creating any new ones. -- Black Falcon 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to something like List of Miss Venezuela 2001 contestants. Part Deux 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete per Ed MarlaB 13:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Directory, WP:RS it fails both of these and its general relevance on wikipedia is low if not non-existent.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless a source is provided for the names by the end of the AFD. If it is, then rename per Part Deux to List of Miss Venezuela 2001 contestants. An unsourced list of names is unacceptable, and the creator of the areticles should reference his work rather than rushing to create more unsourced lists, which fail WP:V and WP:RS. Inkpaduta 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Unsourced" is not the same thing as "unsourceable," and if the winners of these contests are worthy of an article anywhere, they are worthy of an article about Venezuela's competition. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am also adding the 1999 and 2000 lists of contestants to this AfD for consistency, although I oppose their deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Sources. I have added sources for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 contests. The source for 2002-2006 is http://www.missvenezuela.com/ (click the appropriate year link at the bottom right corner). The only thing now is to give some time for the lists to be turned into more encyclopedic-looking articles. I would recommend against creating lists for additional years until these articles are cleaned up and/or a standard is established for how these articles ought to look. -- Black Falcon 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per King Lugnuts 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. The only article that passes WP:ORG is Miss Venezuela. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful info. Kolindigo 06:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe that, whilst it may be useful for those researching the history of the contest, it falls into the realms of indiscriminate information. We do not need a list of all the also-rans in this, nor any other contest for each and every year a contest takes place. Ohconfucius 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These subjects could have articles, in terms of notability I would say that a national beauty contest has sufficient interest to pass the bar. But, these are not articles on the contest but simply a list of the regional "misses" and that is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please consider that these articles were nominated for deletion only minutes or hours after their creation. I agree that they cannot stay as they are, but they weren't even given a chance to expand/improve. -- Black Falcon 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not remotely useful. Put it on the spanish Wikipedia. - Gilliam 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. Miss USA has articles for 2000 to 2007 editions. why can't Venezuela? --RebSkii 18:09, 24 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. Davnel03 25th February

Grand Slam Championship

Grand Slam Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is almost completely unsourced, and the only source it lists is unofficial and known to use original research. I don't believe that any sources exist due to the fact that many sources were searched for during to course of recent disputes at Talk:Triple Crown Championship. The subject is notable, but not verifiable. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft that belongs on a wrestling Wiki instead. RobJ1981 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.No different than a Super Bowl article, it's just the sport is less popular.Rlevse 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Disputed, no proper sources are found other than a mention in passing on a WWE website and an essay from a fan site. It's total OR and it is never mentioned on television and people with this supposed honor are never referred as that outside of hardcore wrestling fans. This and the Triple Crown page should go. Booshakla 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep I don't know much about this, but from the minimal sources available, this appears to be a valid term and a very important accomplishment of the sport. In comparison, one would not, for example, delete the Triple crown (baseball) article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There needs to be multiple sources, not something on a website in passing.
• Obvious keep - notable subject, something people would search for on wikipedia. THE KING 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I highly doubt this is something that someone would search for here, get specific reasoning if you want to prove an "obvious keep"
• Strong Keep - Used MANY times on TV over the years and the official website as an important accomplishment for guys like Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Kurt Angle. --Maestro25 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have watched WWE TV for years and have not heard it once. Prove it. Booshakla 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? WWE made a big deal when Shawn Michaels became the first Grand Slam winner. WWE also mentions it in both Shawn Michaels profile [3] and Triple H's profile [4]. TJ Spyke 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI actually heard in yesterday on the radio in a Scott Ferrall interview with Kurt Angle on Sirius Citicat 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• The term is real, the problem is there are disputes (like whether the US Title counts or not). TJ Spyke 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Maestro25 reasonsOo7565 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After some intense Googling, the only time I could find this term used in this context is the fan site the article lists as a reference. Can any of the editors voting keep point to a legit wrestling publication that uses this term? I could change my mind, with a few actual sources, but I'm skeptical at best. --Djrobgordon 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Keep due to sources added while I was writing my previous comment. --Djrobgordon 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - what sources? There is nothing but the fan site listed. Also, to other user, remember that notability does not equal verifiability, and an article must have both to be Wiki material. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think he meant the sources I provided, which were to show it does exists. I haven't made up my mind which way to vote yet. TJ Spyke 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I wasn't aware that its existence was in dispute. Good sources that define what it is exactly and what titles are parts of it don't exist. That is what I was saying. There isn't a definition, so an article that isn't OR is impossible. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete This seems to err on the side of non-notability, but I'd happily be proven wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard it referred to on WWE television plenty of times in the past, they pushed the term pretty hard when Shawn Michaels became the first "Grand Slam" champion so it's not like it's a made up thing. MPJ-DK 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The term is well known and this article is unlikely to chamge in the future because there are not many Euro champs left who could win a World title. Darrenhusted 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although this is an OK article its not relevant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Davnel03 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even though WWE hasn't used the term in a long time, it doesn't mean we should get rid of it. For example, even though the old American Football League doesn't exist anymore, should we wipe that article out as well because they merged with the NFL? The Slam is a noted accomplishment with sources to back it up, it should stay. Ohgltxg 23:25 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Popular professional wrestling term still used. Notable, period. Verifiable is a tough sunject though, I am still doing research The Hybrid, so I think we should hold off for a while until I give up researching for it. — Moe 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above, and no I wont prove it, or provide any sources, so don't waste both our times demanding I do so! Jcuk 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As pointed out in the article itself, the very term "Grand Slam" varies per the promotional needs of WWE. Shawn Michaels has been dubbed an achiever of the Grand Slam. Fine. Add that info briefly to his article. Suriel1981 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty flawed logic. True, Shawn Michaels when he won the title was considered the Grand Slam Champion, since he was the only one to accomplish it. If he was the only one to win it, I would agree, merge it into Shawn Michaels article, but you can't since 6 or 7 (maybe 8 pending who's definition you would like to use) have accomplished this. Having a dispute on what definition it is (if we could agree on one definition) is no reason to delete the whole thing and say it never existed. — Moe 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite a reference from WWE themselves giving their current definition of what the "Grand Slam" is then I'll change my vote. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DUH! That has been the situation there for over 4 months. No source doesn't equal deletion of article. We have definitions, but we can't agree on which ones. WWE hardly chimes in on things and fails to post things like that. Asking for a source by WWE doesn't work anyways since we don't usually like primary sources, we usually need secondary sources from a outside source. The issue is not if that it exists. The problem is that we can't agree on the correct definition. — Moe 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Suriel1981, if the article relating to Grand Slam goes then all wrestler listed on this article will have to have all comments about the Grand Slam removed, because you can't "add that info briefly" to the wrestlers individual articles if the actual Grand Slam article no longer exists. If the Grand Slam article goes then all references to it must be purged as well, otherwise this will create an argument to re-do the Grand Slam Article. Darrenhusted 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the references have to go? A simple addition to an article saying something along the lines of this title win meant that <insert name> had held every recognised title belt, an achievement referred to as the "Grand Slam". That's all it needs. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think in my comment I explained why all references would have to go, because there would be temptation to re-create the article to explain what a WWE Grand Slam is. Darrenhusted 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In which case it could presumably receive speedy delete treatment. I understand your thinking but I don't personally agree. Suriel1981 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Read Shawn Michaels book. It states that during a meeting before he was set to win the IC Title, one of the producers spoke up and said that if they went through with the win, that would mean Shawn has won every title in the WWE. Vince then said that it was important and they needed a name for it. That was the birth of the Grand Slam Champion. User:Killswitch Engage
• Strong Keep To me, this article and the Triple Crown article are too related to have one exist without the other. GS borrows heavily from TC, and if the TC article stays, this should too. Also, enough people have given enough sources to keep it. Anakinjmt 07:24, 28 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

Paavo Härkönen

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

Paavo harkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Paavo Harkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Paavo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

i'm not sure, but i have two concerns about this article. first is whether it's notable. paavo basically wrote the music for dransik, whose article was deleted. second is whether it currently can actually be expanded to anything more than a ministub. using a simple google search, i wasn't able to find anything more than is now in the article, even his birthdate, for example. Bob A 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've sure never heard of him, and I can't find anything on google either. His article on Swedish Wikipedia is a one-sentence stub, and (Oddly) he doesn't even have an article on the Finnish Wikipedia. If none of his compositions or contributions are deemed notable enough to have articles, I'm not sure how he is either. Delete unless notability is established. Eeblefish 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • comment - i created the swedish wikipedia article, as well as the lojban one. Bob A 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Given the deleted articles, it would follow in suite that person isn't notable either. John Reaves (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough relevant information, not written in the expected tone of encyclopedia articles, fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. Inkpaduta 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, if the other article was deleted I can't see the need for this one. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, living person, no sources, no references Alf photoman 16:38, 21 February 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 Viridae^Talk 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Super Stunt"

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

The only source for this article appears to be a claim on the perpetrators website. Delete unless reliable sources are found.-- JeremyA 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It is false self recognition, and deserves to be deleted. It is exploiting wikipedia and contributing false information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.115.161.98 (talk • contribs).
• Strong Delete So let me get this right - this is an article for a stunt which may or may not have happened, didn't work properly if it did, and even if it had, the perpetrator won't say what it was? Doesn't sound *too* encyclopedic to me, oddly. EliminatorJR 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• The statements on the page are completely false and only a marketing ploy. Delete unless any other use is found.-- Cracker917

• Both Cracker917 and the unsigned above (63.115.161.98) have repeatedly and abusively vandalized the article. Their input in this matter should be disregarded. Notmydesk 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above no reason to have this article on hereOo7565 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely not encyclopedic content. --Haemo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to zug.com and Cockeyed.com. Don't need the whole write-up here, just a line or two like what's already in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• To all you haters, explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale%27s_%22We_Suck%22_Prank stays then. Yah, thought so... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.44.116 (talk • contribs).
  • It is attributed to 9 reliable sources. —JeremyA 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per EliminatorJR. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:35, 21 February 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. Reliable, independent sources are key here. If someone feels a desire to improve it and add such sources to the article, please contact me and I will move it into your userspace. Grandmasterka 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamebiz 2

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

Original prod: No notability claim, no reliable sources for the information here, deprodded with the comment The sources may be from a forum, but they're all referencing things said by the creator of the game, (who's name on the forum is ArndtDK). He posts information on there that's not on the website. Main concern: product not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, failing proposed guideline for software. ReyBrujo 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not even close to being independently sourced at the moment, and doubtless wouldn't meet notability even if it was. EliminatorJR 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Delete: There's quite a few examples of less-than-notable software in the Wikipedia. I'm not advocating acceptance of that fact as justification to keep sub-par articles, but I'd say that this article might find life as a subtext in another article. Rewrite to weak keep, otherwise delete. 71.109.127.31 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: As far as I can tell, this game is not notable, and the article itself is not, as the nominator says, independently sourced.--NeantHumain 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources to verify, either. --Shirahadasha 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. BJ^Talk 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement. MarlaB 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup This is a good article but it has no references and would need a bit of cleanup.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's true the sources aren't independent, but then the sources in the article do not give any contradictory claims, only simple facts. The sources could be removed if editors find them unnecessary; otherwise, the article is pretty well-written and, indeed, does meet the notability requirements more than the many other stubs considered for deletion I have seen. Aran|heru|nar 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a program that's gaining in popularity among the emulation community. Notable.Sockem 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is one of the more successful and popular games in the freeware scene, with 1466 downloads in the first three days alone. In my opinion any questions of notability are void in this case, although granted, the article could use a clean up. Neobros 11:35, 25 February 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 No consensus to delete; default keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:31Z

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

Anti-globalization and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Note: This is the second AFD nomination of this article. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism

Violates "What Wikipedia Is NOT": Wikipedia is not a soapbox or platform for personal opinion or agenda, etc. J.R. Hercules 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Doesn't seem too NPOV to me, but I wonder if we really need an article. I'd keep this one on a short leash. --N Shar 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm also not seeing too much NPOV there, but I'm still pretty iffy about keeping the article. As it is, it does seem like a soapbox article, and it reads a lot like a personal essay. If it's kept at all, I think it should be renamed Debate about anti-globalization and anti-semitism as suggested on the talk page -- and it needs a major rewrite, avoiding weasel words ("some writers have argued"...) If it violates policy, that's obviously merits deletion, but as is I'm leaning more towards renaming it and doing a major cleanup than deleting it outright. Eeblefish 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge: I have read multiple articles about a purported new wave of anti-Semitism within the New Left's anti-globalization or peace movements, but I don't think this intersection of topics in particular is notable enough for an article of its own. The controversy about a rebirth of anti-Semitism on the left bests belongs in the article on anti-Semitism itself.--NeantHumain 03:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This article appears to have been written with bias, so barring a rewrite to qualify for a merge, I vote delete. 71.109.127.31 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not NPOV that's easy to see. Seems covered in anti-semitism. Any usable content could be merged there.--John Lake 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP. This article appears to be on a point of view rather than an actual subject. Any legitimate content about a relationship between the two subjects can be described in the relevant articles. --Shirahadasha 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous comments. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nomination. .V. _[Talk|Email] 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nomination. MarlaB 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its just peoples thoughts its not valuable content, therefore failing WP:V and WP:NOT#SOAP.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination Manzhivago — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - No legitimate reason for deletion. As the refs show, there is a correlation. Deleting the article won't make the problem go away. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I took the time to read over the article's references. Many of them say little or nothing about the anti-globalization movement; their focus is on "the left" in general. In the Naomi Klein article, the anti-Semitism angle is focused on the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who showed up to at an anti-World Bank/IMF rally. But Le Pen is a far right-winger; he was there for the "free Palestine" rally, not the anti-globalization rally. The Toronto NOW article (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-03-18/news_story6.php), talks about the possible link between anti-Semitism and some of those who are opposed to the American neo-cons. It says nothing about any link between anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, except that it mentions a prominent anti-WTO activist who condemned an allegedly anti-Semitic Adbusters article. Doesn't exactly support your thesis, does it? And the references from FrontPage and Mark Strauss are inherently biased sources: FrontPage and Strauss' "Foreign Policy" journal are furiously PRO-globalization. If anything, the references provided for the article weaken, not strengthen, any argument for retention. J.R. Hercules 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The article was significantly improved today, mostly by SlimV. I just added another source, Walter Laqueur. Hope it addresses some concerns raised here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • No, it didn't address any concerns raised here. Curious how you didn't address a single point I mentioned earlier. Instead, you simply made the generic, unexplained statement that the article was "significantly improved today". J.R. Hercules 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Very POV & conflates criticism of Israeli military policy with anti-Jewish bigotry. Subject matter could be dealt with elsewhere. Also, why is one "anti" hyphenated, and not the other? --MacRusgail 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The page isn't well written, but there are reliable, scholarly sources available who explicitly address this issue, and who can be added to improve it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've tidied it a little and added some more material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are good sources discussing this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. If the article is deemed not to be compliant with WP:NPOV, it can be fixed. Lack of NPOV is not a reason for deleting an article. Is it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The primary issue isn't NPOV in of itself; the primary issue is that the article is a blatant violation of WP:SOAP. The article is NPOV by default. But even if some forced "balance" of opposing viewpoints were to be stringently applied in this case, it still wouldn't undo the overwhelming reality that the article itself exists as an utterly unencyclopediac point/counterpoint exchange of viewpoints. And that's classifying the article in the most charitable fashion I can think of; it's clear that there's a political, not scholarly, agenda underlying the article. J.R. Hercules 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Humus & Jossi; this is an encylopaedic topic with available sourcing, Tewfik^Talk 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to future recreation of an article on the subject (possibly at a better title). The current article is worse than no article as a starting point, and I think it makes more sense to include the topic in the main Anti-Semitism article for now, and split off later if it gets too long. --Delirium
• Delete as (essentially) a POV-fork. semper fictilis 03:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The issue is real. Antisemitism on the Left is real--even if it is exploited by defenders of Israeli poliies. Shameful that this issue is raised once again.--Cberlet 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - well cited to established, reliable publications. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm curious as to why you say the article's references are "well cited to established, reliable publications." Did you check the references out? If you did, you would have found that most of them don't even talk about any alleged link between anti-globalization and anti-semitism. A few of them do: 1) an archived 1999 opinion piece from an obscure Dutch group's website; 2) a hit-piece from the conservative frontpagemag.com site; and 3) Mark Strauss' article for Foreign Policy journal -- a journal whose very existence is based on the pro-globalization stance (which hardly qualifies it as an unbiased source for an encyclopedia article's information, especially for this particular encyclopedia article.) J.R. Hercules 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, and Paul Berman, Naomi Klein, and Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel of the Berlin Technical University. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Did you actually read those references? The Naomi Klein piece has her specifically saying the following: "The globalization movement isn’t anti-Semitic..." And yet, the Klein article was cited by a dishonest Wiki editor as an example of a link between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism? And the editor's rationale for making this connection? Why, Naomi Klein is "one of the leaders of the anti-globalization movement". Therefore, uh, there's a connection between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism (sarcasm). J.R. Hercules 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• For the closing admin: J.R. Hercules, who nominated the page for deletion, has posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour, asking people to vote here. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry, my notice to that talk page is in keeping with Afd etiquette. Much more so than inclusion on a themed deletion source page (an allowed practice I disagree with). J.R. Hercules 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, sourced and cited, puts many pieces together. Keep. --Shamir1 05:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sourced and cited, and deals with a major issue in responsible fashion. I have read the sources cited and they substantiate the article. Rjensen 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (being the nominator). J.R. Hercules 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's pretty self evident. THE KING 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's not: votes are automatically tallied at the end of the debate, and even the nominator needs to formally include his/her vote for it to be counted properly. J.R. Hercules 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: An AFD discussion is not a vote. Keep/Delete/etc. comments are a convenience to clarify recommendations by editors. Tallying isn't done "formally", but is based on the consensus of discussion participants not the quantities.--Leflyman^Talk 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tom Harrison; enough evidence from the Jerusalem Post *to* the Guardian. --tickle me 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. POV of the article is not a serious reason for deletion because it can be fixed, and deletion wont make the problem go away. This is a legitimate topic with adequate sources, so i see no reason for deletion. THE KING 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how the article meets the basic requirements for deletion. I do see an article that requires cleanup and an effort to improve it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this sad, and sourced, record of our perilous times. Satisfies WP:FACT. IZAK 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While controversial, the topic is a component of New antisemitism and is sourced to discussions in numerous publications. The best way to balance would be to provide sourcing which counter the claims, if such exist -- rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.--Leflyman^Talk 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Leflyman, Tom, Humus etc. The charge of soapboxing is easily countered with deleting it being whitewashing. The fact Naomi Klein needed to respond to the issue, means there is one. Better to improve the article. <<-armon->> 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for now since there appears to be a good effort at cleaning this up and adding sources. The first line of the article is in desperate need of a rewrite however, "Some writers and researchers have argued that there is rising acceptance of antisemitism within the anti-globalization movement" screams of WP:WEASEL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the main anti-semitism page. I'm not really sure this type of articles merits its own article. Yes, we are aware that there is a trend towards anti-semitism in some sectors of the global left, and that obviously, with some of these people also in the anti-globalization movement, this trend migrates to the latter movement. Again, this goes into what does and does not constitute an article on its own merit. I would argue for a section on secular anti-semitism to be created in the main anti-semitism page, whereby it could be made more congruent with the main article. The Prince 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, but unfortunately the phenomenon is too old and is/was too widespread. The main AS article is already too long and is being split. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - rather unbalanced at present, but there's no reason why that couldn't be addressed. Warofdreams talk 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unfortunate but very real established phenomenon. Satisfies content policies; NPOV issues should be addressed through the regular channels. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like an article about an observable phenomenon, in search of a more precise title. There is some NPOV in opposition to antisemitism, but I'm sure we can find someone who will add the pro-antiSemitism view. Gzuckier 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While we're on this antisemitic article binge, why not create a few other articles that have MUCH more relevance and source material available, namely Anti-Americanism and antisemitism, Anti-communism and antisemitism, and Anti-capitalism and antisemitism? --WassermannNYC 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A notable and documented phenomenon. Isarig 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatant POV violation with feeble "documentation" consisting mostly of ad hominem allegations and guilt-by-association, as pointed out by Editor review! and J.R. Hercules --Orange Mike 04:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is notable. --Bondego 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and previous comments. Daizus 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The people arguing for delete are actually trying to make a case, but I don't see much of that on the other side.Sockem 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• User's 10th edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Highly relevant and sourced and encyclopedic. Amoruso 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is well sourced. It appears to be an intersection of Anti Globalization and Antisemitism, and possibly also New Antisemitism. As such, given that it has fairly significant content, it can't easily be merged into any of them, IMO. Crum375 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per SV, Crum375, and JFW. JoshuaZ 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Commentary At this point, it would be useful to include some historical context regarding this article. Almost two years ago, it was subject to another Afd challenge. One of the principal defenders of the article from two years ago? User:SlimVirgin, who's back to lobby once again for the article's retention. This is what SlimVirgin has to say today in defense of keeping the article:
• "Keep. The page isn't well written, but there are reliable, scholarly sources available who explicitly address this issue, and who can be added to improve it."

• • "Comment. I've tidied it a little and added some more material."

Now contrast SlimVirgin's current remarks with what she said two years ago during the first Afd challenge:

• "Note: the article has been tidied and references have been added. The allegations are certainly notable: for example, there's an article about the issue on a website run by Yale University."

• • Keep. This does seem to be a legitimate topic judging by Google searches. I've tidied it up a bit, have added a couple of extra sources, have found links for the quotes already there, and have added a references section. The article needs to be expanded, and examples should be given of actions or statements by anti-globalization protestors that are regarded by others as anti-Semitic."

Well, it's nearly two full years later, and the "tidying up" from the first time around has turned into..."tidying up". If the article merely had to be "tidied up" two years ago, and yet its defenders are still saying that all that needs to be done is to apply some "tidying up", just how viable of an article could this be? J.R. Hercules 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she significantly improved it in April 2005, and improved it even more now. I can only surmise that you were making your comments to thank SlimVirgin for her tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia articles. It's becoming one of Wikipedia's best articles - no doubt that's why the discussion here is even more strongly in favour of keeping the article than in April 2005. If only the early commenters who almost unanimously voted "Delete" could have seen the article in its current condition, I'm sure the non-politically motivated among them would have voted quite differently - one can see how the trend has changed on this, concurrent with SlimVirgin's diligent work. Of course, Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress - no doubt someone will come along one day and improve it even more - odds are that person will again be SlimVirgin, she seems dedicated to actually helping Wikipedia, rather than just pushing a political agenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hercules, the reason my first attempt at tidying petered off was that I was confronted by editors who were trying to slant the article to imply there is no antisemitism in the movement, so I gave up and took the wretched thing off my watchlist. The only reason I returned was that I saw it was up for deletion again. This happens a lot around these articles — people try to fix them but get discouraged by the shenanigans. Aren't you glad your nomination led to its finally being improved and (it appears) kept? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it is notable, well sourced and documented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, sourced, and recent improvements by SV. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:34, 26 February 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 keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Carson

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

Subject of article does ot meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. On one album that does not show that it has charted. Nv8200p talk 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Very notable, I think. Googling "Clyde Carson" gets 64300 hits. (google). Member of The Team (band). ConDem^Talk 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A notable person will get over millions of hits. Most of the hits I see are MySpace, blogs and the like. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep according to allmusic.com, he has a forthcoming album on Capitol, a major label. [6] This article is an atrocity, but the subject is notable. --Djrobgordon 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria at WP:MUSIC is two released albums on a major label. -Nv8200p talk 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It meets WP:BIO and is generally and good article and meets WP:NN.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing at WP:BIO that this article meets. Can you plese be specific? This is not a good article. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, even though the subject is notable, the article is way below the standard for a living person due to WP:V, therefore should be deleted unless something happens within the next few days Alf photoman 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the solution to unverified information is to excise whatever specific claims cannot be verified, not to delete an entire article (including some verified claims) about someone notable. -Fagles 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ** He's one of the biggest new artists part of the hyphy movement. Although he might only have one solo album, he is lead rapper of the group "The team", which 3 albums out, all are available on itunes. Several of his songs have recieved heavy airplay in the bay area. This article definitely needs a some work on it though.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

Icarus Project

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

The Wikipedia article for the Icarus Project appears to be little more than an advertisement for this group's website. Nearly all the edits have been done by one user, and nearly all the references point back to the group's website. NeantHumain 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is only referenced by the subject website. Fails WP:V and WP:N. janejellyroll 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep due to the new sources added to the article. Subject site meets WP:N. My personal feeling is that the article as it stands is POV, with too much of the article being made up of direct quotes from the website, but those problems can be corrected. janejellyroll 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some third-party references, including a newspaper article from the East Bay Express and a Columbia News Service article. --Eastmain 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 1ne 08:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per new source. Also, if you think it is POV, the correct remedy is to fix it, not to delete it. If it's almost entirely written by one person, clearly no one tried to fix it yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. (solution to POV is first trying to fix it, not deletion) Mathmo ^Talk 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is an WP:ADVERT, it kept it would need major cleanup.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Mathmo and Mgm explained, WP:ADVERT does not require deletion of an NPOV article. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article should be rewritten in a neutral point of view, not deleted. I have tagged the article to be rewritten. -Fagles 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Interesting. - Kittybrewster 09:45, 22 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

Bikin dirty

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

Neologism Nv8200p talk 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Normally I'd say, move to the Wiktionary, but I don't think this should be there either. Eeblefish 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFT. Seems to be made up by a group of non-notable cyclers with the term having little to no use outside their group of friends. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a unnecessary definition, I'm not sure whether it even worth moving it to Wiktionary as it seems irrelevant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dic Def and unsourced and un verified--Dacium 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of neologisms.-Fagles 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, the article exactly reads like a dictionary entry. Wooyi 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, due to sourcing issues. (jarbarf) 00:19, 24 February 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

Novi Ligure Homicide

Novi Ligure Homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Event described in article does not meet WP:NOT guidelines. Edited: I've changed my opinion: the revised article should be kept. However, since the majority of the sources about this incident are in Italian, I'm not sure how much more info can be added to the article. Cue the Strings 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be relatively "normal" homicide (if any homicide can be called "normal", of course). No reliable sources; article does not assert notability. The article doesn't even state what country this happened in: Montenegro? Croatia? Switzerland? Italy? Vote changed to Keep thanks to editors for making article actually legible. I honestly didn't know that by "Torin" the original editor was discussing Turin/Torino - with the huge number of towns in Europe with names similar to "taurus" it's not correct to assume. --Charlene 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable homicide. Tragic, but non-notable. If there are reasons why it's significant in Italy (which seems to be where it took place), I'm all ears. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as there appears to be a level of notability in this affair now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a tragic but nn homicide unless sources can be provided to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, without reliable sources this could be a WP:BLP issue. I would err on the side of caution. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This tragic but I think we should consider moving it to Wikinews.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Googling the girl's name produces 105 sources, all in Italian. Apparently this murder case was notable in Italy, but I can't make too much sense of the sources. Needs the efforts of someone who can evaluate the sources (some appear to be print journalism) and incorporate into the article. Inkpaduta 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per total lack of context. This is not Wikinews, thus it fails WP:NOT an indescriminate amount of info (WP:NOTE). The "will this matter in 100 years?" test completely fails. Part Deux 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crimes require more: though they are often easily verified and sourceable through local, journalistic sources, this coverage is ephemeral and will tend to move on to the next crime and victim. Only a few become the subject of broader or abiding interest, and that's where we should draw the line. Nothing here shows that this story is other than a local tragedy. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the revised article, which goes into significantly more detail about why this particular homicide is a matter of abiding interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• The homicide was quite significant in Italy not only for the vast public attention (usually referring to Erika and Omar [7]), but also for the further reflection on the media respsonse for which there would also be English sources one of which academic. [8][9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. The links provided by User:Tikiwont establish that these murders were significant and were even the subject of serious academic study, meeting WP:V and WP:N. Of course, those sources should be added to the article. But the fact that a topic has a bad article does not mean that the topic is non-notable.-Fagles 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I briefly updated Novi Ligure Homicide to explain its importance.Fagles 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can confirme that the Novi Ligure Homicide was a notorius murder case in Italy of this century.If you search by Google the exact phrase "omicidio di novi ligure" novi ligure homicide in italian you will found 2570 matches.Lucifero4
• Keep A murder case that contributed to anti-immigration frenzy in Europe, meet notability. Wooyi 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This certainly seems notable, given the significant media exposure and a statement issued by the Minister of Justice among other politicians. MadMax 21:00, 23 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:08Z

HappySlip

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

Does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Nv8200p talk 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no references and none could be found with Google. BJ^Talk 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article definitely fails WP:ORG.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete HappySlip does not speak Tagalog and regrets it as I regret that it does not pass WP:ORG. Not even a notable internet fad. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:46, 21 February 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 speedy keep. This is Articles for deletion. It is not a means for solving content disputes between editors over an article, especially when both sides are saying that sources exist. Uncle G 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brake fade

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

When I first read the Brake fade article it was fairly concise although based on two items of folklore (that drums expand and that brake shoes produce gas, both effects separating brake shoe from drum). When I offered a rewrite, explaining the cause of brake fade, author "justanother" rejected it, replacing the original version. In successive exchanges "justanother" edited his article to spred it under several subheadings with no change to the cause of brake fade. This folklore is backed up by an article in an auto enthusiasts magazine that neither explains how it can occur or shows a scientific basis for the claimed effect. I explained the phenomenon, its cause and gave reference to a Michigan State University publication that corroberates my description. I also cite Wikipedia items that support my text.Jobst 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This is a sourced and notable article. Jobst rewrote the article as OR, deleting all sources and sourced material to present his novel theory that disk brakes do not experience fade when it a known phenomenon, just google disk + brake + fade. for 368,000 hits. Sheesh. Here is another source [10] on fade in mountain bike disks (same theory). I could go on and on. Jobst has tried every WP:DE trick from edit warring to fact-bombing, speedy delete the article cause he didn't like it, repeated prods, now AfD. For sole reference he offers a 1959 article by a college junior or senior in a dairy production program that contains the words "free from fade" in reference to disk brakes; that's it. Wrong, but certainly forgivable in a student publication when disk brakes were pretty new. Anyway, I reformatted the article without changing much specifically so that he could add his material on drum brake fade; a topic on which he seems very knowledgable. I went out of my way to be helpful; see the article talk page. But nope, it is his novel idea or nothing, I guess. PS, according to messages on my talk page, this is not the first go-round with him. --Justanother 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep it's a real phenomenon well noted in the press and other publications. Almost 20 news articles I can find in Feb 2007 alone and 418 hits in Google books - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep notable, verifiable, sourced. Please don't use the AFD process (or other deletion processes) for content disputes. Dave6 ^talk 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• "justanother" may have found 368,000 hits but when investigated they mostly repeat drum brake folklore, the man on the street not understanding servo and positive feedback. Many of these hits are bicycle brakes that have myriad light weight problems that compromise performance before getting to heavy braking. Their's is not fade but rather loss of hand lever travel from weak brake lines and contaminated brake fluid. That is not brake fade. In contrast, Bendix[11], a major automotive brake manufacturer, shows a disk brake and states that there is no fade, which is typical for aoutomotive brakes, except that it is such a non issue that no one, other than users of drum brakes, talks about it. You'll notice the disk is not drilled full of holes to let gas from the brake pads escape. The Bendix page is aimed at truck manufacturers who still use drum brakes... that fade. That is the only reason fade is mentioned. Truckers and many truck engineers have been so latherd with these tales that fade is "common knowledge"! Instead of imputing the Michigan State University author (shoot the messenger), a refutation of that engineering report would be more credible. This Brake fade article is important because somewhere science and folklore must be separated. Validated in Wikipedia may make folklore live for a long time.Jobst 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jobst, that is a great reference and I wish that you would use it to improve the article rather than to abuse the process here. It is clear from the article that friction fade is a factor on disk brakes and that Bendix has claimed to made a breakthrough to reduce it. Good for them! The issue of fluid fade is not addressed because Bendix is not selling brake fluid in that ad. --Justanother 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, content dispute which should be solved otherwise. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:32, 21 February 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 merge, nomination withdrawn, no delete votes cast. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic prophecy

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

this article is basically a duplicate of the article messiah. Bob A 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, the content itself is not bad, so I could support a merge, but I'd like to see further discussion on it first. FrozenPurpleCube 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • i was going to do that, but theres nothing to merge; messiah already has just about everything this article says arguably in a more organized way. Bob A 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If the content is already substantially similar, then merging the content will be easier. Personally, I would suggest differentiation, as I do see a difference between the messiah and the prophecies about them which this article should be covering. As a subject, I see that as sufficiently distinct subjects that two articles could exist. FrozenPurpleCube 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with the comment that "As a subject, I see that as sufficiently distinct subjects that two articles could exist". Mathmo ^Talk 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, when duplicate articles exist we merge and redirect (or just redirect if there is nothing to merge). It does never involve deletion of one of the articles, please see: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. No need to take stuff like this to AfD, you can do a merge whenever you see fit.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I agree, it does duplicate information in Messiah and also in the articles Messianic prophecy in Christianity, Islamic eschatology and Jewish Messiah; there's no need for a separate article. Any unique (sourced) information could be merged into those articles where it would be most appropriate.--Domitius 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• question - could someone tell what information needs merging? i don't see it. Bob A 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not the point, Bob A. When two articles are duplicate, we merge them. If that means adding info from one article to the other, thats good. If there is no information to add (because it already is all there), we simply make a redirect. We do not delete articles in these cases. This way the author history is preserved. Because the chance exists some people already have used info from article X to include in article Y prior to this and the GFDL requires all author history to be preserved, we merge and don't delete. As I suggested above, please read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • oh, right. i guess i wasn't thinking. in that case, should i merge them now or wait until the afd is over? Bob A 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep and merge - the nomination was made in error. Bob A 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to withdraw a nomination? How does one go about doing that? Will it have to be removed from the AFD lists?--Domitius 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • As no delete votes have been cast and there is agreement to merge, I'll close it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:30, 21 February 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. Grandmasterka 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pligg

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

This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source. Copycat website to original Digg.Mattarata 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable website. Article is promotional in nature. Resolute 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. As per Resolute. - Mike Beckham 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to fail WP:WEB. BJ^Talk 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely WP:WEB and WP:ORG.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete this software is cited in many news site as a concurrent of the original Digg service by the nature of making possible for anyone to easily create a category specific Digg like site, just have a web search! The notion of "copycat website to the original" is ludicrous, because Digg is a service and Pligg a software! Benoit rigaut 02:10, 26 February 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 speedy delete as admitted prank. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zack Vank

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

An elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Venk is not mentioned in any of the articles listed as source. The phrase "Zack Venk" gets zero Google hits. Djrobgordon 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Double checked. And go with per nom. Citicat 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, definitely a hoax. I googled "a surrealist with a bat" (supposedly Rick Reilly called him that), and came up with 2 hits -- Wikipedia, and this blog. The November 18 entry is a huge chat log, where they seem to be talking about making up a "Zack Vank" character and putting him on Wikipedia. The November 2 entry talks more about the hoax (aside: based on some of what I read there, I'm going to check "what links here" for things that need to be removed). This quote from the blog pretty much sums it up:

At this point, some of the Wikipedia staff get suspicious and propose that the article be deleted because "subject appears to be non-existant." You think? This of course begs the question why this is STILL up on Wikipedia, even though it's been almost two months since the dogs at Wiki started suspiciously sniffing around. This is where we should really start tipping our hats to the creators of Zack Vank. Realizing that their fun was going to be short-lived if all they did was provide unsubstantiated information and start sexual orientation rumors, they created an external link to the high school Zack Vank supposedly went to, the Redwood High School previously mentioned at the end of my first post about him. Not only did they do that, they created a little profile for him there so that if anyone on Wikipedia got suspicious, they could click on the link and see: [made up quote] Dave6 ^talk 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Zack Vank supposedly wrote a book; I put its article up for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Malt. Dave6 ^talk 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I've also added a prod tag to Dooney which was created by the same author (who will be indefblocked unless one of these three articles proves to have some validity). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 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 keep. Grandmasterka 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Netconcepts

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

I believe this constitutes spam. SERSeanCrane 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - not spam. I wrote this on my talk page which is related to this: I'm 16-years-old and a full-time high school student. In my spare time, I write for Wikinews, Wikipedia, and recently, Practical eCommerce. I draw inspiration for what I write about from things I read and watch, people I meet, and generally things that interest me (including e-commerce and search engines). I follow some local (Christchurch) companies including Netconcepts. Sometimes the things I write about get me noticed (I got to know a couple people at Netconcepts because of some of the writing I've done), which is cool when it happens but I'm not here just to network. Don't worry, I always keep a NPOV when I write. :-) Even when it gets me in trouble (like it did here Talk:SLI_Systems). Nzgabriel 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You should edit for microsoft... =) SERSeanCrane 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Okay, how about failing WP:WEB Citicat 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not big enough for WP:CORP--155.144.251.120 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Size doesn't matter. Jehochman

(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I meant that there is nothing that passes WP:CORP, just small trivial media mentions.--155.144.251.120 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete For me, this is right on the border of WP:CORP. The New Zealand Herald articles are non-trivial, but one is more about the owner than the company. More importantly, there really isn't an assertion of notability. I don't see what makes this company any more notable than your average consulting firm. I feel bad deleting something this well sourced, but it just doesn't seem encyclopedic. --Djrobgordon 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is adequately referenced, and I think the article, taken together with the references, demonstrates notability. --Eastmain 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, well referenced and NPOV goes a long way towards making an article on a small company worth having.-gadfium 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This could be a model article. And I learnt something from reading it. --Limegreen 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Limegreen This appears to be well written and referenced article. Jules1975 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It could use a lot of work though...--StormCommander 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and dilligently referenced; big enough company to have Verizon as a client. Sounds totally notable to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject has multiple, non-trivial appearances in the press. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, nontrivial sourcing, well referenced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems reasonably objective and well referenced. And if they oppose using Javascript and Flash animations as site navigation features, they are on the side of God and His angels. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just wanted to say a friendly hello. I'm the president of Netconcepts. Anything I can do to help? I listed a few articles on Talk:Netconcepts that hopefully will help establish notability. I agree that the article needs work. Stephanspencer 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Coming to this article as a new pair of eyes, my immediate reaction is deep unease. As it stands the article looks dangerously like spam/advertising. I'm deeply perturbed by the NZ Herald articles, which have all the hallmarks of lazy journalists cribbing from corporate press releases, and the other articles are slightly too hagiographic of the company's founder to make me feel they're unbiased. This is one of those "snowball/heck" cases: I can see the way this debate's going, but my every instinct would be to delete for lack of real ( independent, non-press release ) sources. It doesn't seem to me that this article really passes WP:CORP, on the grounds that we don't have enough truly independent sources. At the very least, I'd like to suggest a good Clean up. I have a hunch we're being used here, but I can't put my finger on why. WMMartin 13:48, 22 February 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 Merge to Permian High School. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

Permian High School Band

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

High school band. Need I say more? It has been in a movie, and won some HS band awards, but common sense says this should be a part of the Permian High School article, and be turned into a redirect to that page. Cornell Rockey 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Permian High School. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Way better than average high school band. Edison 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/ or redirect. C56C 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main school's article. May be better than the average band, but then I'm sure there's a lot of those. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, to Permian High School, maybe put a section on the band. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The band "has earned 47 straight "1" ratings from UIL band contests". It seems much more notable than a regular high school band. Also please note that the creator is a new user to WP and is still in the process of adding sources and improving the article (see the article's talk page). Also, multiple mentions in external sources indicate that notability is/can be established. At the least, merge to Permian High School but don't delete. -- Black Falcon 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If information is indeed confirmed, then this is quite notable. The band has a noteworthy history and this makes more notable than other bands. I'd recommend merging if this is not kept. - Anas ^Talk? 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if the awards are confirmed. Redirect to the relevant school if not (any referenced info can be merged) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment despite its notability, I'm pushing for merge & redirect as keeping this article separate from the Permian High School article would set a precedent for keeping unique articles for high schools clubs when they are notable, instead of keeping them as part of the article for the high schools they belong to. The day wikipedia has an article for every championship high school chess team, FFA club, jazz band and tennis team is bad day for this encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• merge to the school in question. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main school's article. I'm from west texas, grew up in Midland/Odessa, went to HS locally and I can honestly say, I've never heard anything special in regards to the PHS band. It is a high school band. HIGH SCHOOL. Make it part of the PHS page. Fuhreeus 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe people seem to think a 1 rating is first place it is not. It is like a division. Many schools have 1 rate bands that have never dropped back.--Dacium 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am the creator of the article, you know what I will say as far as keep or delete. However, I do have some comments. In reference to Dacium, Yes, the "1" isn't first place but the fact that the Permian Band has never gotten anything but a "1" in it's existence and is the only school in Texas, I believe (There may be one more), that has a streak of "1" ratings ever since creation is different than just getting a "1" on occasion. The other thing I would have to say is that the main article, Permian High School, is more for the football and Friday Night Lights portion of the school. I would rather it be merged if faced with deletion but the addition of such would be out of place, in my opinion. Eaglesmarty08 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Regardless how their Awards or talent, this is a High School band. There are Colligate or Higher level Bands or Music groups with more notabilltiy that don't have articles.Corporal Punishment 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The school's own article can and certainly should be more than just football and Friday Night Lights, and that is where this content (stripped of the directory entries) belongs. Also, I am not saying there was any intent to deceive with the use of "straight 1 rating", but there is clearly the potential to mislead, and I thank you for the clarification. Ohconfucius 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Cleanup, specifically per Fuhreeus's local knowledge. WMMartin 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Give me a break. A WikiPedia article on a high school band? What's next, a WikiPedia article on the school's chess club? Dumb.Sockem 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge then Delete. Vegaswikian 03:57, 25 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

Quad county optimist baseball league

Quad county optimist baseball league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's real, but completely non-notable. It's nothing more than an adult rec league. Check out their official website and decide for yourself. Djrobgordon 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - 86 ghits, totally non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Part Deux (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete League would still have to meet things like WP:ORG for notbility.--Dacium 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. - grubber 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable regional recreation league. —ptk✰fgs 08:16, 23 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

MojoLand

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

website devoted to the sports teams of one high school. delete Cornell Rockey 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. It's half about a website but then lists alum of the school itself. No sources. - grubber 15:54, 22 February 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A7 and definite hoax. Nishkid64 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The People's Republic of Columbianus

The People's Republic of Columbianus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable fantasy "micronation". WP:HOAX, WP:NFT. Prod and speedy requests removed without comment. Resolute 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiability outside of itself to claim this is real or even a real attempt. Land ownership in washington DC doesn't even allow such segreation legally. The land still belongs to the State, the deed are merely assets. You can't create your own country even if you 'own' the land.--155.144.251.120 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX and/or WP:NFT. "Currently unfounded"? "Will exist"? Need I say more? -- Black Falcon 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Article author deleted speedy delete tag from own page in violation of warning, which shows bad faith. PubliusFL 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - how many ways shall I delete thee? WP:CFD#G1, WP:NFT, WP:NOT a server, WP:CRYSTAL. Part Deux 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete as a non-notable crystal ball. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:17, 21 February 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 Speedy Keep. Articles for deletion is not clean-up, and since the nominator suggests the material should be merged, the nomination is not seeking deletion. Relevant discussion on the nominator's talk page also leads me to believe speedy keep applies, [12], [13]. Also as there are no deletion arguments made beyond the nominator's, I am invoking ignore all rules. In this instance the encyclopedia is not best served by the deletion of the articles, but rather by the improving of them. Also note the specific passage at WP:NOT reads A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. I would suggest these ancilliary articles form part of a larger topic, and that this matter is better discussed at the article talk page for the time being. I would also suggest that where editors identify potential problems, they first look to fix the problems rather than seek deletion. Since the issue's which led to this nomination can be addressed by adding real world context, deletion is not the appropriate solution to the problem. Hiding Talk 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stone of Tears

This page violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven - the page contains nothing more than a plot summary, which is specifically prohibited. It fails to make any establishment of historical significance, any impact, real-world context or analysis. Furthermore, I fail to see any potential for development here that could not go into the Sword of Truth series page, or Terry Goodkind's personal page. I therefore nominate this page for deletion.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following books from the same series:

Wizard's First Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blood of the Fold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temple of the Winds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soul of the Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Faith of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Pillars of Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Naked Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chainfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phantom (Sword of Truth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Debt of Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MPoint 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Despite lacking sources it is clear the plot over views are to big to fit on the series page because of the number of books. Nomination should be nominating all of the books not just this one.--155.144.251.120 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point, I'll add the rest to the nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Can definitely be improved on. Several of these books have been on best-seller lists, and I fail to see how historical significance or real-world context is a criteria for notability. bibliomaniac15 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not nominating the series on a lack of notability; I am nominating them for violating WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. To put it in plain english, the pages are plot summaries, which are prohibited.MPoint
• Keep Book is clearly notable as part of a best-selling series. If the content bothers you, tag it for clean-up or merge. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, the problem isn't notability; it is that the pages are of an inherently unencyclopedic nature. Anything of value can safely be put on the series page - the only content the individual book pages add is a series of plot summaries, which are forbidden by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
    • And that is not a deletion problem, that's a clean-up problem. The problem here is the content needs improvement, not the subject. Tag it for clean-up, take it to the talk pages. Deletion? That's just the wrong response. It's neither necessary or desirable. You've posted this response several times, but you haven't yet said much about cleaning up the pages. Why not add the appropriate clean-up tags instead of deleting? FrozenPurpleCube 06:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, you've added the other pages, but even if I accepted your argument as grounds for deletion, it seems to me that you didn't look at the pages themselves before adding them. Wizard's First Rule though not what I would consider a high-quality article is slightly more than a plot summary. Again, I would suggest cleanup not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But, as stated and bolded below, it must be part of a larger topic. As it stands, the overwhelming portion of the article is summary; the focus must be on the surrounding material, either by shrinking the summary to uselessness or increasing the size of the other segments. What, though, are we to include in the article? Sales figures, awards, the wizards rules list and such? All of those will easily fit on the serie's main page and the author's page, leaving nothing but the summaries for the book pages, which would be a violation of policy. Thus, the need for individual book pages is eliminated. Thus, my recommendation that they be deleted and redirected to the Sword of Truth series page, with all non-summary information moved to the other page, and perhaps a SHORT summary of what the series is about. Having just checked, however, I now note that there IS no main page for the Sword of Truth series, neccessitating its creation. I, being currently busy, will make such a page for it tomorrow.MPoint
        • Actually, you're wrong, there is The Sword of Truth which does cover the series as a whole. The fact is, your problem is not a deletion issue, it's a clean-up problem. If you don't feel the individual books in the series would need a page of their own, try the {{merge}} tag. Go to the Sword of Truth Wikiproject. Convince people of what you feel is appropriate. Deletion, however, is not the proper route to go here. Not as a first step. As it stands, I just see this as the wrong approach. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, I had missed it, as it is not linked from the Sword of Truth project page, or the individual book pages. I would support a merger if there was something to be merged, but as it stands, there isn't. All that is in the book pages that is not in the main page is a plot summary and list of characters, which is the problem - there is nothing usable or encyclopedic in the pages. We don't have any sense of why they're important, or what impact they're having on the world at large - no information as to how well it sold, or who recognizes it as important, no examination into its hidden meanings or who looks to it for inspiration. A lot of work went into these articles, and it's a shame to see it wasted, but the fact stands that it's not proper Wikipedia material, and would be better placed on a fansite. The main article, now that I have read it, says everything that needs to be said. MPoint
            • • Actually, the plot summaries and lists of characters are quite encyclopedic and are valid content for a merger. You seem to have this idea that plot summaries absolutely cannot be on Wikipedia. That is not true(and if it were, it'd mean thousands of pages would have to be pruned). the problem is when plot summaries are the only thing in an article. Well, given that these are books, the plots and characters will have to be covered, so the question is detail and context. Can more be added to add real world perspective? Maybe, maybe not, though given that these are best-sellers, I would not take your word on faith about that. But again, as I see it, in this case, your problems are more properly clean-up issues, not deletion ones. There are many templates that can be used to mark an article for clean-up or improvement so that interested parties can act. You should have tried that method, not AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 08:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Show me how the plot summaries from each book can be merged into the main series article without losing important detail or bloating it beyond reason, and I will agree merge is the right option. At the moment, I believe that the best option would be to write a completely new (and short) summary for the entire series, as it would be significantly easier to write something like that from scratch. Character lists? Perhaps. The best option for that might be a new list, indicating which characters were in which books, on a single page, as opposed to broken up the way it is now. As stated below, putting up a cleanup tag and talk page notice would have been better form, I agree (which, to avoid putting up a dozen articles on AfD in one night, I have done with other books suffering this problem) - but here we are now, and if nothing else, we'll probably see distinct improvement over the next five days if such is possible. I hope that I'm proven wrong, and the article improves, as I dislike removing any article from Wikipedia; but, if it does not improve, then its removal will be in the best interests of the series.MPoint
      • (reducing indent) To be honest, I don't believe that an appropriate level of description from each book would fit into a single article on the series, so if you did propose a merge, I wouldn't support it. Individual articles in this case are my preference, and I'd rather expand the articles with more content. But at least a merge would have some plausibility to it. If that did happen, then yes, the current articles would need to be pruned. However, given that this content does exist, that it is valid and accurate, I would prefer to keep it as a baseline rather than start over from scratch. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The fact is, removal of otherwise valid information is not in the best interest of anybody. It'd be one thing if this was poorly written, or absolute nonsense. But it's not. It's just some articles on books that are best-sellers, and so do deserve some mention on Wikipedia. So why delete? I can't imagine why. Improvement is the better choice here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • To be honest, I see no baby here to be discarded. There is one section, success, in the first book which can be added to the main article, or (if the rest of the article were shrunk to near-stub level) could be kept, but the rest of the articles have nothing to use outside of their own (policy-violating) articles. To summarize the series is best done from scratch, because individual book summaries have a level of detail that cannot be used in a series summary, leaving them completely separate. Character lists, if they choose to make such a list, may be a valid argument for merging that particular information from the articles, but such a suggestion had not been made prior to this AfD. The books deserve mention, yes. They deserve a redirect to the main Sword of Truth page, where they can be mentioned as a list, and can be of use as reference for a discussion of how the series arcs in its philosophy and development.MPoint
          • I don't agree that it's best to start from scratch, the current quality of the articles is not so poor as to make that mandatory or desirable. They are at least some kind of foundation to build upon. I simply feel that's a better way to do things. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • (reducing indent again)I'm not saying that the quality of the summaries are poor, merely that as they were written to summarize a book, their focus is inherently unsuable for a summary of a series. It's best to look at what the major events of a book are in relation to the series as a whole are when writing a series summary, and it is more difficult to do so when you trying to figure that out from the summary of a book written with an inherent focus on an individual book. That said, it can be done either way, and discussing which method is superior is really a matter of taste. I guess agreeing to disagree would probably be best on that point :) .MPoint
    • No, I wouldn't say their focus is unusable. Perhaps not completely what is desired, but they're still of some utility. It'd take something of far worse quality for me to agree it was unusable. Besides, I'd prefer the individual books have a page anyway, so it's a non-issue for me. Tag them for clean-up and move on. (And yes, you can withdraw your nomination at this point, nobody else has supported deletion anyway. ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:BK. It does need some context added to make it more than a plot summary, but easily passes notability guidelines. Resolute 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • For the fourth time, notability is not an issue here; it is easily a notable series. However, these pages violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Specifically, it violates section seven - "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the articles were to focus primarily on something that wasn't a summary, there would be no problem. However, as it stands, policy dicates that it is not Wikipedia material, and should be deleted. If we reduce the size of the summaries to within wikipedia policy, then the pages become unjustifiably small, and should be merged into the series page or the author's page as appropriate. Hence, the deletion.MPoint
    • Actually, policy dictates improvement. As a general rule, if the topic of an article is notable, the article shouldn't be deleted if the content is not hopelessly unsalvageable (which is the case here). I agree that the articles should be expanded, but that's a matter for {{expand}} or other {{cleanup}} templates. If you think the articles should be merged into a series page, then you may go ahead and do so, but deletion is still not warranted. How are you going to merge them after they're deleted? -- Black Falcon 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I do believe it to be unsalvagable, however, as there lacks sufficient information to include per book that will be substantially different from the main series page. It will therefore be either redundant or in permanent violation of section seven, meaning that it fails the policy guidelines, and can thus be deleted under the same grounds as any other WP:NOT violation. MPoint
        • I happen to disagree, but that is just my opinion. If you do think they are unsalvageable, then your nomination certainly becomes valid. However (assuming they are unsalvageable), would you support a merge into a "Sword of Truth" series (proposed on the articles or to the articles' primary authors)? I can understand and perhaps even be convinced by arguments that separate articles shouldn't exist, but I don't think the content should just be deleted, when it can be cut down and moved to a more appropriate place. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I really wish that merging was an option for more of the articles, but I don't think that it is. Taking a look at the articles again, the Success section of Wizard's First Rule could and should probably be merged into the Sword of Truth main article, but the other articles don't even list the release dates of the books, and the two articles that give a brief discussion of the philosophy in their respective books do so without citing any sources, leaving them unusable. It is my sincere hope that the articles make a dramatic improvement over the next five days, demonstrating my nomination to have been a horrible mistake, but the articles as they stand now are almost useless, and the series as a whole would be better served by removing the individual book articles. A new summary of the Sword of Truth series would be needed for the main article, however, as a reasonably short summary for the series cannot be made from the summaries for the books. I can be convinced that the articles aren't unsalvagable, mind you - it's entirely possible that there is some dimension of expansion that I hadn't previously considered, and I may have been too judgemental because of the excessive size of the current summaries. MPoint
• Keep per all the comments above. The book is notable, and there is too much information for it to be merged. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then Delete the summaries. Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries.MPoint
    • You are mistaken. Summaries of plots is highly appropriate for articles on books, television shows, and other fictional content. Not including them would be very strange. Or do you think Romeo and Juilet should have its section on the play's plot removed? I don't. I think you should adjust your approach to these articles. The problem is not that they contain plot summaries, it's the size of the summary and the lack of other content that is a problem. Again, that's clean-up, not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is not the size of the summary and lack of other content; those are symptoms. The problem is the lack of potential for each of these for every book. One page for all of the books would be very reasonable, and I would have no problem with it. As it stands, however, they lack the potential to reasonably fill the space that individual book pages offer them. A summary as a tool to help one understand the series and how it has impacted the world is encyclopedic and necessary. To have the summary be the focus is unencyclopedic, and detracts from the usefulness of the section as a whole.MPoint
        • I don't see any need for the books to "fill the space that individual book pages offer them" as not every article needs to be full of in-depth content. But given that they are best-sellers, I'd say it's at least as possible with them as it is with any other book with its own article. If these articles don't contain that content, that's the article's problem, not the subject's. In any case, your problem is best expressed as a clean-up issue not a deletion one. If you don't feel there is a need for individual articles, try proposing a merger. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • • Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my nomination, as it is bad form to not give a warning first, but I consdier it a valid one. As for it being possible for them to fill their content, I don't believe it is, at least not without a good deal of overlap with the other book pages - from a strictly organizational perspective, I believe it would be better to keep all of the information on the series on one page. The main Sword of Truth page seems to be exactly what I had in mind, and what I believe to be near the limit of what could be reasonably written on the subject.MPoint
        • BTW, what do you think of The Fellowship of the Ring or even Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Not much different from these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, thank you. I'll tag them for cleanup now, and nominate for deletion if no talk or action is generated from the tag/talk page. The Harry Potter page is borderline, however; the introduction, missing text section, and displays of different covers comes very close to pushing it out of "mainly a plot summary". Perhaps the Fellowship of the Ring page is different from my cursory scan of it (I'll check before I tag it), but it appears to be mainly a summary at the moment. MPoint
• Keep When articles for clearly notable subjects aren't very good, the solution may be to fix them instead of deleting them. Maxamegalon2000 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BK. If the topic is notable (which even the nom has admitted is the case), the article should not be deleted unless hopelessly unsalvageable. That is hardly the case with these articles. They can and should be improved. -- Black Falcon 07:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though I see MPoint's point, my gut fails to agree and application of his criteria would require the deletion of virtually every novel on wikipedia that's not a literary masterpiece with multiple reviews and academic analysis. Articles should be expanded with whatever information can be added (sales, best-seller status at minimum, these particular articles could probably be expanded with Goodkind's opinions on what the themes of the novels are (but only the themes, not their impact on literature, the world or people). I agree with Black Falcon, FrozenPurpleCube and the other keep votes. Fix, add content, don't delete. Given Goodkind's agenda of adding significant philosophical content to the fantasy world and books in general, linking plot points with his overall writing goals should be possible, though sourcing may be problematic.

Also note discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#.22PROD.22. I think in this case, the point

"should" is the magic word in the passage quoted from "What Wikipedia is not". "should" refers to something desirable rather than to a prerequisite. "should" is not synonymous 
with "must". I agree that an article on a novel should contain more than a plot summary. If it doesn't, it should be expanded rather than shortened, let alone deleted 

applies in the case of all the novels. As a final note, I think brief plot summaries are appropriate to pages about books (I've also found them useful in the past), so it might be a question of what else, or how much needs to be added to dodge the WP:NOT criteria. I've brought this up at Village Pump and I'm waiting for a reply. WLU 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The PROD discussion that you linked to would seem to support my conclusions - the only person who argued against it was the creator of the article, with everyone else saying more or less "Well, you say you'll improve it, and I don't really feel like taking it to AfD myself". That would therefore indicate that this is a valid nomination, if perhaps overly harsh. That said, if you can tell me what else you plan on adding in the next month, and how you are going to change the article sizes to emphasize the new material while minimizing the summaries, and how the new structure could not be handled more effectively through use of the main Sword of Truth page and Author page, then I will happily reverse my position in this AfD as having been premature.MPoint
• Keep. WP:NOT includes "plot summaries" for the such when given their own article. WP:BK and notability guidlines both provide for these listed articles. The notability of this article can be verified through reliable sources. Or attibuted. I suspect that this nomination is either in bad faith or in violation of WP:POINT. NeoFreak 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your reading of policy and guideline is fallacious. As specifically said in the introductory paragraph of WP:BK

A number of other relevant policies which all articles must comport with are: verifiability; no original research; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.[2] Where articles fail to encompass these policy considerations and others, they may be proposed for deletion or may be more formally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Relevant portion bolded. WP:BK does not override policy, namely WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. This is a plot summary, in most of the cases nothing more than a summary. It therefore violates policy. I am highly insulted that you would accuse me of bad faith for following policy - as for WP:POINT, I am beginning to be irked that WP:NOT is being so widely ignored, and have started to do something about it. Are you saying that paying particular attention to certain portions of policy is WP:POINT?MPoint

• Keep, excessive plot summary is a reason to trim and summarize detail, rather than delete the whole article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. AFD is a last resort, not a casual weapon. — Deckiller 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Each book stands on it's own as an individual piece in the series. Each has it's own theme, plot and storyline. Though the series is written in sequence, each book has enough complete background in them and character development as a standalone piece. Deleting is not the solution, but perhaps enhancement. Joedu 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain how your suggestion is in line with policy. Adding more character development, plot, and storyline would all fall under the descriptor of plot summary, and so still be a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. What is needed is more information about how this book relates to the outside world, and how the outside world relates to it. I am not convinced that each book individually has had enough of an impact to justify individual pages. If you can do so, please state how, and we can all end this affair.MPoint
    • You miss my point. Because of each individual novel's completeness as a standalone novel, which includes an impactful philosphical theme (which precisely related to the outside world and vice-versa) and storyline, each deserves it's own page. I did not say that each should only include things that would make it a violation. My suggestion is that each page be enhanced to satisfy the rules.Joedu 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, so you meant the philosophical impact of the books. Well, exactly one of those pages (and the one that was most obviously trying to make a point, at that) has an unsourced description of the philosophy of the book, and has been looking for a reliable source for five months. If a significant section on the themes and philosophy of each book can be written for each book, without any reliance on the other books of the series, and based on reliable sources, then I will agree that the individual book pages can stay, though the summaries would probably need to be shortened. As it stands, however, I suspect that it would be easier, shorter, and more organized to discuss the philisophical themes of the series as a whole, with references to which books stress which themes the most. For a hastily written example "The series is heavily influenced by the objectivist theories of Ayn Rand; this can be most clearly seen in Faith of the Fallen, where Richard is confronted by the horror of the Imperial Order's communist society". MPoint
        • Your suspicions on ease of use do not warrant AfD. The goal to make each novel's page more complete and relevant. Again, akin to all the other books in all the other series written by all the other authors each having their own page.Joedu 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Was there ever any doubt? We have (in the not to distant past) started a Sword of Truth Wiki project [14] where we are working on bettering these pages. Thing to remember is that we (well 99.999% of us) have real lives that take up our time; so adding to the project is always a slow process. Now these pages clearly fall into the defined parameters of Wikipedia WP:BK etc. As it would seem, you are already sweeping through and tagging several pages. I think you will find you are mistaken as to your interpretation of policy and guidelines. Also of not is that Goodkind would love for these pages to be removed, but seeing as Goodkind has no say so as to what is placed or not, his opinion matter little.

What we need to remind ourselves is that simply because someone doesn't care for a thing, in no way validated the need for removal. According to MPoint's rational, then almost every Novel page would also need to be included, namely ASOIAF pages, Wheel of time, by Robert Jordan, etc. All of them would be considered AFD. I hope that simply put MPage is misguided in his/her desire to help Wikipedia a better

Place, rather than some kind of bad faith effort or some retaliatory strike. I for one would like to think the former Mystar 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Ah, thank you for bringing those pages to my attention. I will have them tagged for cleanup at once. That said, I have seen little on the articles' talk pages about how to bring the pages in line with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, and less in the way of development for most pages. Is there something in the project page that relates to finding and adding more information that would bring compliance with section seven, and could not be better handled through additions to the main page or author's page? If so, please show me, as I would prefer to believe that I simply missed something.MPoint
• Strong Keep. I think MPoint may be confusing the need to delete with the need to expand. Could all the above articles be improved with historical significance, critical commentary, and third-party analysis? Of course (assuming it could be done in a neutral, NPOV tone citing credible, notable references). But to even consider deleting these pages? That is completely ludicrous. All the novels in the series (apart from the first two) have been New York Times Bestsellers, with the series as a whole having sold tens of millions of copies worldwide. Runch
  • I do not believe that they can be improved on an individual basis in a way that would not invite redundancy, or be better organized by a section on the article's main page or the author's page. It is my belief that the focus of the articles will always be on the summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. Millions of books sold (a more precise number added to all of the book pages would have been helpful in preventing this, by the way, as well as how long they were on the bestseller's list) is not an excuse to ignore policyMPoint
• In addition to the fact that these articles obviously pass Notability guidelines, I'd like to make a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. All the articles listed follow the WP:NOVELS guidelines, and they are clearly not "just plot summaries". All the articles also include a full infobox with publication information, character listings, etc. To be honest, I would go so far as to suggest that all these nominations should be a Speedy Keep. Runch
  • Following WP:NOVELS guidelines while ignoring policy is still grounds for deletion. Guidelines are suggestions (as they themselves state at the top); policy is mandatory. And they are mostly summary, falling afoul of the last half of section seven; "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". They currently are not, as the summaries ARE the topic of the article. Say I'm being too harsh or too legalistic perhaps, but these are valid grounds.MPoint
• As a final point, I'll argue that it would be completely silly to try and fit all the information covered on the novel article pages on the page for The Sword of Truth. That would make that page enormous, bulky, and unwieldy, which is precisely why each novel has it's own article. Sorry if I'm rambling, but I just can't believe the audacity of these nominations... Runch 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, if you were to replace individual book summaries with a GENERAL series summary, it would be short and perfectly acceptable. There are no need for individual book summaries if you don't have the information to support them.MPoint
• Comment Nomination should probably be withdrawn as per WP:SNOW--155.144.251.120 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid rationale for AFD. If there's too much plot summary, then that's an issue to be handled within the article, not by deleting. 23skidoo 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The subject matter of this article is a valid matter for coverage under wikipedia. Yes, there is work to be done, no that does not validate even considering AFD. Disdain for an author or his works is not grounds for deletion of an article about the author or his works. Omnilord 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me. Yes, I do dislike the series, but I recognize that it is a notable work and a valid subject for wikipedia; what I do not agree with is the existance of individual book pages that contain nothing but a plot summary. If every individual book has enough information to be compliant with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, then add it; if not, remove the book pages, and add a brief series plot summary to the main article. We must be policy compliant.MPoint
    • In that case, the following novels by renowned novelists should also be listed for AfD as an example to other editors: The Eye of the World, The Great Hunt,The Dragon Reborn, The Shadow Rising, The Fires of Heaven, Lord of Chaos, A Crown of Swords, The Path of Daggers, Winter's Heart, Crossroads of Twilight, Knife of Dreams, A Memory of Light, A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, A Feast for Crows, A Dance with Dragons, The Winds of Winter, A Dream of Spring, Gardens of the Moon, Deadhouse Gates, Memories of Ice, House of Chains, Midnight Tides, The Bonehunters, Reaper's Gale. I am quite positive there are several hundred other novels and books that meet AfD requirements for WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven that need to be listed. I would do this myself, however, I lack the time as I have a job that ties me up during the day and more enjoyable things to do with my life (what precious little free time I do have) than pick fights on an open-edit encyclopedia. Not to mention I have no idea how to AfD an article. Omnilord 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, I'm currently in the process of putting cleanup tags on most of those articles; if you check, you'll find that I've already finished tagging all of the Wheel of time novels, as well as couple of the Song of Ice and Fire articles; some of them, however, are borderline, and so were left with a message on their talk page. A Dance with Dragons is fine at the moment. Thank you for the other suggestions of what to tag, though! If these aren't fixed within a reasonable period of time, then yes, they will also be nominated for deletion. And I am also convinced that there are several hundred other novels and books that are currently in violation of section seven, hence why I'm going about doing this. I have no interest in picking fights, however, as you insinuate, I only have an interest in maintaining the policies of Wikipedia. Something needed to be AfD'd, and this series happened to be the first non-borderline case I stumbled upon. Was it hasty to not tag it for cleanup first? Yes, as I have previously stated. What can I say, I was in a bad mood, and it happens. But now that it is here, I stand by my decision; it was in poor form, but it was justified under the polices.MPoint
        • For the record, you're using the wrong tag. These articles really don't need cleanup (which implies that grammar, formatting, order, etc. needs to be fixed). If anything, use a more specific tag, such as the Expand tag. - Runch 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Having a quick look at the Malazan pages, and the SoT pages for that matter, there's lots of content that's not just plot summary. The info boxes for one, contain an enormous amount of relevant real-world information. Accordingly, by that measure alone none of these should be AFD. Also, editors deciding to spend their time working on other articles is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. The time taken to put up all the tags could have probably been used to move at least one of them to the point where it did not need it. All of us have limited time, and this AFD is not a good use of it. Since there is no chance that any of these pages are going to be deleted, I'm not spending any more time on this one. WLU 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • As the focus of the articles are the summary, the infoboxes are insufficient to address WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. As for the accusation that I'm wasting my time by tagging, they took approximately one minute a piece to tag after I read the articles, and felt that I should not add any new information before consulting with the people who had been working on the article previously. At no point did I suggest that editors working on other articles as opposed to these ones were a reason for deletion, and I resent the implication that I stated so. That said, if it were taking longer then five minutes a piece to write these while I wait for responses from other people at work, I would probably not be spending time on this AfD either, for simple fact that I suspect we're just restating our arguments at this point.MPoint
          • Yes and no; the cleanup tag is specifically supposed to be a generic tag to catch anything the more specific tags lack. Tags covering what you believe cleanup implies would be the copyedit, spelling, and restructuring tags. More specific tags for my particular complaint might be unencyclopedic (though I felt that would have been perceived as too hostile), the cleanup-book tag, one of the context tags, or one of the expansion tags. However, the expansion tag or context tags would have been too specific; removal of summary or addition of new material both could deal with the issue, and both exclude the other. that said, I had thought that I was using the cleanup-book tag, and I'm quite uncertain as to how I missed the fact that I wasn't for a good ten articles or so.MPoint
• Keep ill-conceived misuse of AfD. Cleanup does not require deletion. It just requires using the edit button. This AfD is a clear candidate for being speedy-closed under WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All. Tag with {in-universe} or something. And speedy close per WP:SNOW. AndyJones 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Article(s) needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If articles were merged, the article it was merged to would be overrun and far too long. --pIrish 22:12, 22 February 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 Merge to AFI (band). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:35Z

Despair Faction

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

The band? Very notable. The fan club? Not so much. This article lacks any reliable sources to demonstrate the fan club meets WP:N. At the very most, this should be a (small) part of the band's article. janejellyroll 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• On the very verges of notability at best - plus the article needs cleaning up to remove patent trivia. I'd go with Merge and redirect the interesting parts into AFI. EliminatorJR 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect relevant parts into the band article. -Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 21 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Landon Knepp

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

Bumped from speedy. Asserts notability, but not impressively so: appears to have gotten some local coverage for some student silliness. WP:BIO refers. Sandstein 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How is he notable? Getting hit in the head as a kid, hosting a college news show? Appears to fail WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The assertion of notability is there (so it's not speedy-able), but it is quite weak. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unfunny and unremarkable. Nothing here even hints at noteworthiness. Caknuck 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia deletion policy states, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." That one thinks the controversy described is "unfunny" seems entirely irrelevant. While not a national celebrity, news coverage affirms that this figure and the controversy in which he is involved is at least as notable and/or relevant as other similar local controversies such as the Redbud Woods controversy. Perhaps a tag to expand the article is an order.Namikiw 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary. For an article that states its subject is a college "humorist", organizing a one-off, minor pseudo-protest that backfires (ie. isn't funny) is not notable. The sources provided do not indicate any controversy. And the difference between this and the Redbud Woods controversy is that with Redbud, the New York Times saw fit to publish multiple articles about the situation, whereas the Ball State paper couldn't be bothered with publishing more than a one-paragraph blurb about the incident after it happened. Based on the information presented, the subject and the incident are no more notable than I was when I was a "campus personality" at my college 12 years ago. And I don't have a Wikipedia article. Caknuck 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Landon Knepp failed at being a DJ. That isn't covered in WP:BIO. Knepp doesn't show up in any of the sources. 13 unique google hits?! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• According to WP:BIO itself, WP:BIO "is not wikipedia policy" so it should not be used as a sole basis for deletion.
• Lack of presence on the internet doesn't necessarily reflect lack of notability.
• Knepp does show up in the sources - both in the SETV video and this article[15] as the organizer of the the controversial event. Namikiw 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO was not my sole basis for deletion. I also stated that he had 13 unique google hits. 13 is very low. I also stated that he failed at being a DJ. These reasons with the fact that he miserably fails WP:BIO are reasons enough.
• Lack of presence on th internet does not reflect lack of notability. However, a lack of presence, and a lack of multiple independent reliable sources to prove verifiability does reflect lack of notability.
• I don't see Knepp's name on this link [16] or this link [17]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read page 2 of this article?[18] How can you you make assertions if you're not reading the sources? Namikiw 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (from WP:BIO). In my opinion someone who doesn't appear anywhere on the first page of an article doesn't come even close to being considered the primary subject of said article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The controversial event is in the Daily News for the fourth straight day

[19] Also, the discussion for the original article is reaching record lengths with 52 comments. [20] — Dmurtbergx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Wotch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:37Z

The Wotch: Cheer!

The Wotch: Cheer! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable authorized but fanmade spinoff from webcomic, fails WP:WEB; The Wotch: Cheer! gets only 69 distinct Google hits[21], none of them indicating any notability. Adding the author name Tselsebar to the search, you drop to 21 distinct google hits[22]. Article was redirected to the main article as a courtesy, but redirect was contested and removed, so now it's up for AfD. Fram 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The comic is based on The Wotch, but is no simple fancomic. Art quality is better than in The Wotch, and the storyline is mostly independent (as much as two strips playing in the same location at the same time can be independent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs).
• Merge into Wotch main article (unless new secondary sources show up in this discussion), but give it more space than the unfinished game there. Ambi Valent 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These are WP:ILIKEIT arguments. What about notability? Any independent reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB or WP:NOTE? Fram 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion Ambi Valent, please base your comments on Wikipedia inclusion and deletion policies. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wotch: My Sister, Myself seems to be similar. Part Deux 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that article when debating this one, and thought it deserved an AfD as well. As it is different enough (one a comic, the other a game: one exists, the other is in development: ...), I thought it would be a bad idea to make this a mass nomination (something I normally don't oppose though). But the fact that they are both listed is not a mere coincidence of course. Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:N on all levels. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The article for the main comic doesn't say much about the spinoff except that it exists, so it seems to me that it'd be better to move the content into there and then get rid of what's unnecessary. (Incidentally, when I tried Googling "The Wotch: Cheer!" I got nearly 600 hits (see for yourself) - it seems to depend on which country's version of Google you use to do the search. And just entering the words "wotch", "cheer" and "tselsebar" gives over 10,000 results...) DGemmell 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, not a valid argument: WP:GOOGLEHITS. And, incidentally, 600 is extremely low for a webcomic; even 6,000 is pretty low for web material. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • There are 600 hits, but some 60 or 70 distinct hits (click on page 10 of your Google search and see how many results you get: add -wikipedia to exclude wikipedia and most of its mirrors, as these aren't reliable independent sources anyway). This does not depend on the version of Google, that is just a skin (except for some notorious cases like Google China perhaps), Google.be gives exactly the same results as Google.com. Anyway, the number of Googlehits, while a possible indicator for (lack of) notability, is not a reason for deletion in itself: the lack of reliable, non-trivial sources amongst those hits is a good reason though (except when people would be able to give good sources which do not appear in a Google search of course). You have the best chance of finding a good source when looking for the exact title, preferably with the author included (can you imagine a review of a book, comic, webcomic in a reliable source that doesn't mention both the name of the webcomic and the name (pseudonym) of the author? They should be rare...). Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • As I've pointed out before, Fram seems to use the lowest results count possible when invoking the Google test, which is typically quite questionable. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• That said, merge to The Wotch as a section. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn webcomic. Google search turns up absolutely nothing of interest, which it should, if it's a webcomic. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This comic is currently number 26 in the TWC, has remained in that area for about a year or so now. Also has several cannonical and non-cannonical ties to The Wotch, and why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability? Anyways, Redirecting this to The Wotch would just plain and simple be wrong, This may not be 'notable' enough to get its own article, but as Vikedal said, star trek TNG and star trek aren't the same, redirecting gives the wrong impression to somebody who doesn't know the subject. Merging will offer some clarity to fix that problem (I hope) Theturtlehermit 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • May I kindly ask what TWC is? Part Deux 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The Top Web Comics (topwebcomics.com) Ranking system, a reader based ranking system to which Comics such as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch belong to as well as many others (1000's if not more, currently contacting them for fact checking). Theturtlehermit 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That might be worth noting. Is there any mainstream media coverage by any chance? Part Deux 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Not that I know of right now, I am contacting Tbar (the author) to see if he has any mainstream media, I doubt that there has been...but then again, EGS was writen up in a paper on geneology, so weirder things have happened. I should get better info on TWC in one to two business days, and on media of Cheer! in about a day or so depending on Tbar's schedule...Theturtlehermit 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I may be doing a wrong search here, but it looks like many notable webcomics are not even listed on TWC: Penny Arcade, PvP, Schlock Mercenary, 8-bit theatre, ... Doesn't this make the value of this topwebcomics a bit less than it appeared at first to be? It's not only a reader's poll (not a reliable source, but could be an indicator of popularity), but a poll among a section of all webcomics that excludes a lot of the most popular and best known ones... Fram 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • This may be true, but just because Megatokyo isn't on Keenspot doesn't mean that it is any less notable. I believe, and once again, I do have outstanding requests for verification about this, that any webcomic can register freely for this list, which makes Cheer!'s constant possition in the upper to mid 20's even better. Accoriding to Tbar, when he first regestered for this it started out just about where it is now, for over a year and a half. Also, Tbar said he didn't have any mainsteam media writeups that he knew about. Which is why I have from the start said merge because this comic has enough notability to merit a paragraph or two, but not enough on whole to merit its own page, at least by current notability standards. Is that clearer? Theturtlehermit 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Clear! Fram 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question about "why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability?" - going by the WP: GOOGLEHITS rule mentioned above, the low number of hits can't be used as an argument for deleting the article, either. (I wasn't aware of that rule, by the way - I just thought I should mention that I got a different result to Fram's. Thanks to Part Deux for informing me.) All the same, I'll try a few other search engines and see if I can find anything useful. DGemmell 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. 217.91.57.33 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless we can find some good proof of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm glad to see that the deletion is being discussed. If Cheer! fails Wikipedia's rules, I will not object or think poorly upon such a deletion. I was, however, very disturbed by the initial redirect by Fram, as it rather effectively deleted the article without the burden of proof or input by the community; the "courtesy" that was mentioned. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been put forward by the same person who circumvented the due process, but that does not deny the potential validity of the claim. Now we will see what the proper consensus is.
  
  As the author, my opinions are not valid here; I have far too much invested. However, I would like to point out that Google does have very different results depending on the country of origin. It is not just a skin... I discovered and confirmed this fact a while ago when my page was linked first in Google under... a somewhat disturbing search string. I would also like to point out that the name of the comic is not and never has been "The Wotch: Cheer!" in its entirety. This was an error that has persisted to this day due to the images used in the webpage design. The name of the comic in question is simply "Cheer!" Hopefully this will help you more accurately determine the reach of this comic. I leave you to your deliberations. Tselsebar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, that does remind me - on my webpage I get very different incoming traffic from different country "editions" of Google. And now I have to go check on the title "cheer." Great. Balancer 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Google.be hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 37 distinct ones[23]. Google.com hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 36 distinct ones[24]. Please, could people check out for themselves what the results are of different searches before claiming that the low results are due to using google.be?
      • I don't believe that claim was ever made, at least not in the posts you're sub-commenting on. For my part, I was merely commenting on the mistaken belief that the different Google pages are only skins, and the results are identical, which is not the case. As editors of an encyclopedic site, I thought such information may be of value for this case and for others. Tselsebar 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Septate entity from the Wotch that should be kept. This is wikipedia help make the knowledge here better by editing not deleting! -- UKPhoenix79 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yet another WP:ILIKEIT vote, instead of pointing to any reliable sources to indicate notability. Fram 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • First off, that's an essay, not a policy, second, UKphoenix is pointing out that they are seperate entities, not saying keepit because "I like it" or because "this is so great" etc. Theturtlehermit 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If by separate he means 'should not be merged', then all we can do is delete it. Keeping something only because it is a separate entity is not an argument. AS for the I like it: the second sentence of his or her keep opinion is nothing but I like it. But in the end, I don't really care about ILIKEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and other flawed keep arguments: as long as someone doesn't give arguments which counter the deletion reason(s) given in the nomination and possible additional deletion reasons given in othere delete opinions, then his or her opinion, while perhaps interesting, is of no value in determining the consensus as to whether any article meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. If editors don't agree with the standards, they should take it up on the talk page of said standards: until then, those are the guidelines and policies we have to follow, and any other !vote basically boils down to "we have to keep it because it is useful, it is popular, it does no harm, or I like it". Like the Wikipedia:Deletion policy (a policy, not an essay) says, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." "They are separate entities" is not a reason to keep an article based on any policy or guideline. It can be a good reason to oppose a merge, but I did not propose a merge but a delete. Fram 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, look all I was trying to say is that if you are going to discount anybody's votes, please do so for an appropriate reason, that said, I do feel that while these are seperate entities, they could be legitimately merged, (kinda like how Joanie loves Chachi could be merged with Happy Days) because while they are sperate they do stem from the same tide. (And incedentally Cheer! is doing better than Joanie loves Chachi ever did...) anyways, I'll let UKpheonix do anyfurther justification of his/her claim.Theturtlehermit 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see anything compelling in the nominator's arguments regarding deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe inclusion of this webcomic in an independent listing of popular titles in the genre (i.e. named noteworthy by those who read webcomics, just as a movie is made noteable by the large percentage of moviegoers who buy tickets to see it, thus giving it a rank in the 'top ten') makes it notable. In addition, the deletion argument seems to rely exclusively on Google results, which are clearly stated as INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.I exfoliate! 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — UncleNed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete: I don't see anything compelling in the particpants' arguments regarding keeping. --Iamunknown 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources. -- Dragonfiend 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources to bear on notability. —ptk✰fgs 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with the Wotch. It's a spin-off, and though the art style is better than most spin-offs, its forums are located at the Wotch forums. No independent sources either. Wellmann 08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• To Wellman: Perhaps it should be mentioned that Cheer! is not the only webcomic to inhabit the same forum as the Wotch. There are at least 10 other webcomics that also use that same place for their webcomic forums. I felt that needed to be pointed out. Icechicken 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? That Cheer is actually less notable than it sounds? Wellmann 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps (and I am just playing Devil's Advocate here) it means that The Wotch is steadily becoming another Keenspot, and therefore association with it should be a point of noteability. Theturtlehermit 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's several orders of magnitude away from that. Anyway, to be anal, it's true enough that the forums in question seem to be a small hub. --Kizor 22:43, 25 February 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 Speedy Delete non-notable bio, nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Nguyen

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

Although claims of notability are made, this is your basic nn bio with a dash of nonsense. janejellyroll 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Hopeless {{db-bio}} and/or {{db-nonsense}} and other non-notable stuff (depending on which revision you're reading) and an earlier {{db-blank}} I had added was removed by the author. What's that, 4 strikes and you're out? Author has since engaged in a variety of WP-abusive behaviors: removing various templates, creating attack page against this AfD nominator DMacks 06:42, 21 February 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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:38Z

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased fanmade game for a webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. 16 distinct Google hits[25], all indicating that very little is known for this game in development (making it a WP:NOT for crystalballery candidate as well). Fram 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, and that's about it really. The Kinslayer 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Very little is known of a lot of games in development, but everything in the article is sourced from the developers themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dread, could you please address the notability issue? Unfortunately, it appears your argument so far is only WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Part Deux 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I Am getting so SICK of that frinkin ESSAY that people keep sourcing!!! It says right on top: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. I am seriously getting sick of people sourcing other wikipedia ESSAYS for things in deletion. Give me a DEFINITIVE Policy that says "Such-and-such is able to be deleted because it's not on Amazon" or "It has few hits on google", or "The article is crap and needs to be deleted" (I have SEEN that one, in which case an AfD is NOT appropriate, a rewrite is. Vikedal 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (If you wanna complain, do it on my talk page.)
• Merge back into main article The Wotch, since the game is only in development now. Ambi Valent 10:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main webcomic article until game is actually released at the very least. I still have doubts about it, it cites a forum and says it's a "canonical game by fans" which is a direct contradiction and it has images that are not discussed in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again: Canonical just means "Considered to be a part of overall continuity". I could, for example, Make a spinnoff (Let's go with The Wotch: Cheer!). It can be considered "Fan-made Canon" iff (Not a misspelling, means If and Only If) I Get the Main comic Author to run over everything and approve it. The same goes for the Halo series of books (Cite: OXM, Winter '06, the one with the Halo: Ghosts of Onyx Preview in it). They are considered Fan-made Canon simply because they are NOT made by Bungie, But the writer (In 3 of 4 cases, Eric Nylund) Got approval for the storyline from Bungie, to make sure it was in Continuity with the Halo Storyline. Vikedal 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are many games listed in Wikipedia, many open source programs and preproduction movies listed so I see no problem in this being kept. -- UKPhoenix79 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And again: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. How does it satisfy WP:WEB? Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Citing an essay to prove your point doesn't really do anything! You are using a policy ie WP:WEB for a webcomic! That holds little context to this case as a webcomic by its nature is different from large well known websites like yahoo.com or smaller more select ones like effingpot.com. Webcomics need different definitions just as movies in pre-production have special clarifications as movies that have been released. -- UKPhoenix79 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Possibly you haven't read WP:WEB. Like other websites, prominent webcomics have been cited in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources, have received noteworthy awards and have certain defined and accepted gauges of popularity and influence. Beyond that, frankly, webcomics also ought to be held to like standards as with other websites. RGTraynor 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I really don't mean for this to sound rude... but have you read the page? This page is about a VIDEO GAME, yes the VIDEO GAME is based on a web comic... but how can a VIDEO GAME that is being developed be used when talking about WP:WEB? -- UKPhoenix79 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You are quite correct, this has nothing to do with WP:WEB. Now, how does it fulfill the requirements of WP:NOTE, which was one of the reasons given in the original nomination? Your "keep" opinion doesn't address this. Fram 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You don't need to shout, UKPhoenix79. As it happens, I responded to your own comment about the applicability of WP:WEB to webcomics. If you believe (accurately enough) that the notability of the webcomic itself is beside the point, you ought not have strayed onto the subject yourself. RGTraynor 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:NFT. There are many significant preproduction movies, unreleased games and open source programs listed. An "in-development" bootleg game for a middling popularity webcomic created by a handful of fans isn't one of them. C'mon back when EA picks it up. RGTraynor 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Non-notable webcomic with no non-trivial references. Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, I say, What do web guidelines have to do with video games? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NFT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, possibly Merge if it ever gets released and attains a degree of popularity. I haven't seen any proof of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB WP:NOTE guidelines and does not exist yet, if ever (it never made its GBA release, after all). It does have entries at IGN and the like, but the low Googles indicate there is little interest outside of the webcomic's fanbase when compared to other fan/indie games featured on those sites (such as Halo Zero). Garrett^Talk 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see how WP:WEB applies to a console game at all. Could someone explain how video games fall under internet guidelines? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoah, wrong acronym. :) I've improved my rationale too. Garrett^Talk 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As one of the developing staff of The Wotch: My Sister, Myself, the game is not far enough along to warrant a wiki page. In my opinion, there should be a mention of it on the main The Wotch page, but nothing more than that at this time. Tfrevor 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge You're pretty much saying that "Hey, it hasn't been released, and google/amazon don't care, so it's not notable" to most of the webcomic AfD's i've seen. Have a look at what's happening here. If Halo 3 didn't have the fanbase, it would have no google or amazon hits, thus making it "Not Notable" and AfD'able, which i'm sure some game-hating NUT would do. Give it some time, because the whole point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and this one definitely helped me out on some aspects of the game (Beforehand, i had no clue what the game was about).Vikedal 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct: if noone had ever bought or even released Halo 2, the article on Halo 3 would be deletable. If no one had ever read or done a production of Shakespeare, his article and the article on his works would better be deleted as well. But what kind of argument is that? Halo 3 is notable, the article is referenced to reliable sources (part of them independent ssecondary sources), and this is one of these cases where you know that the game will be reviewed extensively, whether it is brilliant or it sucks. On the other hand, this is a game where little is known and nothing is written by independent reliable sources, and it is doubtful if even if it would ever be released, such reviews would appear anyway. If that does happen however, and this game does get notability, then nothing stops you from creating an article for it. An encyclopedia is not supposed to give you information on everything because it may one day become notable (every kid may one day become notable), but because it is already notable, whether it is already released or not. Fram 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur; that which lacks evidence of its notability is, mirabile dictu, non-notable. Congratulations, Vikedal, you've gotten it. (By the way, exactly how much help would a completely non-detailed article on a game that hasn't actually been released yet be to you?) RGTraynor 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, speculative article about a non-notable, unreleased video game. If it is ever released and attains notability then the article may be easily recreated. Also, is that forum post the only thing resembling a reference source for this article? If so, that's pretty appalling -- we should be looking for independent reliable sources, not linking to some promotional message board. —ptk✰fgs 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you point out the speculation? I checked and I don't see any. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's unreleased; it's already switched platforms once without a release... and it may never be released. Articles about things in the future are necessarily speculative. That's what "speculative" means. —ptk✰fgs 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mention in The Wotch article if necessary. -- Dragonfiend 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with the main Wotch article. Not yet that notable, but perhaps may be when released. I believe it warrants at least a mention in the main article. Wellmann 08:17, 24 February 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 No consensus to delete; default keep. Possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:40Z

Prophetic gift of Ellen White

Prophetic gift of Ellen White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is pure religious cruft. It pretends to be NPOV by using words such as "believed" but even the article name is blatantly POV. Delete Nardman1 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube 07:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article is not "blatantly POV" at all, and I don't see how anyone who has read the article right through could claim that. It cites a very wide range of sources from conservative Adventist and progressive Adventist through to former Adventists and non-Adventists. It also includes a large number of critical views, listing and linking to the primary critics. Of course, contributions to further improve the NPOV are always welcome. Colin MacLaurin 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - a rename to a less POV title might be in order. Part Deux 10:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just realized that shortly before the nomination, one user made three edits deleting critical material. I have reverted them to replace the material. Colin MacLaurin 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversial subjects can be discussed as long as multiple views are allowed, and this article has a good deal of critisism as well. Not that it should matter, but I am not an Adventist. Bbagot 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (possibly rename). A valid topic, but it needs a cleanup to use more neutral language and become a little less wordy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ellen G. White - Skysmith 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Skysmith. By the logic of the nominator, papal infallibility should go, too, since "the article name is blatantly POV". The content here is good, but a merge and a little judicous cleaning would go a long way. -- Plutor ^talk 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup. I do not believe a merge in this case would be effective, since this particular topic has been the subject of discussion in the relevant religious circles quite independently of the individual herself. The discussion of the figure and her gift as it appears in literature and history require a significantly different treatment, so I believe the articles should both be retained and kept separate. Of course, this article requires some non-trivial cleanup and rewording. One case in point: "Ellen White didn't call herself a prophet, as there were others in America at the time who were claiming the title and giving it a bad name." Statements such as this are not encyclopedic unless they are attributed; otherwise they introduce the editors' point of view and likely quite a bit of original research as well. Still, problematic statements are not sufficient grounds for removing the entire article or simply merging the content with another topic from which it has sufficient verifiable independence. ◄Zahakiel► 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, or keep and cleanup. bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 February 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in India

List of shopping malls in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this should or shouldn't be deleted, so I figured I'd let the community decide. Looks like an indescriminate list of shopping malls, and, from what I can tell, Wikipedia is not a directory. Rockstar915 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Shopping malls are major structures so I don't think WP:NOT#DIR exactly applies here. They are especially relevant in parts of the world where not every town with more than 500 people has one. A number of the malls on the list are blue-linked and notable. The main problem is that the articles that have no links need to be sourced. Were it a list of living persons, I might argue differently, but in this case I think we should keep and tag the article with {{unreferenced}}. Most of the content seems easily verifiable (I did a google search for 5 randomly-selected malls). If there is a consensus to keep if sourced, I will go through and source any entries that are not blue-linked. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per the precedent set at Category:Lists of shopping malls, Lists of shopping malls, it looks like most Wikipedia believes these are not indescriminate lists. I must agree; this is not just directory, but useful. Part Deux 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which precedent are you talking about? utcursch | talk 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the list is not indiscriminate. --Canley 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon. This seems like a helpful list and not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate information. - Anas ^Talk? 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it seems wrong to single out India, but the articles in it better be sourced soon, because a list of redlinks CAN be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think India was singled out particularly. Rather, this probably just happened to be the article that the nominator ran across. Given the developing consensus for keep, I will start going through and sourcing the entries where I can in 2-3 hours. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't mean to single out India, I just noticed a bunch of red links, and wanted to bring it to the community. No bad faith here. Rockstar915 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per precendent. I'm no fan of "List of X" articles, and while I don't feel a list of shopping malls in any country belongs in an encyclopedia, we can't delete this but then not the others. And that's not going to happen. Arkyan 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per the earlier arguments Manzhivago — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Just out of curiosity, aren't lists like this meant for Categories? It seems like any shopping mall in India should be placed in a "Shopping Malls in India" category, rather than having a separate entry for such lists... I guess I agree with everyone that per current Wikipedia regulations, the list should stand. But maybe the topic of categories instead of lists should be discussed?
  • You raise an important issue. I'd like to reply with 5 points.

1. Categories only work for persons/objects/events that already have WP articles.
2. Whereas lists can be referenced, categories are more difficult to do (each article must be referenced).
3. Not everyone finds categories easier-to-use than lists.
4. Lists can provide additional information about individual entries (which categories cannot).
5. Per WP:LIST, lists that aid in navigation, are informative, and/or are used for development purposes are allowed.

• • I think categories are useful and should be used in many cases. However, I don't see why they cannot exists side-by-side with lists. In essence, I don't think being a list is itself a reason for deletion unless the list is highly inferior in quality to the category, which requries that it be redundant (all info contained in one is contained in the other), unreferenced, and simply a listing of names without any additional information or any form of subdivision (e.g., by location, time, etc.). Cheers, Black Falcon 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say, this is why I love Wikipedia. :) Rockstar915 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia. A clear case of WP:NOT#DIR. Even if the shopping malls are themselves notable, categories suffice in this case. An example of a worthy list would be List of largest shopping malls in the United States (Before somebody cries bias, let me explain -- I'm from India). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Singapore. utcursch | talk 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment above about the disadvantages of categories: bias toward objects with articles, cannot be referenced, not necessarily more user-friendly, and limited capability to provide additional information. Let's please remember that most articles start out in a poor state. It takes time for them to reach the quality of List of largest shopping malls in the United States. If we deleted everything at the outset because it wasn't of the highest quality, we would have only a few dozen articles. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep list of notable structures. No reason why list of malls in India is less notable than List of shopping malls in the United States. --Vsion 06:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Topic is worthwhile, but most of these places are not notable.--Sefringle 07:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If we have a List of shopping malls in the United States (as well as a List of largest shopping malls in the United States) and a List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom, we can also have a List of shopping malls in India. Indian shopping centers are as notable as US or UK shopping centers. --Carioca 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Carioca and BlackFalcon.--Atemperman 05:02, 26 February 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 speedily redirected. Proto ► 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zach Mooneyham

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

This character was only in a single film with no expected sequels as of yet. The article is not even linked to on the actor nor the film's page. This article is unlikely to be expanded too much further and to my knowledge there are no other characters in the film that have articles. As a member of WP:Films, I have seen some character articles for more notable films (Star Wars, The Matrix, Battle Royale) and this one does not appear notable enough to have an article. Good film, but it is not necessary to have an article for Zach. Nehrams2020 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect It's common for character names to point to a relevant article as they are a likely search term. There should also probably be one at the proper article title Zack Mooneyham. (This is a reasonable misspelling). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 21 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:14Z

Kevin Denzler

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

A Tekken player. While the article asserts notability up the wazoo what with all the boldface and the capitals, this guy is not notable. Daigo Umehara's article was recently deleted, which sets a pretty clear precedent. JuJube 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 32 GHits. "Cashes Clay" gets more, but only by virtue of having the same name as a German DJ; "Cashes Clay" tekken gets 3 GHits. cab 07:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a vanity article about a high school kid who likes to play in Tekken tournaments. The article says he is 17, although you would guess 13 based on the writing skills haha. TJ Spyke 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamers are rarely notable (they are for example if they win the World Cyber Games). This is not encyclopedic or verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:VAIN and WP:NEEDSALIFE. Did I leave anything out? RGTraynor 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete as thoroughly non-notable, vanity, unsourced, and unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:19, 21 February 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 from mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Hernandez

Martin Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michelle Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

An article of the same name previously deleted for vandalism. The subject is a 15 year old mexican. Also bundled with article on the actress sister of the subject (aged 16), and a film ostensibly created by the young director which claims to have won a number of awards. No information available on the film. Likely hoax, but at best fails WP:V Ohconfucius 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can determine the critical reviews of the film are all fake. The New York Times at least never said (and never would say) what is attributed to them). Unverifiable hoax. And a repost too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. if a 13yo director had this much success as has been claimed I'd expect I'd have heard about him and would see plenty of links about reportings about him! But there is nothing like that.... Mathmo ^Talk 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as hoax article. Of the five Martin Hernandezes IMDB cites, this kid isn't any of them. The only All Over Again IMDB reports is a 2001 film, not a 2006 film, written and directed by Clive Nettles. One of the awards he claims doesn't exist, while the BIFA 2007 awards won't be issued until November and exclusively go to British-made films. The alleged IMDB link doesn't exist, the film's "official website" is a Myspace page, and I've spent too much time as it is backchecking this kid's spurious nonsense. RGTraynor 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete as previously deleted content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, article about a living person citing no sources or references Alf photoman 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Take a close look at the poster for the movie. Some cursory image analysis indicates the credits were lifted from the poster for Goal! 2: Living the Dream... (poster) and the MPAA rating box has the Paramount logo. Nice try, kids. Caknuck 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Userfied, I moved all these pages off the mainspace so that Written92 (talk · contribs) can work on these articles and add the necessary details. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:00, 22 February 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 speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic as a hoax. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Malt

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

Hoax. Book supposedly written by Zack Vank. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Vank Dave6 ^talk 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX unless evidence is provided. Walton monarchist89 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I've also added a prod tag to Dooney which was created by the same author (who will be indefblocked unless one of these three articles proves to have some validity). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I am concerned writing (fiction or memoir at least) doesn't become notable until it is finished, more often it only becomes notable after it is actually published too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 21 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Zamzar

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

User:MER-C placed a speedy tag on this article, but it definitely doesn't look speedy-able to me; seemed to have some references on google, as well as a high hit count. I am neutral Part Deux 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect the rationale for db-tagging it was that the article (one sentence long) contains no actual assertion of notability. It tells you what the site is, but doesn't tell you why it's important, making it speedyable under A7. However, if we're going to put it through the full AfD process, then delete per no evidence of notability, external links to their own site, no proof of multiple coverage by reliable independent sources. Walton monarchist89 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons I brought it here is precisely because I think it may be notable and the sources may exist. In other words, I'm asking people to help me look for the sources, and, should the sources fail to exist, only then should we decide upon deletion. As it stands, I was able to find one from google news: an article on yahoo's tech blog, which seems notable. It also received a mention from PCMag. If anyone can find anything else, I ask for help in this. Thanks. Part Deux 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No matter the amount of sources it stills needs an assertion of notability in the article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it now asserts notability: [26]. Now, can we prove it with independent sources, like the one I've given. Part Deux 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • xD Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Very clever, Part Deux. Technically it now asserts notability, but it still has no evidence of independent sources to prove notability. If you can find some by the end of this AfD, I will change my vote. Walton monarchist89 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Walton, please assume good faith. The reason I did that was so that we wouldn't keep on talking about "the article no longer asserts notability", when I was simply asking for us to be searching for notability, rather than claiming it doesn't assert it now. So I am asking others to help me find sources (rather than just vote) because they appear to exist. I've already provided a few, PCMag and yahoo business. Part Deux 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I apologise, I wasn't intending to assume bad faith, nor did I mean to imply that you were mis-using the process. As I said, if you can add the sources you mention to the article, then I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • NP. In any case, I've added the two articles, though they're a little silly. The first, the yahoo article, supports notability, but this particular article isn't about the product. The second, PCMag, just mentions it having a bad name. In any case, I bet 10:1 the sources exist somewhere. But, I gtg, so I can't check further. Sorry. Part Deux 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think two trivial mentions is enough to pass WP:SOFTWARE.--Dacium 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added a number of "non-trivial" mentions across the Web to the article to support Zamzar's case for inclusion .--Coyote 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep the bad, I looked at the references provided they are lame. The article is a short stub with almost not significant content. But the subject passes notability so significantly that it needs to stay. It is so notable the del.icio.us / tag / Zamzar shows that over 10,000 different del.icio.us users have saved it to their favorites Wikipedia Main page is only 21,000. So that makes Zamzar about half as notable as Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the article does not provide reliable sources to support any claim of notability under WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Nuttah68 11:46, 26 February 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  Speedy keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

David Freeman (musician)

Very few google hits about David in regards to music. Searching for his name turns up a lot of Flight of the Navigator hits. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The number of Google hits may be sparse, but the links I do find indicate a sufficient level of notability. Take for example his mention at the bluegrass museum website. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, if the one you do find is one about an early Acadamy Award (for example) that's enough to indicate notability (although not enough to build an entire article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Other relevant links at Google here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Those Sources should be also in the article else we will be back here within a month Alf photoman 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be in there. I will do that tomorrow if I don't forget, but my point is that a cursory check on Google could've prevented an AFD to begin with. If nominators check what they're nominating, they're busy adding sources more often than nominating things for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep! - somebody screwed up this nomination. This page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (music) and it's regarding David Freeman (musician). I'd vote to relist, but it was already relisted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (musician). Ehem. Vote there, not here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Within his genre (bluegrass), he is a Hall of Honor inductee! If that's not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, what is? Cmadler 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Assuming the AfD was about his notability. Obviously, the Flight of the Navigator Hits have nothing to do with him. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. ConDem^Talk 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. I've sourced that part of the article. -- Black Falcon 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub (though lacking sources). Winner of notable award isn't enough to pass WP:BIO and isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but the article isn't vanity. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 February 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, and also delete other album images uploaded by the same user (see below). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:16Z

TBA Nelly Furtado

TBA Nelly Furtado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Nelly 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Nominate for deletion along with

TBA Kelly Clarkson(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TBA Kelly Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Kelly clarkson.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Sugababes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Suga 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Shakira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:SHAKIRA.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Ashlee Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Ashlee.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Jennifer Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Jlop.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TBA Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:MAR.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

File:Kylie 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Comment from closing admin: In addition to the above listed images used only on the respective articles, I am also summarily deleting the following orphaned images (plus a few that are only used on articles for other "to be released" albums), since the creator seems to have a history of uploading fake/photoshopped album cover images. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:26Z

File:Britters2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:4 in the morning.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Nat Nb.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Nicole.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:BECAUSE I LOVE IT.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Double the trouble 4.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Ms. kelly.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Me and my 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:ACE REJECT.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:ANYTHING.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Fired up 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Sweet sacrifice.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Back to black.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:LEONA 3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:TEARS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Ghosts.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Ghosts 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Back to black.png.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Nb2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Christinamilian.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Leav me alone.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Liberation 1.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Liberation 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:ORAL FIXATON TOUR.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:ORAL FIXATON TOUR2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:BRITTERS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:BRITTERS2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:MADGE.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Mutya3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:MUTYA2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Bday Deluxe Edition.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Copy of Double the trouble 3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Trip 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Ittle remedy.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Beaut.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:FROMT THE ROOTS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Pink2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Incredible.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:THE MUSICAL 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:The musical.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

All of these articles are speculation about future albums of which the name isn't even known. No citations to verify speculation. (WP:CRYSTAL) Adambro 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, TBA (album). Adambro 10:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've let the user in question know about this AfD but they've created another article along the same lines, TBA Mariah Carey, which I've added to this debate. They have also uploaded more images without adding a license which I've also mentioned to them. Adambro 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TBA Nelly Furtado has been deleted, "WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio from http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/furtado%20records%20first%20spanish%20album_1017184)", but the others remain part of the AfD. Adambro 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the names are not known, but the photo suggests the article is to be released, have you visited their official webpages? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I am not prejudiced against a keep if these can be sourced, but several of these, if not all, appear to be copyright violations. Part Deux 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of them (why there are three about the same unnamed Kelly Clarkson album is beyond me). When names, tracklistings, personnel or release dates start being mentioned reliably (and not all necessarily at once) they'll be appropriate inclusions. Not before, and particularly not when some of them appear to be pure guesswork - some articles are nothing but "it would be logical for X to happen", while others appear to be founded on the fact that such-and-such a song has been performed somewhere. Additionally, as Part Deux points out, there's more than a whiff of a cut-and-paste copyvio about some of these. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where be the sources? Where be the references? Where be the Wikipedia:Attribution showing that the information in this article is correct, and that these albums are forthcoming? Delete all as not meeting the Wikipedia:Attribution core policy and the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not official policy, unless someone with an interest in these articles can provide citations supporting the imminent arrival of all these unnamed albums. Re-create when more verifiable, sourceable, factchecked information is made available. -- saberwyn 11:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional. If kept, someone needs to tactical nuclear ewok merge TBA (album), TBA Kelly Clarkson(album), and TBA Kelly Clarkson - these are identical! -- saberwyn 11:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, articles are a mix of original research, copy/paste from other articles and non-informative (no album names, no reliable release dates etc...). Also the names of the articles ("TBA") make clear that we are dealing with not much verifiable information here. Recreate when more information is available. Either delete or redirect to artist article, so the information is still available when a real article is warranted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, very unlikely search for a redirect, crystalballery at this point. Recreate 'em when they can be sourced (and named). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all All the information is unverifiable original research and speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Might even be copyvios. It is preferable to start the articles when there is information about these albums. - Anas ^Talk? 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These are unlikely search terms. An album needs a name at the very least until it can have its own article. If anything verifiable can be said before that, it belongs in the artist's article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal balling and unlikely search items. The fact these speculative releases don't even have titles yet should be a clue, really. 23skidoo 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redirect to artists pages. even though some albums are known to be coming out (such as Kelly Clarkson's), no date, tracklist, or title are confirmed yet, it can all wait until the official release statements are out and there's something to make an article with. Alankc 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought they need to be redirects. Adambro 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They seem like unusual search terms, which would tend to militate against a redirect. I'm also skeptical of the argument that "they're known to be coming out", given that it would be highly unusual if a popular recording act wasn't at some point in planning an album. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

when they simply delete, instead of redirect.. someone always just re-creates it, and we go through this all over again, or redirect tot he AFD age anyway.. so save some time and headaches and redirect to begin with either to the AFD discussion or the artist page itself. Alankc 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I never stand in the way of redirects. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment only - if kept or if recreated when sources are available, they should be renamed in the format X's nth studio album — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:47, 21 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

Zumi zumi

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

Another WP:OR drinking game without any reliable sources - no indication of notability either by gsearch. Part Deux 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's reasoning. I also failed to turn up any sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My Google search turned up few results that have anything to do with a drinking game. Beer die is an example of a notable drinking game; this one makes no claim to being notable. - grubber 15:58, 22 February 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 keep. John254 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Storrow Drive

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

Well, it's a parkway. There is no assertion of notability except for "The road is notorious for speeding and aggressive driving because police enforcement along the road is difficult without a breakdown lane." I left a note on the talk page, and prodded it 35 hours later. After two minutes, the prod was removed by NE2 with the edit summary "This is a clearly notable road." I think not. It's a parkway. Yes, it has many google hits, but that doesn't say squat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, no secondary sources cited to establish notability, and I can't find any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep due to several secondary sources provided. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a freeway that carries large amounts of traffic. Sources do exist, largely in the form of contemporary newspaper articles. Here's one source of some information: [27] There are a few more in [28]. --NE2 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment First one has some good information, and might work in conjunction with others, but the rest on the search appear to be name-drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives, and the Google News Archive only has them indexed back to 1986. I'm sure there were hundreds of articles specifically about the road when it was being built. It opened June 16, 1951, if you have access and care to look. --NE2 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of news. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though. And while the article may be well sourced, it still needs an assertion of notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It doesn't need "an assertion of notability"; it needs most people in this discussion to agree that it's notable enough for an article. There's a difference. --NE2 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • It certainly does need as assertation of notability. Without one, it might even qualify for speedy deletion. EliminatorJR 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Under what criterion? --NE2 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Because no assertion of notability IS a crierion for speedy deletion of anything that fails WP:N Having said that, this one is looking like it is notable now, so that's a moot point. EliminatorJR 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't see any criteria on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that match "no assertion of notability". --NE2 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Look here WP:SPEEDY under "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted". EliminatorJR 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Those are "non-criteria" that are not to be used for speedy-deleting articles. --NE2 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Read it again. "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. As I say, though, it's irrelevant here now anyway. EliminatorJR 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • I think you should read the actual criteria: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." --NE2 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Even the New York Times had an article, albeit a short one, on its opening: [29] --NE2 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: can the claim about speeding be substantiated. Without it, the article pretty much only states it exists. Perhaps the construction has some notable aspects to it? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was an early freeway with outdated aspects like left exits. It took up parkland and resulted in more landfill being added to the river to create the Charles River Esplanade. It really is one of the most major highways in Boston. --NE2 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a major road with an ADT of 100,000. It is also part of the National Highway System. It is one of the early limited access roads in the US that were originally designed for pleasure driving. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Save for I-90 (which doesn't really qualify), Storrow Drive is Boston's major east-west thoroughfare. It is also a state highway, the notability of which is long established by the many thousands of state highways with Wikipedia articles. And, frankly, with over a hundred thousand Google hits, anyone who claims not to have found sources to establish the highway's notability hasn't bothered to try in the first place. RGTraynor 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the more prominent Boston landmarks. The article is a stub now but should develop with time/research. Wikipedia is not paper.Ajkessel | Talk 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a major thoroughfare through the city of Boston. In addition to plenty of media coverage, the fact that every major traffic site for Boston monitors the road further underscores its notability. Krimpet 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Polaron and others above. There are plenty of sources available; cleanup/stub is not a reason to delete. schi ^talk 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NE2, Parloron and others. An important freeway/expressway in major metropolitan area. --Oakshade 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's Boston's equivalent to Manhattan's Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive, BTW. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Important arteries deserve articles. Fg2 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously important highway in Boston. WP:SNOW anyone? --Holderca1 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No way, I still haven't dug out my car from last week! Oh, wait, WP:SNOW! Yeah, I think so. --

Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. --Thisisbossi 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

References

• Delete The references show that it was built. That satisfies WP:V , but there is not enough to satisfy notability other than passing references or trivial references to someone putting up a sign to promote the local baseball team. Inkpaduta 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the road and it's history has been covered my multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources; I'm not sure you can dismiss books about Boston as trivial. BTW, the Boston Red Sox have a following throughout the New England region, and aren't merely a "local baseball team." -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 23 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-BPD

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

This article deals with the group dynamics in a relationship with mentally ill people, especially borderlines and narcissists. While the topic this article tries to address is valid, this article is not maintainable. It would have to be rewritten and moved.
This is impossible due to editorial gridlock. An article 'owner' has been trying to get rid of the page for more than half a year (strangely enough he never listed it for deletion). Work on this article is impossible (constant deletions reverts and what not appearing on the horizon, most writers will be scared off just like me). There is no benefit in having this article. Whoever wants to write on this topic should recreate the article under a more appropriate title, probably a broader topic like Relationships with mentally ill people. The topic is more of a self-help-topic which is covered by popular press and psychology. The article owner thinks that only natural science topics should be allowed on Wikipedia and cites numerous policies. (None of the policies confirms that of course.) It is pretty much impossible to cover the topic from the point of view of natural science due to its nature being a self-help-topic. The authors of the books that this article is based on are all social scientists (psychologists) not psychiatrists (natural scientists).
A redirect to Borderline personality disorder would be misleading, because it covers the opposite of the article in question here and there is a whole group of people on this article who all oppose the inclusion of non-empirical research, popular culture material and self-help-literature. Which I agree with, the content of Non-BPD should not be merged into Borderline personality disorder. Keep popular culture topics separate from hard science. There is almost no psychiatric research about the group dynamics in a group with a mentally ill person which is what the sources for the Non-BPD article would be about. Group dynamics is not a subject psychiatry deals with.

• Delete this article as unnecessary unmaintainable clutter. Grace E. Dougle 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editing disputes are not a good reason to delete an article on a valid topic. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or report people who violate WP:3RR and WP:OWN. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I was willing to improve the article a little but there is no way I will go through lenghty dispute resolution processes. And I believe others will think so too. --Grace E. Dougle 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I just listed it for RFC a couple of hours ago to try and sort it out. Unless there is some hard evidence in the form of citations and valid sources I am not convinced that this IS a "valid topic". It seems to be no more than the agenda of a self help book associated non-notable online support groups.--Zeraeph 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What agenda? You have evaded this topic before, please be specific.--Grace E. Dougle 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply I haven't evaded anything as far as I can see. Without further valid evidence I have no choice but conclude that the term "Non-BPD" exists only as the topic of a self-help book called "Stop Walking on Eggshells" and it's non notable offshoots. As the book, in itself, seems little more than villification and marginalisation of anybody who can be percieved (not diagnosed, just percieved) to show show traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, a medical condition acknowledged to be caused largely by abuse in the first place. The main author of this book, Randy Kreger is a former (or maybe she still is) public relations consultant who's entire experience of Borderline Personality Disorder, at the time the book was written, consisted in attributing it to at least one family member. Now pardon me if I find all of that a little questionable in terms of validity, encyclopaedic value and NPOV. I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the article be deleted, BUT I think it is only right and "Wikipaediac" (<is that a word?) to try and establish/see if anyone can establish other valid credentials for the term "Non-BPD". I even went so far as to persuade an editor with appropriate qualifications to re-write a neutral, informed section on "Non-BPD" for the redirect to the Borderline personality disorder article[30], and persuaded him to leave it [31] when he wanted to delete it as a result of a book deal to write a book on the topic. [32]. The section was recently deleted without any objection from me because it had been there for almost a year without attracting one, single citation - valid or otherwise. --Zeraeph 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So the agenda of the book by Mason/Kreger, according to you, would be that the authors are trying to vilify and marginalize borderlines? You probably misunderstood this book. There is a process Mason describes that encourages the reader to distance themselves from the person emotionally and try to see the illness in their behaviour rather than the insults (borderlines tend to rage at their relatives/significant others and insult them with all kinds of things). It does not tell them to hate them, vilify them or marginalize them. The same holds true for the other books that talk about relationships with borderlines (Kreisman: I hate you, don't leave me; Lawson: Understanding the borderline mother; Judovsky). Lawson's book even has the term 'understanding' in the title. But we both agree that stressing the non-aspect is not the correct way to tackle this article.--Grace E. Dougle 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply No, I am quite certain that I haven't misunderstood anything at all. I am familiar with the book, et al. But this is not the place to debate (or promote) that. This AFD is about the article "Non-BPD". If the term only relates to one self help book and it's agenda without other academic references or citations it is not sufficiently noteable for an article, if however, you, or anyone can find citations from reliable sources that are peer-reviewed and supported by research, just like Racism and Bigotry, however unpleasant, it must stay. But in a neutral, balanced article that also cites the opposition and perhaps manages to get along without links to pdf rants, like "A survivor's tale" by fully identified men about their ex wives (who are identified by association).

Without that, the only valid text for the article is Non-BPD is a term some people use for people who do not have Borderline personality disorder, and once we have that, we had better have "Non-gardener", "Non-anaemic" and "Non-lefthanded" as well.

Have you seen my comment lower down? Did you realise I have requested an RFC when you requested this? If not you might like to consider requesting an early closure without prejudice pending the RFC. I would not oppose that. --Zeraeph 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I was going to list it myself as it was re-directing for months anyway to BPD, and now the Non-BP section it redirected to has been removed from that article (primnarily because it remained uncited and unverified I think) it seemed better to delete. However as it seemed so important to Grace E. Dougle the same editor who just listed it for deletion (??) it only seemed fair to give her plenty of time to come up with some valid, verifiable, NPOV information to convince me otherwise. Obviously that is not going to happen now. Personally I would be very wary of "self-help" articles (particularly on a broad, undefined topic such as "relating to the mentally ill"). It doesn't seem very encyclopaedic, most of the time the "information" in these areas masquerades as pseudo science, while, in fact, being unsupported by any kind of academic sources or research and too many of the "experts" are, in fact, self appointed and, at best, higly subjective (at worse...well...let's not go there...). I am also not sure how wise it would be to encourage that kind of unregulated, agenda driven, promotion in an encyclopaedia? --Zeraeph 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• NeutralChanging because this article was listed for all the wrong reasons, and, as it turns out, prematurely in any realistic sense. The topic may be far broader than previously indicated by the article's content, and there really should not be an AFD before that is explored.--Zeraeph 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, this appears to merely be an editing dispute?? They way to resolve this is not by bringing it too AfD. RfC which it seems has been started is a much much better option. Mathmo ^Talk 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I listed this for RFC just over an hour BEFORE this AFD was listed. Somebody just pointed out to me that people might not realise this, not least Grace E. Dougle? --Zeraeph 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And...now what? RFC means request for comment and I've certainly done enough commenting. I would like to see this deleted.--Grace E. Dougle 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution Just request an early closure here, on whatever you consider your grounds to be, without prejudice to the article's being relisted for deletion again. You might like to also like to repeat the request on WP:AN to hurry things up. I certainly won't oppose, although my personal preference is strongly for deletion I had no intention of listing it without giving you time to come up with valid sources and citations. When you listed it I assumed that you were not going to do so. Somebody pointed out that you were only new and might not have noticed or understood what an RFC might entail.

I will take this opportunity to give you fair notice that the only thing you can do to change my mind is to produce valid, neutral, peer reviewed sources for the notability of the term Non-BPD. Anything else is a waste of your time, and mine. It is probably a good idea to copy this discussion to "requests for comment" on the article's talk page? --Zeraeph 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could there be something you just don't get? I listed this article for deletion, so why should I want to change your mind (you also opted for delete) and produce material that supports an article I want deleted? And that is not a question, just a comment. --Grace E. Dougle 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant you wanted to delete the AFD for now and go with the RFC. --Zeraeph 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is called "Non-BPD," but the rest of the article uses the term "nonBP" or "non-BP," which just means not having BPD. Should every article have a non-n equivalent now? I note that in news archives "non-BP" normally refers to things that are not British Petroleum or not affiliated with British Petroleum. Will we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between things that are not BPD and things that are not British Petroleum? PubliusFL 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It appears that this short article is the only reference to Non-BP's that is left on Wikipedia. I no longer see Non-BP referred to - where it started - in the Borderline Personality Disorder article.
  To delete the article eliminates all Wikipedia reference to a real social issue. It is for that reason that I oppose the deletion. Someone who has the misfortune to find themselves in a relationship with a BP may find this article to be a very helpful indeed. And Wikipedia is just the kind of place that such an individual may look for this kind of information.
  Perhaps the term "Non-BPD" is a misnomer. It does not mean someone who does not have a Borderline Personality Disorder (as some have suggested). Many people with a Borderline Personality Disorder also claim to be Non-BPD's. A Non-BPD is to someone with a Borderline Personality Disorder as an Al-Anon member is to an Alcoholic. And BTW, there are no references or citations in that article, yet I don't see any move afoot to have it deleted. Could it be that Al-Anon members are more sympathetic figures than Non-BP's?
  I am not enamored of the term Non-BP, if it is too closely associated with Randi Kreger's book, then choose another, more generic term.--gargoyle888 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you will find that is because the Al-Anon article is confined to discussing the nature of the organisation itself, whereas the Non-BPD is confined entirely to pseudo psychology on the nature of relationships with people with BPD, such as As noted, the Reactive nonBP does, in fact, become drawn into the inertia of the Borderline disorder, and does this in two very distinct ways; transpersonally, and counterpersonally. which definately requires either academic citation or deletion. --Zeraeph 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I see that you have removed the offending text from the article. That's fine with me, in fact, that text always bothered me. Nor would I object to renaming the title from Non-BP to something that is less tied to a Kreger's coined name and commercial interests.

If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article, then shouldn't there be a link in the BP article to this one? Otherwise, how would anyone ever find this?--gargoyle888 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Regardless of whether it is a "real social issue," the article has no reliable sources, and therefore it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. PubliusFL 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete There is at present no indication of who if anyone has ever used the term.DGG 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I work in the field and have never heard the term. Agree with the non-x argument listed previously. However I would Keep if the term added anything to the understanding of the condition but I don't feel that it does. Cas Liber 05:04, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kory and the fireflies

Kory and the fireflies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am a strong inclusionist, but by everyone else's standards this band is non-notable (673 Google hits). That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself, but the article is so terribly formatted, nothing links to it and even the article's name doesn't adhere to the manual of style.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am regularly impressed when noticing how often people see the word "bottom" and read "top". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Other than that, delete. Non-notable band. The image is not only a copyright violation but also overall crappy. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'm a bit torn on this one: the article claims plenty of notability, including being the supporting act for major artists, and several national singles. However, I'm not seeing sources to back up the best parts, and their record label according to the article, "Sirwin Music Group", gets no Google hits at all, hardly a good sign. I'd be happy to change my vote if the claims in the article are sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete many claims of notability, but as already mentioned, abosolutely no evidence through reliable sources for these claims. Nuttah68 11:56, 26 February 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pocket trout

Was originally prodded as "non-notable flashlight". I don't know of any notability standards for flashlights, but ones in the shape of fish from a notable brand qualify in my opinion. Should I bother checking for more sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I confused the editor below, let me say this is a procedural nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, why does the nominator ask if the should bother checking for more sources? Of course they should check it out as far as it reasonably possible based on the article before nominating it for deletion. My quick look shows that google gives (excluding wikipedia results) over 5 thousand hits [33]. Though... on second thoughts it appears it is also slang for cock. Found a photo of it [34]. Anyway..... my point is that this nomination should have been thought out a little bit more beforehand. Oh, though hang on.... it would appear from reading the nomination they are not even advocating the deletion of the article? Sounds like a possible candidate for a speedy close if they withdraw their nomination.... Mathmo ^Talk 13:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• On second thought, withdraw nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 21 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:41Z

Speech communication society

Speech communication society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Spam – Qxz 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG and Wikipedia is not a free webspace -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:22, 21 February 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 Deleted by Mackensen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

Cocknubbing

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

Appears to be a neologism. No ghits for it, and no references or sources cited. This may be a possible hoax, as well. sunstar net^talk 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Zero Google hits, no assertion of notability, no sources, sole contribution of user. Delete, per WP:V and WP:NFT. -- The Anome 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom, and seems liable to be sillyness. → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per The Anome. Mathmo ^Talk 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a hoax. If it were a real slang term it would likely get at least one Google hit, it doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism with zero cites or sources. Inkpaduta 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NEO. Just prod this kind of crap; don't even bother with afd. Part Deux 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. WMMartin 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Above. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Ive never heard of this word being used at all - always find suspicion when its is deemed a local dialect as I feel this is an easy way to avoid being questioned on why it is not in common usage. If it was that common in the midlands it would have spread to other gay communities in the UK --PrincessBrat 12:42, 23 February 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:42Z

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:David Spart created a new page called Chabad Messianism which was mostly content from the Yechi article and the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. I believe that instead of having multiple articles on every aspect of the messianism and the controversy there should be one article on the controversy in chabad and perhaps a shorter article on the phrase of Yechi and if that gets too long than to further split as per WP:SIZE. Therefore I had moved his new article to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and merged in the rest of the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. User:David Spart does not agree with this. I am therefore putting this article up for deletion, to see what the consensus would be. Should everything go back to the way it was before with all the controversies staying in the chabad-lubavitch article or should just the messianism page stay separate along with a separate Yechi page, or should the main article be controversies of chabad-lubavitch. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination I created the Chabad Mechanism page because that is the true nature of the issue. If you read the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article you will note that the first section is unencylopdic blather about Chabad in general, and all the rest is either about of stemming from Chabad Messianism. PinchasC refused to allow me to write the article and kept deleting my material WHILE he knew it was still being written, despite requests. Chabad Messianism is worthy of a topic in its own right, check Google to get a taste. Numerous 'scholarly BOOKS and ARTICLES have been written on the topic from many perspectives, many of them peer-reviewed.

• When the Yechi article was nominated for deletion there was a strong consensus to keep. Note that all Yechi is is the mantra that Chabbad Messianists use. IF that deserves an article obviously Chabad Messianism does!
• PinchasC did not grant my request to allow the article a week or two to stabilise before he nominated it for deletion, to perhaps merge in the Yechi stuff etc. He did not even nominate the article he wants to be deleted Chabad Messianism for deletion because he knows that it would stay. He instead has tried to confuse the issue further (a theme in his edits on Chabad topics) by nominating an article for deletion that no-one wants to be deleted, so that it will stay - since no consensus will be reached to delete - and he will then use that as a pretext for deleting the Chabad Messianism article WITHOUT consensus , based on this smokescreen.
• If PinchasC wants Chabad Messianism deleted, then he should rescind this bad-faith nomination and nominate THAT article for deletion and stop merging articles without consensus.
• PinchasC has long maintained the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article in the parlous state that it is now in. Notice that in all wikipedia there is only ONE PARAGRAPH of discussion about Chabad Messianism. One of the biggest controversies in Post-War Judaism has one measly paragraph that is then followed by a lengthy OFF THE POINT attacks on David Berger from some marginal sources! This is due to PinchasC's constant edit-warring to maintain the Chabad articles the way that he likes them. He is not a disinterested party, as anyone can see and should step back from editing Chabad articles for a while.

David Spart 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: David Spart, you seem to be well aware of the history in the articles on Chabad-Lubavitch and Yechi, as well as the fact that it's alway been a controversial subject among editors. Nevertheless, you chose to not discuss anything with other editors on the talk pages of this controversial subject.

You mention a number of complaints above on the articles and one of its many editors. Instead of singlehandedly creating these articles on a very controversial subject, I think it would have been a much better to discuss those matters on the talk pages first.

In other words: if you decided to "Be Bold", expect others to "Be bold" as well. Shlomke 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this well-sourced article that sheds much important light on the history of the inner-workings of an important world movement that, by now, cannot possibly be squeezed into one or two articles. This article will become an important component of Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism. IZAK 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch as is and expand on it as well. IZAK 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per IZAK - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, either is fine I guess, but I would prefer it as a separate article. Anyways, AfD is not the forum for this discussion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this article and build a good article on Chabad Messianism by merging together the Messianist info and sources with Yechi and other stuff. David Spart 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article and Delete Chabad Messianism. The latter is a subset of this article as of now. -- Avi 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The way it reads looks fine to me. AfD is not the proper venue for settling nomenclature brawls. Find consensus terms, use redirects, and have done with it. Ravenswing 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would not be opposed to a merge or restructuring of these articles as long as content is preserved. In particular, I agree that the current duplication of content on multiple articles is a problem, and hence I agree that there should be only one article on the subject of Chabad messianism and either Chabad Messianism should redirect to Yechi or vice-versa, and in addition, there only needs to be a summary on the subject in Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch with a link to the main article. However, Chabad does have more than one controversy, and content on the other controversies, even if some characterize them as "blather", is notable, encyclopedic, and should not be deleted. --Shirahadasha 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. (Changing my vote to) Keep this article and delete Chabad Messianism as per Avi and IZAK. Shlomke 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it all. All this moving around and such is making me think that there's an attempt to white wash the fact that there are legitimate controversies about Chabad. And I'm sure that's not the case. Kolindigo 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Shirahadasha. Afd is not the place to settle edit wars. John Vandenberg 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create a seperate article on Chabad Messianism which may or may not need to have Yechi merged into it. I (as others have suggested above) have been concerned that editing articles on Chabad is closely controlled by admins such as PinchasC and Eliezer. This is not healthy. I sympathise with the creator of the above article, I recall similar problems about a year ago and see that nothing has changed. Well done for whoever managed to sneak the Yechi article past the gaurds - I asume that was in frustration at not being able to write a proper NPOV article on Chabad Messianism. juicifer 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and redirect Chabad Messianism to it or Yechi. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The multiplicity of articles seems in part to be due to an edit war. I'm not impressed by the references of any of these articles. Can anyone who wants to defend their own article be sure to (1) be sure that all the links actually work, (2) that any real published books have ISBNs? I'd allow all these articles to exist until there is one master article that is extremely well-sourced and is acceptable to the general Wikipedia community as being a good article. What's here now does not seem to meet the normal WP standards. For example, there are many claims made without in-line citations. We are supposed to take it on faith that the person writing the article is correct. The only article by David Berger that I could find was a web posting, that probably does not count as a reliable source by WP:RS. If this stuff is important, someone should be able to write an article that is well-sourced by general Wikipedia standards. EdJohnston 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps a merge with the main Chabad article will do? Anyway, this article is already very well off and has no problems, is very informative, well-cited, good structure, . I have heard tell of PinchasC nominating it under an ulterior motive (not sure). Noogster 03:07, 26 February 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 Merge to Teirm. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:44Z

Dragon Wing (ship)

Dragon Wing (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deproded by the article's creator with no explanation. Article is about a fictional ship in a fantasy series. The ship is not the main focus of the story or a central element of the plot, it serves no notable pursose and it not a character itself. It is just a ship that happens to be in the book series. The article not only fails the fiction guidline but the general notability guidline as well. Cruft in the extreme made by what seems to be an over-eager fan of the series. NeoFreak 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to the article about the bookEldest after paring down considerably the original research in the article. A ship mentioned in a book does not need its own article if it has not attained enough notability for independent reliable sources to write about it. Counterbalancing this adherance to WP:N is the notion that if a group of editors create a project, then everything they create is notable. There is a project to create articles for just about everything mentioned in this fantasy trilogy. Inkpaduta 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While that may be a notion by some it is not a notion that is congruent with established guidlines and policy. It's why WP:N exists and there is a creteria for deletion. The ship is already mentioned in the parent book articles so I'm not really seeing what additional material there is to merge that is not original research. NeoFreak 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge possibly disambiguate. I would also support merging the valid content to Eldest or the individual character's articles, but I seem to recall other ships by the name of Dragon Wing (including the one in the novel of the same name), so it might be best to disambiguate. However, I could be convinced that this particular ship is important enough within the series that it can stand on its own. It may not be an Enterprise or Pequod, but it does claim to be the premier ship of a particular fleet. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry that I didn't finish the disambiguation. I only added one to the Dragon Wing page itself when I removed the ship material. But you're correct; the novel Dragon Wing also contains a ship called Dragon Wing, and other books in that series contain a second ship also named Dragon Wing, so the Eldest ship isn't the only ship of that name. -- Immora 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, as stated above. I think this is not important enough to merit its own article, in accordance with WP:FICT. Without a doubt it deserves its own article on the Inheritance Wiki, but definitely not here. If it does get moved into another article the content will need to be seriously refined because of its length, but what is actually written is not terrible. UnaLaguna 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Requires a secondary source with 'Out-of-universe' material to justify separate article per WP:FICTION. Merge what? per nom, it isn't important to the plot summary outside the mentioning it already has. --maclean 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge sounds fine to me. I don't know the material at all to know how notable this thing is; I just split it off and worked on it because the original article had been slapped on top of one of my projects. Didn't appreciate that, so I made the separate article to get it off Dragon Wing rather than just revert and possibly get into an edit war. However, going by what other contributors have added, it sounds to me like the ship does have a notable plot function that warrants some sort of description of it, even if that's not its own separate article. Trying to keep the article pared down since speculation and redundancies keep getting added. The original creator (the material seen in the first edit of the article) apparently removed the notice because he felt he'd added enough to the article to justify its continued presence. It belongs somewhere! -- Immora 18:36, 22 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:54Z

Beer Index

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

hoax/nonsense Travelbird 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Personal/local theory at best. Note that the contributor has been civil. - Skysmith 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of reliable sources, appears to be a personal theory. Not really a hoax or nonsense, but unsuitable article material – Qxz 14:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:OR and WP:NFT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This has been made up. As a UK resident, I can confirm that if the prices quoted were accurate we would all have committed suicide by now! ("Suffolk, England USD 6.50, London USD 10.50". Normal prices are between £2 and £3 unless you only frequent 5* hotels and rely on room service.) Emeraude 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research at best. NawlinWiki 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an OR spin off of the Big Mac Index.-- danntm ^T _C 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. An interesting theory, however. There might even be a (spurious) correlation. ;P -- Black Falcon 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. alchohol articles from countries where they have "to get drunk"-cultures, is not needed inside here. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Amusing article. The prices quoted in US$ when converted to UK£ comes nowhere near - im speaking as someone who lives in the UK. Your looking at about $6 per pint in London not $10.50 quoted. Ive never heard of this beer index before, and also the quote on southern men being more happy is pure hearsay! Also its the Big Mac index in the Economist - not Bic Mac!! --PrincessBrat 12:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds kind of dumb.Sockem 18:37, 23 February 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 redirect to Group (Periodic table). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemical series

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

I don't think the "term" 'chemical series' merits an article - it is not a proper scientific term, it is just a turn of phrase, a use figure of speech in chemistry. See the talk page of the article for more discussion.

My proposal is to turn this article in a redirect to Group (Periodic table) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Content is redundant to Group (Periodic table). Feeeshboy 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. Part Deux 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is Articles for deletion. Only nominate an article for deletion if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you want. Neither article merger nor simply editing an article into a redirect require administrator tools. They don't even require that one have an account. Uncle G 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry, but if I want a bunch of opinions quickly, this seems to be the most practical way to go. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The article's talk page is the place for gathering such opinions, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the way to advertise a talk page discussion to a wider audience. As for your wanting them quickly: Wikipedia does not operate to a deadline. Uncle G 09:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• neutral I'm not so sure that this is unnotable. I've usually heard these referred to as 'groups' in my chem. classes (both organic and inorganic), but if sourcing can be found then this term may be notable. It's not a synonym for 'group' because not all groups share unique properties, IE alkali metals, alkali earth metals and noble gasses all share notable properties with their group-mates (the series, apparently). Some other groups don't have much in common from period to period (say group 4 or 13). The fact that halogens all form strong mineral acids and have high electronegativity means that they're more than an arbitrary grouping. That said, unless someone marginally important or more has used the term (I've seen them called 'special groups' before, never chemical series) it's, while still interesting, not notable. Wintermut3 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect either to Group (Periodic table), which is what the current scope of the article is, or to Periodic table, which also discusses the horizontal (period) series. --Polaron | Talk 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to group per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Nothing useful or special on this page that couldn't be merged into there, and no reason that info on this topic should be scattered. DMacks 03:29, 26 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:46Z

A Million Points of Light

A Million Points of Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Digidestined.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Future_Digidestined_and_kids.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:DigidestinedsKids.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Kari03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Tai2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Matt_digimon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Izzy03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Sora2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Mimi03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Joe04.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Tk03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Davis03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Ken03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Cody03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Yolei2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Digimon 02: Series Finale Epilogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous discussion at WP:DIGI has lead us not to create Digimon episode articles. 90% of the info is fancruftily unencyclopedic, even for digimon (and especially in light of the current reorganization of articles Circeus 13:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit for deleting admin: Please also delete redirect Digimon 02: Series Finale Epilogue.Circeus 02:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, digicruft. That many fair-use images in an article can't be good, either – Qxz 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless we have an article about [35] (a Salvation Army fundraiser with decent news coverage; see [36]) or the general concept of those "pixels-for-sale" websites, in which case redirect there. cab 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, silly otaku obsession over character's futures that don't even factor into the main series -_-; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indiawilliams (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Good point. We don't need yet another outlet to those silly pairing wars.Circeus 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• No Opinion -- episode itself is a very important part of the series, but the article as it is is listcruft. Maybe a complete rewrite? JPG-GR 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Individual Digimon episodes just aren't notable, and articles about them would have major source issues and be magnets for extreme cruft and OR. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --`/aksha 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of the deleted article End of the Line which was also an episode. x42bn6 Talk 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Major Keep Isn't this AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SERIES? Whoever posted that last post should go jump off a cliff. I haven't even HEARD of that episode anyway. 72.35.34.145 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Being important to the show is far different from being important or useful to Wikipedia or the average reader. This has nothing to do with liking the show or not, or anything of that nature. Also, End of the line was the English dub title for the last episode of Digimon Frontier. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article because I had not realised earlier that there was an epilogue in the final episode to each of the characters. The articles for each character included a written epilogue which didn't say where the information was found. I googled it and learned the epilogue was in the final episode. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to create a page just for the epilogue so I created an article for that episode. Isn't the ending of the characters important too? I found it strange that I couldn't even find picutures of the future of the characters on wikipedia. This is my first time editting wikipedia so I probably messed up when I uploaded the pictures..

I didn't mean to start pairing wars but the episode seemed pretty clear as to who married who, and who is left open ended (did I mess up that part?). I also created it because I thought it was important to show that each of the kids achieved their goals. (ChloeSong 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

• • My "pairing war" comments had nothing to do with you. If you look at Tai, Kari, T.K., Matt, Sora, or even mimi's pages' histories,you'll find PLENTY of instances of people inserting pairing stuff that is outright wrong. That page would just be another magnet for that. Circeus 23:29, 23 February 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 Merge to Objectivist movement. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:49Z

Randroid

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

Useless neologism, unencyclopedic Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Compress into one sentence and Merge into Objectivist movement. It seems to get a fair amount of usage, but I doubt much more can be said about it, and the overall criticism of Objectivism is already in that article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Objectivist movement per Starblind. NeoFreak 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep and no merge. if you merge it, the people who work on that page will do their best to delete the content. this is one perspective on certain groups in the Objectivist camp that needs to be present in wp in order to have neutral articles, as the articles are remarkably biased in favor of positive depictions of objectivists. --Buridan 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • merge. This is just a definition. Buridan: Wikipedia policy frowns on creation of POV forks (that is, articles that are created in order to provide one side of a story). Criticisms of Objectivism should be in the Objectivism article, even if putting them there requires overcoming the objections of biased editors. If the criticisms get too long, you can put them in a new article (say, Criticisms of objectivism), leaving a summary at Objectivism.-Fagles 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, but all you have to do is look where any significant criticism ends up in those articles, take for instance the ari's pages... constant fight to remove all criticism, even those that are true and citable, eventually people just give up, and that's that. --Buridan 05:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just a dicdef, so has no place here. Offer it to Wiktionary, maybe, but I suspect it will fail their guidelines. WMMartin 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• merge and redirect. The word has been around as a term of abuse for at least 20-something years, and is definitely notable, but there just isn't much to be said, and nothing to be said which shouldn't be said in Objectivist movement instead. Αργυριου (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - sourced and encyclopaedic but not obviously expandable. TerriersFan 00:54, 25 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:50Z

Peter Stas

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

Frederique Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD for Frederique Constant.

The creator, who happens to be Peter Stas himself, maintains that he and his company are notable, and this isn't just self-promotion (despite both articles being speedied under those reasons a few days ago). Bringing it here for review. -- Steel 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I am currently in an ongoing heated debate with Peter Stas about the notability of his company, and given how hard he's finding it proving the notability of his company, never mind himself, I see no reason why these articles should be here. No substantial claim to notability, not verfiable, potential vanity page and no sources. Only source that got provided to me so far is a 2 year old article that rubbished the claim that him and his company introduced the silicium escapement wheel in the last 21 days (which was the claim to notability) and made absolutely no mention to either Peter Stas or his company. The Kinslayer 14:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If he is in fact the creator/founder and he cannot provide reliable sources to verify the subject's notability then the article is in violation of Wikipedia's attribution policy and subject to deletion. NeoFreak 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:V. If the company's president can't give us verifiable sources, then I see no reason to memorialize him. The company itself is demonstrably notable (nearly half a million Google hits along with G-sponsored links to authorized US dealers and the like, and that research took me all of five seconds), but this fellow isn't. RGTraynor 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I should amend my comment to reflect that I believe the Stas article to be in violation of WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:VAIN. On the Frederique Constant article, there is no doubt of the firm's notability (however much the article doesn't well reflect that), and my vote there would be for a firm Keep. RGTraynor 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Stas (Neutral on Frederique Constant). While the company has a shred of claim to notability, their CEO certainly does not. Caknuck 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per RGTraynor.Corporal Punishment 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Gentleman - As a first user, it still is a learning experience how you guys work and try to destruct a contribution. On talk pages, I have added various links to external articles on a Silicium Escapement, Frederique Constant and myself. The comment "If the company's president can't give us sources" is inappropriate. I have had a discussion already with Kinslayer on the Assume good faith guideline, which he considers unbinding. Still, I would like to ask if you can also give constructive critism as my intention was:

1) To enter information on a revolutionary silicium_escapement_wheel that we have introduced in February. Meanwhile, we have established it is indeed noteworthy information but my claim that we created it is considered not correct because Patek Philippe made an announcement in 2005 introducing a similar system.

2) To enter Frederique Constant, a well established watch company with, as also mentioned below, over half a million page references.

3) To enter myself because I saw that most companies have information on the CEO and founders of their companies. Please delete the page on myself if you feel it is of no contribution. I made the link after looking at other pages and thought that it was supposed to be done like this.

Pcstas 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)— Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1) You have yet to provide any evidence that your wheel is any way substantially different from the SEW introduced to the industry by Patek Philippe. You have claimed it has 'unique features' but have not provided any sources to back that claim up. The only source you provided was the article that proved your company is merely using someone elses design (regardless of any refinements you may have made. Refining the wheel and being the first to introduce the wheel to an industry are completely different things)

2)Google hits are not an establishment of Notability.Well-known and Notable are different things entirely. Pages with 15 Ghits have been proven notable in the past.

3)Other pages existing is generally not considered a valid arguement for the inclusion of an article. See also WP:COI. The Kinslayer 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re uniqueness: If you would have looked at the image of the Silicium Escapement Wheel that I uploaded, and it seems you have removed from the pages, you would have seen that the center of the wheel is made in the image of the Frederique Constant trademark logo. This is an unique design feature that every goodwilling person would have seen and confirmed. We further developped the shape and surface of our Silicium Escapement Wheel. It takes a whole technical discussion on the calculation of the teeth profiles which is most probably lost on you. As a start, place back the photo on the discussion pages so that everybody can see what I am talking about.Pcstas 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud at this! 'It's notably unique becuase your companies logo is on it'?! I have a wallet with my own design on it, but that doesn't entitle me to claim I have created a revolutionary new wallet! As I said earlier, redesigning/improving upon an exisiting design is nowhere near as notable as creating the design to begin with! Over the course of the last couple of days, you've gone from claiming your company created the SEW, to claiming they 'introduced' it to the market two years after it was actually introduced, and now your down to claiming it's unique merely becuase it has your company logo on it!Incredible! Does it make it unique? Perhaps. Does it make it notable? Never.The Kinslayer 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{Image removed because it's disrupting the discussion, please provide a link only) The Kinslayer 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Notability: I did not only provide Google hits as source on our company but other external sources as well: http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/archives/2005/06/swiss_watch_com.php http://www.fhs.ch/en/news/news.php?id=484 http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384538 Please see also the Financial Times, maybe you consider that more credible: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=frederique+constant&x=13&y=2&aje=true&dse=&dsz= Pcstas 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those sources do prove you and your companies notability, but the picture your showing us is a computer generated image? What the heck is that supposed to prove? Your company can produce an image using a computer? Well done. Moving on, I suggest a compromise. I'll change my opinion to keeping both articles, but I must insist that the claims of creating the Silicium escapement wheel stop. There are multiple readily available sources of other companies who also make the same claim, and theirs goes back further than 21 days, such as this one. More are available on demand. Is this acceptable? The Kinslayer 18:51, 22 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Healthy multiplicity

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

This seems to be a soapbox article that cites various internet fora, blogs, and discussion groups as evidence for the truth or untruth of the underlying concept. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources cited therein, and I can't find it discussed in sources other than blogs and the like. It doesn't seem to me that this meets our content standards, and therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Nandesuka 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - blatant WP:SOAP issues aside, the term appears to still be a neologism. Can anyone find any reliable sources? I have only [37]. Part Deux 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Firman and Gila, on page 68 of ISBN 0791455335 (part of chapter #4, entitled "multiplicity within the personality"), discuss Roberto Assagioli's notion of subpersonalities and assert that "subpersonalities are normal". They state that DID is "further along a continuum of dissociation that we all share", although it's unclear whether they consider being that far along the continuum to be healthy. In contrast, there's a fair amount of documented opinion saying that multiplicity is not healthy, such as Glass on page 60 of ISBN 0801482569, who asserts that whilst one may choose to have multiple tastes and interests or choose to be eccentric, "one does not choose, however, to possess a multiple or fragmented identity". Radden, in chapter 3 of ISBN 0262181754, seems to take the idea that DID is not healthy as a premise. On the gripping hand, ISBN 1932690034 acknowledges that people with DID can function. And those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this topic. See also the sources cited in the parent article at Multiple personality controversy#Healthy multiplicity, which are omitted by this sub-article.

    The biggest problem with this article is that it has forked out one side of the disagreement over DID/MPD rather than creating a summary style fork in a neutral manner. Forking out just the side that asserts that DID/MPD is healthy is wrong. Any sub-article on the subject should address both the views of those who say that it is healthy and the views of those who say that it is not, and should have a title that does not implicitly take the side of the former. Uncle G 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Uncle G, I respect the work you're doing here, but note that the issue isn't the underlying question of whether or not multiplicity is healthy, but whether the term "healthy multiplicity" exists as a distinct concept in reliable sources. I don't see that term in any of the sources you cite -- am I missing something?

      In other words, if the term isn't in use in reliable sources, then I fear it is a neologism, and hence inappropriate. Nandesuka 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

      • You are missing the fact that articles are about subjects, not terms, and the subject is the underlying question. We don't look to see whether "terms are in use", and when discussing the deletion of an entire article we look beyond the title. Looking to see whether words are used or not is Wiktionary territory. This is Wikipedia. We look to see whether subjects are documented, and what names they are documented under. The subject here is that very underlying question that you mention. That the people who, as I have already pointed out, have expressed opinions on the healthiness or unhealthiness of DID/MPD didn't use the exact phrase "healthy multiplicity" just means that this article is badly titled. But we knew that already. The very problem with this article is the inherent non-neutrality of its scope, as delineated by its introduction and title; which is fixed by renaming it to a neutral title, editing its introduction, and editing the rest of the article so that all sides of the arguments are presented. Thus one of the tasks is to come up with a suitable name for the topic that doesn't implicitly support one side of the debate to the exclusion of the other — and fixing the non-neutrality of the section in Multiple personality controversy at the same time. (Whether multiple personality is a disorder is one option.) Fixing a bad title doesn't require an administrator to hit a delete button. Any editor with an account has the tools for fixing a bad title. Uncle G 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Not sure about the history, but this may be a text broken out from Multiple personality controversy. There does seem to be at least some scholarly use of the phrase "healthy multiplicity" in this sense.[38],[39], [40]. This doesn't seem to be beyond repair. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonnotable neologism. Article reads like a POV fork from Dissociative Identity Disorder, and the stuff about shamanism is near-complete original research. I had some discussion about these problems with the editors of the page a while ago - they were polite, but unwilling to change the POV/OR of the article. Skinwalker 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above users have noted some important considerations. However, I believe that this article concerns a very important subject and thus should be edited to ensure NPOV rather than delated. Mike1981 21:07, 24 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:55Z

Mike Stevenson

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

I can't find any information that states that "Mike Stevenson" (or, for that matter, "Carl Stevenson") was ever a Chicago Cub. The nickname "Crazy Carl" appears to refer to Carl Everett who is a different player entirely. No sources are provided by the author, and the prod tag was removed without comment by an IP. Delete for lack of verification. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as complete hoax. The "Daytona Cubs" didn't exist until the 1990s, the "Iowa Cubs" not before the 1980s, baseball was neither played in Ireland in the 1950s or today, paralegals didn't exist per se before the 1970s, and baseball-reference.com doesn't list a major or a minor leaguer by this name. You'd think the creator would take the trouble to make a good hoax. RGTraynor 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't know where to start on this rather blatant hoax. The article has the subject simultaneously playing for Duke and the Cubs farm system... I'll just leave it there. Caknuck 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. In addition to the other fictional content, the article describes the subject as having been drafted by a baseball team a few years before the Major League Baseball Draft was actually instituted. --Metropolitan90 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A sourceless hoax. Corporal Punishment 23:48, 21 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:17Z

Scroffice

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

Delete - Arbitarily invented neologism, no substantial Google hits. MakeRocketGoNow 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Wikipedia is not for things made up in Connell, Washington one night – Qxz 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious WP:NEO issues. Just prod this kind of crap; it's not worth even afding it. Part Deux 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously fails WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 22 February 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 Merge to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:52Z

USS Farragut (Star Trek)

USS Farragut (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Yet another page on non-notable Star Trek starships. This article is about one starship that appeared in dialogue in a single television episode and never appeared on screen, another that appeared on film for about ten seconds without having any significant role in the film and another that appeared in a single television episode for about ten seconds without playing a significant role.} AlistairMcMillan 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Star Trek has its own wiki for this kind of page. Feeeshboy 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N is the notability guideline for Wikipedia, and says "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." This article has no such references, and none are likely to be found. A Wikipedia-like source is cited which is devoted to Startrek, but that is inherently unreliable. The other possible cite is to the episode where it is mentioned, but that is not independent. Inkpaduta 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a ship which plays only a minor role in the star trek universe.-- danntm ^T _C 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per WP:STARTREKISALWAYSNOTABLE. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - ship from notable series. - Peregrine Fisher 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Star Trek is notable. Every single piece of minutiae is not notable. AlistairMcMillan 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class which seems to be the appropriate page for this kind of information. FrozenPurpleCube 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why redirect? The "List of Starfleet starships..." doesn't actually tell us anything that isn't already covered in the articles that link to "USS Farragut (Star Trek)". What do we gain by keeping this around as a redirect? AlistairMcMillan 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, why not redirect? It might also discourage people from re-making the article in the future. FrozenPurpleCube

Not as cheap as not having them (and the associated page history) in the first place. AlistairMcMillan 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Too late for that, the only way you can permanently fix that problem is a time machine. But honestly, there's no great cost associated with keeping the history, storage space is cheap in the details, it's only in the aggregate that it gets costly. So as arguments go, I'm not convinced. You'd be better off working for more efficient methods of data storage or pruning of the whole of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The vast amount of information is what makes wikipedia great. This is that kind of things that is so notable with wikipedia in comparison to other encyclopedias. Ask yourself what encyclopedia would have such great nerdy information like a complete listing of all episodes of every damn TV series or an explanation of the timelines in 'Back to the future' Movies. Just like that kind of information makes wikipedia great, this information adds equally to the greatness. Lord Metroid 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is great because we have articles on fictional starships that even to Star Trek fans or even the people that created the series are hardly notable. Fabulous. And hey it's not like Wikipedia has rules about notability or anything... AlistairMcMillan 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see a problem here. I don't know about you, but I see any rules on Wikipedia as methods to help improve the content of Wikipedia, and as such, saying "But this violates the rules" is not a persuasive argument. That just comes across too coercively for me. You need something more than that to persuade me, like explaining why it's a problem. And that's not even getting into the problems with notability anyway. It is a contentious subject on a lot of fronts. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue is real simple. These starships are only notable for the roles they play in the episodes/films, as such they should only be mentioned in the articles on those episodes/films. We aren't talking about ships like Enterprise or Voyager that appear throughout whole series, or even ships like Excelsior that make multiple appearances in more than one film/episode. We are talking about one ship that was mentioned in one episode, never appeared in that episode or any other, and was never mentioned again. Another ship that appeared for seconds at the end of Generations with no significance whatsoever and never appeared again. And one or more ships that were briefly mentioned in throwaway lines of dialogue in DS9. Only the Original Series Farragut even begins to approach something that is worth mentioning, and it is only interesting from the point of view the character Kirk or the episode Obsession. The ship is mentioned in both articles. There is nothing else that can be said about it here, so why do we have this article? What does Wikipedia gain from having this article? AlistairMcMillan 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that given the disagreement here, it's not as simple as you claim. I could say that it's simply obvious to me that this should be kept, but I doubt that would persuade you. You might even find it offensive. So I'll try to explain in a better way. The point about having other articles is that it provides information that may not be apparent on reading the episode's article. How would you know from reading any of those episode articles that the Farragut or the other ships you nominated also had ships of the same name in other episodes? Perhaps this information doesn't interest you, but it does interest many people (in fact, I'd say that the use of names like Farragut and Enterprise reflects an ongoing interest in historical names for ships that the Trek writers are presupposing as continuing into the future). So while I can understand the desire to condense information, there's also a desire to present it explicitly as that can be more helpful in terms of presentation. I find a page like List of Starfleet starships ordered by class to be an excellent way to present information about a reasonably interesting and notable subject that is far more helpful to me than just having the information spread across articles on dozens of different television episodes and movies. Thus I would support merging and redirecting this page to that. It'd serve the need of presenting the various ships separately from the episode pages, by collating them into one logical place. Any that get sufficiently long can be split elsewhere. I really don't see a need to delete. This isn't bad content, and as Wikpedia is not paper, it makes sense to take advantage of the ability to cover minor topics. FrozenPurpleCube 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm only going to respond to one thing here. You say you like List of Starfleet starships ordered by class, please go look at the edit history, specifically the first fifty or so edits. Then how about you look at the edit history on an article like Rick Sternbach. I'm not suggesting this article be deleted because I hate Star Trek, or because I'm not interested in the specific subject.

Wikipedia has policies. If you want information included here you have to follow the policies. This article fails WP:NOTE and more specifically WP:FICT. If you don't like the policies please devote your energies to changing the policies, not suggesting we ignore them. AlistairMcMillan 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you refer to policies in a way that troubles me. The point of policies is use them to improve Wikipedia, not to have some set of rules that simply can't be violated. If those policies inevitably lead to the deletion of otherwise valuable information, then I would say those policies need to be changed, not information deleted. And I don't know why you want me to look at the history of those pages. Is it because you think you're going to show something about yourself? You're not going to show me anything other than you want to try to make your arguments matter more because of some past actions. That you weren't even direct about it makes me even more doubtful about doing so. I don't know about anyone else, but speaking for myself, you'd have been better off directly saying something more like "I am concerned about Star Trek articles and I do not oppose their existence" . It wouldn't be a particularly good argument, since it'd still be asserting you over the merits of your position, but it'd at least be forthright. Sorry, but what you've done before matters not to what I think you're saying here(and your chosen method makes it irritating to me), and I still think that you are mistaken in your insistence on deletion. Deletion is not the not the only solution, there are other methods available. Deletion is but one tool in the Wikipedia improvement shed, there are others. Mergers, redirects, clean-up tags. In this case, I would have used them. I doubt anybody would have protested, and this long AfD wouldn't have happened, or any of the numerous others possible. FrozenPurpleCube 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You think Wikipedia is improved by having an article like this? AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia is harmed by containing the information, this isn't patent nonsense or absolute trash. It's a reasonably well-written article on a distinct subject. As far as it goes, I find this kind of article several orders of magnitude more valuable than any number of articles on politicians, musicians or state highways, but I also think it might be better to present it in a combined page rather than many separate pages. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not rules they are policies and guidelines and there are other statements of wikipedia policy to tell you to throw these guidelines in the garbage if they are inapropiate. Lord Metroid 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No attempt to establish notability. Kyaa the Catlord 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that there are ST-wikis into whih this could go. OTOH, re notability, the article points out an instance of three ST vessels, all canon, with the same name, which to the best of my, is (outside the Enterprises) an unique occurrance. Keep as notable and as useful disambig. -- Simon Cursitor 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Three vessels about which we know... nothing. Kirk served on one, another bussed the Enterprise crew at the end of Generations and the other(s) were only mentioned briefly in throw-away lines of dialogue. AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and delete merge into List of Starfleet starships ordered by class and then delete. WP:NOTEVERYPIECEOFFREAKINGSTARTREKTRIVIAISNOTABLE (hi Matthew :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:FICT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." No real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Take it to a fan wiki. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Commet Let us at least consider merging these articles of lesser vessels in Star Trek to one article and redirect. That way the information is adequate for an article and preserved for interested people as well as easier to maintain. Lord Metroid 15:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. Per above redirects are cheap. VegaDark 08:46, 26 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:54Z

Aurora (programming language)

Aurora (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Aurora (Programming Language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable software for writing programs (and the programming language used to write them). Fails WP:SOFTWARE - Google for Aurora "Ionic Wind Software" shows a lack of multiple independent, reliable sources that have detailed mentions of the software. The majority of hits go to download sites and file directories. [41] Was nominated before; article has changed little since then and the software is no more notable now. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Inadequate references/sources. WMMartin 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP should cover only sufficiently established languages, those that fail this criterion would lead to unmaintainable articles. As Aurora is officially in beta I do not expect it being established enough. In the future this status may change. Pavel Vozenilek 19:49, 24 February 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 and Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Al-Batani (Star Trek)

USS Al-Batani (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete An article about a Star Trek starship that never once appeared on screen and never played a significant role in any episode. AlistairMcMillan 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:N is the notability guideline for Wikipedia, and says "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." This article has no such references, and none are likely to be found. A Wikipedia-like source is cited which is devoted to Startrek, but that is inherently unreliable. The other possible cite is to the episode where it is mentioned, but that is not independent. Inkpaduta 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as I stated when I de-proded. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the obsession with redirects? Two (count them, two) articles link to this page. The "List of Starfleet starhips..." doesn't actually say anything about the ship that isn't already covered in the Janeway and Paris articles, what the heck do we gain by keeping this as a redirect? AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck do we gain by deleting? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles that link to this one, don't gain anything by linking to them. They already cover everything we know about the ship within themselves. The gain, is Wikipedia being tidier by not keeping useless redirects (and associated page history) around when there is no need. AlistairMcMillan 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I might well ask what's the obsession with deleting the redirects. It's a simple solution and any concerns about clutter would be better addressed by improving Wikipedia's software and hardware. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Excelsior class starship (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which episode told us the Al-Batani was an Excelsior class? The ship never appeared on screen. AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No episode; secondary source (ST Encyclopedia) gives its class and registry #. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the encyclopaedia is a primary source in this case then. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary non-canon source. So basically we don't know what class the ship would have been if it had ever appeared on screen. Not the best idea to redirect to Excelsior class then. AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The vast amount of information is what makes wikipedia great. This is that kind of things that is so notable with wikipedia in comparison to other encyclopedias. Ask yourself what encyclopedia would have such great nerdy information like a complete listing of all episodes of every damn TV series or an explanation of the timelines in 'Back to the future' Movies. Just like that kind of information makes wikipedia great, this information adds equally to the greatness. Lord Metroid 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All we know is that Janeway served on the Al-Batani and at some point Owen Paris was captain of the Al-Batani. That is all we know about the ship. That is not enough to warrant a whole article. Stubtastic articles like this do not make Wikipedia great. AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:N Kyaa the Catlord 09:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- only notable through the Paris/Janeway connection, which is covered elsewhere; not seen on-screen; not significant veseel in and of istelf -- Simon Cursitor 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:FICT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." No real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Take it to a fan wiki. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Commet Let us at least consider merging these articles of lesser vessels in Star Trek to one article and redirect. That way the information is adequate for an article and preserved for interested people as well as easier to maintain. Lord Metroid 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class per above. VegaDark 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IslaySolomon. Suriel1981 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT this is nothing more than a small part of a plot summary. Nuttah68 12:04, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J. Denisons

A.J._Denisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable, no outside references. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The name appears to be "A.J. Denison Company Inc." [42] Fg2 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no claim to notability and Google offers no obvious sources. Nuttah68 12:12, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All India Poetry Society

All India Poetry Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not worthy of being noted & not referenced & advertisement & personal opinions Parker007 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see enough to meet WP:N, even if it was moved to All India Poetry Prize to match the content. Google only shows a few weak hits, including the obscure fact that R. N. Currey won the prize in 1944[43] and maybe a clue that the award was founded by Lord Wavell in British India. --Mereda 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria, lacks reliable sources for assertions such as "most prestigious". utcursch | talk 14:08, 23 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bonney Eberndu

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

• Delete per WP:BIO, I do not see the reason of having this person. Jeff503 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- Question I'd like to thank whoever expanded it, but still have the question in the back of my mind, do we include every criminal, or was this really a huge incident?

No, we don't necessarily include every criminal, but according to WP:BIO we do include anyone who has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. This person has had four separate news reports, in the Times, Guardian and BBC, written about him. Therefore he automatically passes WP:BIO. If he had defecated in 22 trains and it hadn't appeared in the news, or had appeared only in the local newspaper, then he wouldn't be notable. Walton monarchist89 09:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Defecating in trains does not make you pass WP:BIO -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - four separate news reports counts as multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, per WP:BIO. The person may not seem notable, but he passes WP guidelines. Walton monarchist89 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Almost empty article describing a non-notable person. A very poor article. If you want to keep it, ask "How can the article be expanded?" Maybe when he also defecates in a bus that could be added? (That's sarcasm!) Robinson weijman 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article has now been expanded (by me). There's plenty more information out there as well, if anyone wants to look it up and add it to the article. Walton monarchist89 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The version recently updated by Walton monarchist89 is fine. This person clearly passes WP:BIO. In fact looking at the previous version, that had enough in it to assert the notability of this person. Just because an article is in need of improvement doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Should this article have been tagged for cleanup or improvement rather than AfD? Jules1975 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but the various articles are all describing a single event (OK, several instances, but the story was mentioned once in the media). Therefore I still do not think this individual meets the Notability criteria. But maybe this is because I have an "outside of the UK" perspective? Those living in the UK may consider it more newsworthy. Robinson weijman 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment He's done one thing (defecate on trains) many times. I (based in the UK!) think he's done enough (as it were) to be notable. Having read WP:BIO again I can't see any requirement that a notable person has to be notable for more than one reason, they just have to be notable. Jules1975 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as far as I can read wiki guidelines both WP:BIO and WP:V have been satisfied. It is a question of debate whether being noted (or notorious) for asocial behavior is enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia, but as it stands it meets the rules Alf photoman 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete person being hunted for defaecation and desecration, a horribly gross (vulgar) crime but misdemeanour. We've deleted articles on people who have had coverage for repeatedly getting arrested for wandering around the streets naked, and this is on about the same level. The references supplied are covered by the "one coverage" rule, whereas it actually requires multiple coverage to pass WP:BIO (The pirate king cites BBC article as its source). Ohconfucius 06:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable minor criminal. As an aside, Wkipedia really needs a guideline explaining the difference between newsworthy and notable. Nuttah68 16:22, 26 February 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  Speedy keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

David Freeman (musician)

Very few google hits about David in regards to music. Searching for his name turns up a lot of Flight of the Navigator hits. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The number of Google hits may be sparse, but the links I do find indicate a sufficient level of notability. Take for example his mention at the bluegrass museum website. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, if the one you do find is one about an early Acadamy Award (for example) that's enough to indicate notability (although not enough to build an entire article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Other relevant links at Google here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Those Sources should be also in the article else we will be back here within a month Alf photoman 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be in there. I will do that tomorrow if I don't forget, but my point is that a cursory check on Google could've prevented an AFD to begin with. If nominators check what they're nominating, they're busy adding sources more often than nominating things for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep! - somebody screwed up this nomination. This page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (music) and it's regarding David Freeman (musician). I'd vote to relist, but it was already relisted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (musician). Ehem. Vote there, not here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Within his genre (bluegrass), he is a Hall of Honor inductee! If that's not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, what is? Cmadler 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Assuming the AfD was about his notability. Obviously, the Flight of the Navigator Hits have nothing to do with him. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. ConDem^Talk 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. I've sourced that part of the article. -- Black Falcon 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub (though lacking sources). Winner of notable award isn't enough to pass WP:BIO and isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but the article isn't vanity. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 February 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 Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Enrique Graf

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

Notable? --Hojimachong^talk_con 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep If, and only if, it gets some cleanup, sources, and external proof of notability (a review, news article, etc.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Mr.Z-man. ConDem^Talk 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep if it is cleaned up and rewritten. Here are some sources to establish notability: [44], [45], and [46]. The article almost reads like a copyvio of the third source (it's a borderline case), so I would recommend rewriting the text of the article. -- Black Falcon 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the page to make it more credible. Are there any specific suggestions that could avoid deletion of this page?CharlesLeGette 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to chime in--I'm a pianist, and Enrique Graf is a pretty notable name within the current world of piano teachers and performers. --AJ

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:19Z

Every sigh, the end

Every_sigh,_the_end (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Moved from prod to AFD due to pleas from article's authors. The article is non-notable, unverifiable and also needs to be wikified. The author's requests to keep it are due to it 'gaining popularity' and a possible re-release. Unfortunately wikipedia only covers subjects that already meet notability criteria.--The Spith 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. Book published by iUniverse (a "self-publishing" / print-on-demand company) and only link is to the book's Amazon page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. No WorldCat entries. Few online refs unrelated to book-selling sites. Addere 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete :: the in-article assertions of notability are not supported by sources and this fall to be queried. -- Simon Cursitor 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --pIrish 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity publishing. I am also nominating the author's page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason S. Hornsby. -Elmer Clark 07:26, 23 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:18Z

Final fantasy xii powerleveling

Final fantasy xii powerleveling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The content of this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. kenobi.zero 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm pretty sure this can be speedy'd. Axem Titanium 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Axem Titanium 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This content is better suited for a FAQs site than for Wikipedia. Wingchild 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Suggest snowball delete by someone, before people start thinking that all our Final Fantasy articles are like this (thus ruining the reputation we've been trying to build). :-) — Deckiller 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOT a game-guide. It's actually in our policies. Part Deux 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and Part Deux already wrote what I was going to say. Phoo. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "This is meant to be a fully detailed guide to obtaining the maximum amount of experience points in the shortest amount of time". Unfortunately, WP:NOT#IINFO explicitly excludes video game guides. -- Black Falcon 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly not a wiki-appropriate article.--MercZ 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JuJube 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with what people have said above. Maybe the person who's been working on the article can make it into a personal webpage, and a link could be included in the WikiPedia article on video game guides.Sockem 18:43, 23 February 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 speedy kept; this man is an actor who played a major role throughout six of the fifteen seasons of Power Rangers. In addition, the nom's first edits are to this area. Any other "delete" !votes come from individuals who appear to have WP:IDONTLIKEIT in their minds. There is no doubt that this individual is notable, and it's not at all a speedy deletion candidate as he suggests.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jason David Frank

Jason David Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Borderline CSD A7 vanity page on a non-notable TV actor. Home run derriby 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Home run derriby 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per leading role on a dumb-but-popular TV show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The show has long been forgotten and subject is no longer notible. If you were to ask anoyone who this person was today, the general population would be clueless. Hendry1307 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  That... that's really not a good reason. The general population probably has no clue who Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria or Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan are, and yet those are both Featured Articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Power Rangers, like it or not, is a very successful franchise. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Make that was a successful franchise. Today it's just a subculture that becomes sillier each year. Hendry1307 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  ...and? Notability is not subjective, nor is it temporary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As noted, notability is not temporary. Additionally, he is a recognizable celebrity, with an on-going career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snicker (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Yeah - as the bot noted... that's my note :P --Snicker^|¥°^€| 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as a non-powerranger fan. I anticipate a notibility debate here. Axiomm 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Pffft, I'm almost inclined to take your insinuation that I'm a Power Rangers fan as a personal attack. :P I'm no fan, but I'm also no fan of spurious AfDs. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason David Frank closed as Speedy Keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Personal attack? Do you imply that his article is immune to AFD? We have thousands of bio articles AFD's each day, some a second time. I personally wonder if JDF ever used Wikipedia. Axiomm 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  ...it was a joke.
  I'm not suggesting that this article is immune, I'm just pointing out that its notability was questioned before, and found to be perfectly fine, and as notability doesn't slide given time, I feel the article should still be kept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, looks okay, far removed from the limelight. Note that those in favour of delete will most likely be anti-PR. NoInsurance (chat?) 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as he was he was a cast member on a very popular television show. He may not be as well-known now as he was back then, but as per guidelines state; "Notability is not temporary". And Axiom, you not being a fan has no standing at all. There are many shows of which I'm not fan, but that doesn't mean I should nominate them for AfD either. CardinalFangZERO 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is this a joke nomination? 50,000 Google hits.[47] Certainly a notable actor, unless we only list major film stars, which isn't the case. Rito Revolto 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm no fan either, but I think that everyone knows what Power Rangers was; it has huge notability. It just seemed to go on and on and I have no idea why. Looking at the Tommy Oliver article, it seems that JDF is the most notable Power Rangers actor and I think that means that the notability of Power Rangers is inherited by JDF. Lilwik 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as subject unquestionably passes WP:BIO. Needs to be better sourced, particularly his karate experience, since it appears now to be sourced by his dojo's home page. Otto4711 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Let's see, this is a major character in an unquestionably notable franchise and he even starred in several other shows like Undressed and Sweet Valley High. This may not interest you, but that's not grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep does not apply to this nomination, unless you know something about the nominator that the rest of us don't. Otto4711 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PRBuster2007 20:17, 21 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lance Saunders

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

I'm doubting notability. --Hojimachong^talk 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. With no released albums, I'd say non-notable. eaolson 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing notable -- Steve.Moulding 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He's 15, plenty of time in the future to establish notability. As of now, fails WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. His being young isn't a good reason to delete him, otherwise you'd lose thousands of wiki pages. He does have an album in production, and he's been on the news a lot in downstate Illinois, especially in several college towns. Neggie07 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. He has no released albums, like hundreds of other non-notable high school band articles that are deleted every day. Can you provide any reliable sources that he's been "in the news a lot"? eaolson 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with ealson. Neggie07...please read WP:MUSIC and explain which notability criteria are passed. He may be talented but this just doesn't look notable. Steve.Moulding 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:RS at present. If someone cares about the article, they should add URLs to internet news clippings at the bottom of the article as sources. John Vandenberg 04:37, 24 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LinuxOnToshiba

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

to me, it's just a personal essay on linux experience, and not an encyclopaedic article at all
Barvinok 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails both WP:OR and WP:ATT. Wikipedia is not a place for essays or orginal concepts. NeoFreak 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an original essay.-- danntm ^T _C 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - textbook failure of WP:NOR, and is even written in the first person. Walton monarchist89 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR (but share article writer's taste in Linuxes, always have liked Ubuntu). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Belongs on some wiki, just not this one. Vadder 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Verkhovensky 23:29, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Local35

Local35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Notable? Outside links? --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? Justinmachus 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This means that the article may not be notable, and that it does not cite its sources. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hojimachong. Hopefully it is now "notable"? Justinmachus 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks alot better now. I'd better come "welcome" you to the Wiki :-). --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for your help, I am a total noob. Justinmachus 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, blatant spam. Meets criteria (#11) for Speedy deletion: advertisements masquerading as articles Cacophony 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand how this works. What was written was fact, not opinion, and was in a style emulating the wiki/kidrobot page which is a store very similar to Local35's. How is a store "not notable" if it is noted by an internationally respected organization (GQ) and was voted, by people who exercised their opinions, on citysearch as the BEST in their field? Seeking help, Justinmachus 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what would need to be changed to make it fundamentally different? Nowhere does it say "go support this store" or "I think it's cool" or "people who visit the store and buy things are cool". I just don't understand, but I am willing to change it... Justinmachus 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria you pointed out apply to articles for Speedy Deletion, Justinmachus. This is an Articles for Deletion process. I'm going to abstain from the rest of this process, but feel free to notify me if you need help. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - a bit spammy, but seems to assert notability. I'm not sure it's worth deleting. Part Deux 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - asserts notability, but all external links are to sites affiliated with the company, so there's no evidence of coverage in multiple independent sources, which is needed to show notability under WP:CORP. Delete unless further sources or links are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Internet polls are so vulnerable to ballot-stuffing and other tricks, they can't be reliably used, and I just don't think that one group of people from GQ thinking the store is great can really establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- locally notable, possibly; possibly mentioned in manazines, but, hey, it's a shop, not a designer label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simoncursitor (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

New additions: Links to additional sources, Portland Mercury and coolhunting.com, added to insure 'notability'. Added pic and neatened up formatting to be more consistent with wiki standards. Added a couple of links to wiki entries of corporate, for-profit, notable designers. Local35 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comments, please?

• Delete as failing WP:CORP. For a single shop business we really do need multiple, independent reliable sources to establish notability and these are sadly lacking. Nuttah68 16:40, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Uprights

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

I doubt it's notable, and it does not cite sources. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Uprights were very influential in San Diego. The Ska scene here is lackluster and there is not much hope for gigs or local prominence and The Uprights did much to change this. They are a source of continued inspiration for ska musicians in San Diego.

It's about time someone made a page about these guys. Cool beans!

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article fails the attribution policy. NeoFreak 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - no external sources cited, so there's no evidence that they pass WP:BAND. Delete unless evidence can be found of multiple coverage in independent sources. Walton monarchist89 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources to establish how they meet WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 16:49, 26 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Endeavour (Star Trek)

USS Endeavour (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Another article on Star Trek starships that play no significant role in any episodes/films. One that only appeared on a chart in a cut scene from one of the films and another that only features briefly in dialogue from the television series. The very definition of non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to Nominator - I'm confused...this is a disambiguation page. Are you proposing the deletion of the disambiguation page alone, or both of the other pages of this title that it links to? If the latter is the case (as I suspect) then shouldn't you have nominated them together, just to make things clearer? Walton monarchist89 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a disambiguation page where is the disambig tag? To be clear, I'm not nominating the other articles, just this page. AlistairMcMillan 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK it isn't marked as a disambiguation page, but its content consists solely of 2 links to 2 different Star Trek starships named USS Endeavour. So what's the point in deleting a page of 2 links, which is effectively a disambiguation (though not tagged as such), and not deleting the actual pages that it links to? I'm very confused. Please explain. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow the two links? They don't link to articles about the two ships. They link to pages about the relevant classes, which then mention very briefly the two ships. [User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, the format of the page confused me. I see what you mean now. My vote is therefore Delete (see below). Walton monarchist89 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Doesn't appear to be a valid AfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge this is apparently a disambig page for relatively minor content, so I could support a merge to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class (which currently has the nebula-class, but not the other). FrozenPurpleCube 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a valid afd to me. Non-notable Star Trek fancruft. Saikokira 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete disambig page for rather minor fictional content.-- danntm ^T _C 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it isn't a disambiguation page. It's a page about a starship that gets mentioned a couple of times. This is trivia. -- Whpq 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary page, no assertion of real world notability per WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The information presented on this page would be better placed on the pages it links to. Kyaa the Catlord 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:FICT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." No real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Take it to a fan wiki. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Let us at least consider merging these articles of lesser vessels in Star Trek to one article and redirect. That way the information is adequate for an article and preserved for interested people as well as easier to maintain. Lord Metroid 15:35, 23 February 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 speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CMP Information

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

Non-notable corporation Feeeshboy 15:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio of www.networksforbusiness.com/frame_content_about.htm. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 21 February 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party 3 minigames

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames

Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC

Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These articles are sourced. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I? Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of WP:ATT and WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight (talk • contribs).
• Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+. MrMacMan 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Better, yes. Good enough, no. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the lot of them. WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -M^ask 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 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 Dismissed because AFDed too soon; no prejudice against renomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:21Z

Van Wert High School

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

Article does not assert the notability of the school Seinfreak37 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Article was nominated for deletion ONE MINUTE after creation. Article was flagged as a Stub and not given any chance to develop. Article has already since been updated a bit further. EagleFan 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Article not given a chance to develop (renominate after some days/a week if the issue persists). AfD'd in 1 minute. -- Black Falcon 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (a) I don't find the alumni argument convincing, and it is not part of Wikipedia's policy ( schools proponents' views notwithstanding ), (b) the article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (c) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This was nominated for deletion one minute after creation? Seriously? Talk about biting the newcomers. (jarbarf) 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here, but this one also has several interesting alumni. Noroton 19:01, 24 February 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 keep by way of consensus, but please just merge this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

North Union High School

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

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Stub in development nominated for deletion just seconds after creation. EagleFan 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. The page was only created twenty mins before the AfD. Give it a chance for the creator and other editors to assert notability. ConDem^Talk 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Article not given a chance to develop (renominate after some days/a week if the issue persists). AfD'd in 18 minutes. -- Black Falcon 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it bad practice for someone to simply create stub after stub after stub, none of which asserting any sort of notability? If the article warrants creation, it doesn't take long to assert the notability, even of a stub. -Seinfreak37 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but isn't it bad practice for someone to simply spend most of their time on wikipedia nominating articles for deletion? EagleFan 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of people that patrol newly created pages. It's not personal, but you've proven to be someone to watch due to the frequency of your adding of non-notable articles. -Seinfreak37 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for further development, this looks like a series of mass nominations for Ohio schools, which would be disruptive. (jarbarf) 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the nominator may not have intended to be disruptive, but this high number of deletion noms for pages so early in their development is disturbing. Also, my case that high schools are inherently notable ishere. Noroton 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Richwood, Ohio. Then if more information becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --Elonka 22:22, 25 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Marysville High School (Ohio)

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

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. Stub in development. EagleFan 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing in there belongs in an encyclopedia, what I mean is none of the information really belongs there. Most of what is currently on that page is stuff that I would expect to find on the school's website proper. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (a) I don't find the alumni argument convincing, and it is not part of Wikipedia's policy ( schools proponents' views notwithstanding ), (b) the article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (c) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does nothing to establish notability. Vegaswikian 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Give the creator of the school articles time to flesh them out. Besides, high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or at least merge per WP:LOCAL, the article says little more than Marysville High School is Marysville High School in its current form. Nuttah68 17:11, 26 February 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Given that the article is but one sentence, I have redirected to the district page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Greenon High School (Springfield, Ohio)

Greenon High School (Springfield, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I nominated the page for speedy deletion when it was created in January but the tag was removed by the article's creator. I didn't push it at the time, being not entirely familiar with that policy, but I still do not believe this article meets the notability guidelines and no attempt has been made to improve the article since it's creation. Stardust8212 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No attempt made in over a month to assert notability. ConDem^Talk 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete All that the article says is that it is the only school in the district.DGG 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Greenon Local School District since it is the only high school there. (jarbarf) 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, give the creator time to flesh out the article, and I believe high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 04:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Greenon Local School District, Clark County, Ohio. --Elonka 22:26, 25 February 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 Speedy keep - as far as I understand, high schools are ok. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Wendelin High School

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

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. Stub is new and still in development. EagleFan 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable Ohio school. Seinfreak37 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Ohio Articles in development. Updates made to this article. EagleFan 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No notability asserted whatsoever, and it doesn't seem likely that any can be found. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Meets my personal standards for H.S. notability. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Out of interest, what are you personal standards for notability? That it exists? ConDem^Talk 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:RJHall/High Schools.
    • So basically, that it exists, then. ConDem^Talk 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Keep per Alansohn, below. ConDem^Talk 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep School's recognition in 1999-2000 by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, accompanied by WP:RS and WP:V sources constitute an explicit claim of notability. This award clearly satisfies Criteria 2 of WP:SCHOOL, which states "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics.". Statements of the ilk of "No notability asserted whatsoever, and it doesn't seem likely that any can be found" are decidedly biased and unhelpful, and are demonstrative of a failure to perform even the most basic research before participating in an AfD. Rather than targeting the articles created by this individual as one set deserving knee-jerk deletion, it would be helpful for our nominator User:Seinfreak37 whose "Another non-notable Ohio school" shows little insight, or User:WMMartin who has made the exact same vote in every one of these discussions, to review each article independently and make an informed decision, rather than cloning multiple AfDs or cutting and pasting the same text multiple times. Alansohn 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: At what point does the burden of research and asserting notability fall on the article creator? The author, by creating article after article after article without demonstrating notability, is not being helpful. If the author was doing this with subjects other than Schools (such as people or businesses), all of these articles would be speedy deletes. But since there is not yet a policy on Schools, he can get away with it? That seems illogical. -Seinfreak37 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It falls on both. I will never vote to keep an article where I haven't read the article in question and made an effort to check sources. I won't vote to delete if I haven't read the article and checked for additional evidence of notability. If I find additional material, I will make every effort to add it before voting. If I can't find it, I will make every effort to find a target for a merge/redirect. Is this Wikipedia policy? No. But I do believe it's a level of intellectual honesty, and as stated at WP:AfD, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Most school articles, especially at the high school level, are far from hopeless. Of course the primary burden falls on the creator. And I have posted a lengthy note on his talk page pleading that he focus on a smaller number of quality articles, rather than creating a stub for every high school in Ohio. But it seems no easier to justify a laundry list of AfDs as it is to create a laundry list of articles. These stubs are expandable in many cases, and it isn;t hard to do so, just not when dozens of such articles are listed for AfD. Alansohn 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the spectacular rationale provided by Alansohn, I agree that this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. (jarbarf) 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although WMMartin notes that this is one of many high school articles EagleFan has suddenly created, at the top of this discussion EagleFan says he's developing them. Give the editor a few months, I say. I think all high schools are inherently notable, for many of the same reasons as User:RJHall/High Schools, but my own take on it is here. Noroton 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep school is notable, article should stay, but needs a clean up and some more references LordHarris 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Public high schools are inherently notable, and Blue Ribbon schools especially so. --Elonka 22:27, 25 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew shapter

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

Probable autobiography, no sources to substantiate claims of notability Feeeshboy 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - no independent external sources or links to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless more sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sufficient assertions of notability attributed to reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 06:49, 26 February 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Man flu

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

Second nomination, first vote was to delete, but recreated. Neologism. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• We have both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Flu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man flu. Appears not to apply, as second was purposefully a joke, and first was taken not-seriously. However, there is some coverage: [48]; whether it's notable or not it another question. I ask people to take this afd seriously and not call for g4, as circumstances are not the same. Part Deux 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. A page of search results does not demonstrate that there is coverage. Citations of actual articles documenting the subject demonstrates that there is coverage. Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Flu does not cover the second article by that title that was deleted (whose deletion is not recorded in the deletion log). That article cited this. Uncle G 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't citing the google hits, which is why I didn't say keep. I was saying that I wasn't sure it was the same afd, so not to call for g4 without doing research first. Part Deux 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More suitable for Uncyclopedia in my view Jules1975 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well known cultural term. The article needs to be expanded with more sources and some references, perhaps an expand category for a while, then delete. LordHarris 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary - this is more their thing than ours and probably is a common enough term (albeit fairly new) to deserve an entry. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Transwiki. Dicdef, so doesn't belong here. WMMartin 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is a well known phrase especially in the UK. If it could be expanded more which could easily be done then it would be a suitable article linked to the main flu article. --PrincessBrat 12:51, 23 February 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 - There is a consensus that this article should be deleted, although there are concerns raised as to WP:BIO. Although he has two articles about him, he also does not appear to meet two other points in WP:BIO - "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" - At this time he has generated a stir amongst the establishment, but there is no indication that this would pass the 10 year test, or anything else. Also, because the subject is a rabbi and religious figure, it is analogous to a religious academic - a look at WP:PROF version of the biography guideline shows that he is a long way from a religious equivalent of being a academically/theologically respected scholar in any sense.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sokolovsky

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

NN "rabbi". Made a sensational blog, got covered by Haaretz as a freak. Precisely one newspaper article to his name. Fails the multiple non-trivial coverage test. If we honor this moronic individual with NOTABILITY, we will give him exactly what he wants - publicity. Delete. (But wait - there's more! - User:Ariel Sokolovsky) - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a 2nd AfD. The previous one was almost two years ago and resulted in deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Sokolovsky. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I removed the speedy tag a few minutes ago and was about to start this AfD, but Tragic Baboon beat me too it. There is no evidence that the subject merits inclusion for his views or for spreading said views. Limited non-trivial refs, too. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the individual has been the subject of a number of major articles including in the Forward and in Israel's premier daily Haaretz. He has become much more notable since the last AfD, and has a major presence on line. He is very well known for his views in orthodox Jewish circles and has recently been the subject of a major controversy within the Chabad movement. As perhaps the most extreme example of Chabad Messianism he merits an article here. David Spart 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I also deplore the gratuitios personal attack bu the instigator of this AfD. Refering to the subject as a moronic individual, is the shoddiest violation of NPOV I have ever seen. And who cares if he gets what he wants - that is not at issue here. David Spart 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lookit, I am not editing. I wouldn't be able to write an NPOV article about this individual, for whom I have strong unprintable feelings. I admit to POV. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not fit central criterion at WP:BIO. One article doth not notable make, especially when the BULK of the article is not about Sokolovsky, but the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself. Avi 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this 2nd reincarnation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL... "Yechi Adoneinu Moreinu ve Rabbeinnu Harav Ariel Sokolovsky Shlita!" - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per Tragic. Shlomke 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete--but if he does get picked up by more sources, we'll have to let the article in.DGG 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is about obscure weirdo. While it is definitely not providing a platform, he just isn't notable. The Behnam 05:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until such time as he is named the next Lubavitcher Rebbe. This is WP:NN at its height. IZAK 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We should be documenting crazy religious leaders and put them in a category together. Btw, passes WP:BIO due to a second source in google archive [49] and I'm quite sure I could find more if put a few more minutes into the effort. John Vandenberg 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This mentions him in passing so it wouldn't really count. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?? This is the full text of that article: [50]. The only way you could have thought that the article contained only a passing mention is if you either did not read it, or completely had no WP:FAITH in the fact that I had read the full text. The subject of this Afd is a critical of the theme of that article, as the reporter could not have chosen anyone at random to fill his shoes. Three paragraphs are focused on the man with two non-trivial quotes. As a result, I dont think the mention can be called trivial, which is the way WP:N is framed. That said, the notion of non-trivial is IMO one of the most subjective part of the main notability criteria, so its hard to argue either way on borderline cases. But I dont see how this is a borderline case. John Vandenberg 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the focus of this 48 paragraph article is not about him, rather it quotes Sokolovsky over 3 paragraphs as saying that the rebbe is alive because he is a Tzadik... This quote from him, in my humble opinion does not qualify as a newspaper article about someone that makes them notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this article was in isolation, I would agree it isnt enough. But there are other sources as well, and if use this article as an example, he is being used as a source along side a crowd of other notable people. Four people are quoted in the article (in order of the size of the quotes):

• Rabbi David Berger (professor), a history professor at Brooklyn College
• Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky
• Michael Rosenthal, a 24-year-old Lubavitcher who works for the emissary in Great Neck, in an interview outside.
• one anti-messianist not named

In addition, three other people are mentioned by name:

• Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
• Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Krinsky, chairman of the Lubavitch organizations; declined to comment
• Jeffrey Buss, the attorney for the Gaboyim

The way I read it was that the author of the article included Sokolovsky because he considered it worth of note. John Vandenberg 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Well done to Jayvdb for finding that source, there are probably more too as he said. While this guy is insane, he now passes WP:BIO and taking into account his broad infamy an article on him is now a must. He passed WP:BIO - case settled, period, end of story, life is too short. Congratulations Rabbi Sokolovsky, you are now a notable crank. juicifer 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Bondego 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable kook. I'm happy that the rest of Chabad has loudly said that he's a kook, but that doesn't make him less notable for saying this, and the sources given in this AfD demonstrate notability. JoshuaZ 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good idea to keep a wikipedic reference of this person as long as the references have veracity. James Gosnell 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 1st contribution - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO. Yehoishophot Oliver 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So how do the two sources given, one in the article and on from the Jewish Week mentioned above not fulfil the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn failure of WP:BIO, Tewfik^Talk 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So how do the two sources given, one in the article and on from the Jewish Week mentioned above not fulfil the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment there are actually three notable sources now on the page, two seperate pieces in the Jewish Week and one in Haaretz. Closing admin please note the religious fervour that is leading good editors to vote to delete an article that passed WP:BIO. David Spart 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'* Keep. It is essential for students of Chabad and of religion and religious history in general to learn about Sokolovsky and his views. Mention of him should not simply be buried in the body of another article. Thank you. Shmarya Rosenberg 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Editor's third edit. JoshuaZ 19:36, 26 February 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wes Carroll

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

Non-notable a cappella singer (WP:MUSIC). Claims to be "credited as the primary teacher of this art form" but, like the rest of the article, there are no sources to back this up. Was kept earlier in a confused, multi-article nomination which had a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:MUSIC and/or WP:BIO~by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability of reliable sources. Nuttah68 11:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: new sources added 19 Feb 2007:

New York Times quote "Mr. Carroll’s astonishingly precise drumming imitation creates a rhythmic foundation once unheard of in a cappella" establishes claim of "pioneering practitioner"; a-cappella.com's claim "best-selling vocal percussion instructional videos" and harmony-sweepstakes article on "Wes Carroll Vocal Percussion award" for aspiring practitioners weakly supports "primary teacher" claim.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:33, 21 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Earth Calendar

New Earth Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: proposed calendar reform with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources --Pak21 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Scottmsg 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, so fails WP:V. Nuttah68 17:34, 26 February 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deke Sharon

Non-notable a cappella singer (WP:MUSIC). Makes claims to be a "pioneer", etc., but like the rest of the article, there are no sources. Was kept earlier in a multi-article nom with a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 media sources added. User:Totalvocal 20:39, 16 February 2007

66.92.17.10 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of these seem to constitute trivial mentions or college newspapers. Can you be more specific about what part of this mess you think meets a notability guideline? Savidan 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of notability has been discussed in the previous call for deletion (are those statements now invalid?), with these newly added sources (sorry for the mess - learning) to support (as you requested above). "US singer" isn't as appropriate as community leader when considering notabilityTotalvocal 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, community leader...can you show me what non-trivial source you think backs up the claim that he is a notable community leader. Most of these articles are about college a cappella groups winning an award and there is a quote from him in the article; that doesn't really establish notability. Savidan 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of his notability is for college a cappella institutions he founded. In this case, college newspapers are non-trivial sources and articles in them can contribute to notability.

Quotes added from additional non-trivial media sources (major newspapers), but links to those articles cannot be found online (that I was able to find) Totalvocal 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Being quoted in a major newspaper is not enough for a non-trivial reference. Savidan 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The following quotes are ABOUT him: The Boston Globe has called him "a one man a cappella revolution," the Oakland Tribune called him "the maven of the a cappella movement," the Ottowa Citizen referred to him as "The a cappella expert," and the Ithaca Times called him "a musical genius... an a cappella giant."

In addition, being quoted once in a paper is indeed no big deal. But being quoted frequently (likely more frequently than any other person on the topic of contemporary a cappella) is an indication as being a "non-trivial" person from the media's perspective, especially when those sources include the New York Times, CNN, etc. Totalvocal 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharon is perhaps the most influential figure in United States a cappella--and certainly collegiate a cappella--in the last two decades. His radical modernizing of the traditional glee sound while at Tufts completely altered the college landscape. His founding of CASA, his creation of BOCA, his involvement with The House Jacks... If his article is delted, well, one can't really make an argument to include any single modern a cappella figure. We simply need to source the article more completely. --Patchyreynolds 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to Savidian, this seems to be a one man crusade to remove as much collegiate and professional a cappella as possible. Consider the previous discussion on The HouseJacks that Savidian referenced himself - the end result referenced his failed crusade. Despite this, I don't wish to make my argument based upon a vendetta, but rather upon merits. With a cappella becoming increasingly mainstream and more popular, it seems a shame to remove any article that is clearly justified (Deke Sharon does a cappella for a living! It's not a mere hobby of his.) A quick google search of Deke's name references over 77,000 hits. Given the unique nature of his name, I think it's fair to assume a large portion of those have something to do with him. I'll gladly grant you that the article isn't as sourced as well as it should be, but I don't believe that leads to a total deletion. Given the lack of contemporary a cappella information on wikipedia, I believe that removal of Deke's article, as well as similar ones, would weaken an already small section on contemporary a cappella. LCMike 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharon clearly passes the bar for Notability under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. One guidline for notability suggests an artist has "become the most prominent representative of a notable style", which is pretty clear by the article's media references, such as the Boston Globe, the Oakland Tribune, and CNN. An argument can also be made that he meets the requirement of having "established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - the tradition of contemporary acappella music has been created and forged through his projects, such as the founding of the Contemporary Acappella Society, the BOCA and ICCA programs - his actions have established a unique tradition in this particular genre.Iangoldstein 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For reasons listed above (Notable references, significant importance in this genre.) Totalvocal 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • — Totalvocal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important part of the already anemic a cappella section within Wikipedia. LCMike 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • — LCMike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This person is a notable figurehead and artist of a notable style of music.Iangoldstein 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • — Iangoldstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. All three of the above new users have only contributed to this afd, related afds, and the articles associated with them. Savidan 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I fail to see why Savidan is so nasty with his responses. You, sir, can make clear and cogent points that are fair and noteworthy without being nasty and curt. Regardless of my experience in Wikipedia, at least I am well versed in common courteousy. LCMike 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, as a longtime member of the WP community, I'm glad to see that folks who are clearly knowledgeable about and interested in a more specialized genre of music have taken an interest in WP's communal production of knowledge. Isn't the point that as the scope and depth of the project increases more people will aid in the development of different categories? After all, Nupedia became Wikipedia precisely to foster contributions by those outside the scope of the original project. I would think, Savidan, that our aim would be to laud new contributers and hope that their contributions increase in number and breadth of interest in the future, not marginalize them for being new to the site. Just my thoughts... --Patchyreynolds 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seens pretty legit to me - (Unsigned 132.236.75.78 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
  • — 132.236.75.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There's this: [51], which isn't great, but I'm going to go with WP:IAR on this one. There are a ton of mentions of him out there, and they seem to be mostly original in nature (as opposed to the usual regurgitations of the same press release over and over again that you usually get in these situations). So, vote to keep on ground of quantity rather than quality. - Richfife 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as Wikipedia notable and per AfD#1. I found and posted in the article cites to numerous published works that should ensure that there is sufficient source material to include a verifiable, encyclopedic article about this topic. Claims about "pioneer", etc. may be removed if not verified per WP:BLP. AfD#1 is valid as properly closed by an administrator with a Keep consensus, which took into account the anons and new accounts. AfD is not the proper venue to consider disputed, prior AfD decisions. This is the second AfD for this article and should be labeled as such. Everyone, please remember to be courteous to each other. -- Jreferee 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This singer is clearly notable from the references given in the article. I see no reason why this should have gone back to AfD. A review would have been more correct. --Charlene 23:41, 21 February 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. Mo0[talk] 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles McNulty

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

Person does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in encyclopedia Charles (Kznf) 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only claim to notability is membership in Athletic hall of fame at colleges Manhattan College and Worcester Polytechnic Institute Charles (Kznf) 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almost playing in the NFL is not criteria for inclusion. Neither is being coach of a Div III college football program. Nor is enshrinement in a pair of very minor halls of fame. Not enough here to justify an article. Caknuck 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenswing 18:29, 21 February 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 Deleted by User:Pgk. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:23Z

The European Society of Oxford University (Since 1950s)

The European Society of Oxford University (Since 1950s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Long dead club, continuously reposted after previous deletions at The_European_Society_of_Oxford_University_(First_established_in_the_early_1950s) and The_European_Society_of_Oxford_University. Speedy deletion tag removed twice by anon. Previous afd here

• Also requesting deletion of the related images Image:S.C. European Society Oxford University Badge - Since 1950s.JPG
• Image:S.C. European Society Oxford University 1950s.JPG. Admins should also look into blocking vandals who continuously repost this. Nardman1 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; no notability proferred or established, and while the article asserts a fuzzy goal of bringing students and politicians together, it doesn't actually suggest that this happened or gives any evidence of the same. Just another (ephemeral) university club. RGTraynor 18:33, 21 February 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 speedy delete. AlistairMcMillan 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Ian Anthony Blackwell

Ian Anthony Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A speedy was on this page a few times, and always gets removed by 2 users that seem to be friends and/or sockpuppets of the article creator. It's a nonsense, non-notable bio page. RobJ1981 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. The article does not belong in Wikipedia at all. ... discospinster _talk 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Clue to the vanity sockpuppets: Myspace.com. RGTraynor 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Clear A7 case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Multiple removal of the speedy deletion candidate tag should accelerate the deletion process. I removed the private person's birthdate per WP:BLP-- Jreferee 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely, delete. And the associated Image:n6831813_34544606_7370.jpg needs to be deleted as well. Emeraude 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Everybody in Indiana is notable, right? Keep. Oh, ok, delete, you convinced me. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Indiana IS cool, though. Jerry lavoie 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:NOT Lord Metroid 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD.A7. I guess there's no purpose tagging it as it will simply be removed. -- Black Falcon 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, and no evidence of notability easily found from Ghits. Jerry lavoie 01:32, 22 February 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Algebraic biology

Dicdef. Extremely little context. Admin JoJan removed CSD and added "some context", but it's still not enough. Delete or wiktify. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for eventual expansion, unless some biologist suggests where it might be merged to. The article adequately demonstrates at least some academic currency of the term. As such, this is a stub that begins at its logical beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am a little bit torn over this article. Don't get me wrong I find the article to be worthy of an article in Wikipedia as it adds to the greater whole of information and it is a distinct subject worthy of its own article. However at the moment it is a one liner. I am not an algebraic biologist, I have a friend who is though. So I don't know how to contribute to the article in order to expand it. But I want to do so even if it seems utterly impossible with the current knowledge on the subject I possess at present. Lord Metroid 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Smerdis of Tlon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep on the basis of the name of the conference proceedings. As a one-time biologist, Judging from the table of contents of that conference, http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/about/conferences/ab2007/, it's about the application of logical or algebraic methods to almost anything in bioinformatics or biophysics. In this general part of biology, subjects do arise on the basis of techniques, either experimental or physical, and the boundary lines are not clear (see the art. of Biophysics for a discussion.) The importance will be judged by the work that gets done under its banner, but it is probably already enough for an article. I said weak keep rather than keep because I am not certain the name will stick. If not , it can be merged to biophysics--almost anything can.DGG 04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep needs sources, but it is notable.--Sefringle 06:45, 24 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:23Z

Famous Sams

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

Delete POV, editorial article about a small fast-food diner Mindmatrix 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced and unverifiable, see Wikipedia:Attribution. Also, the artical is not written from a neutral point of view, and may be interpreted as a weak attack page. -- saberwyn 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's ridiculous. Eb.eric 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete It's awesome. Roadhockey 02:33, 23 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:24Z

Lists of given names

Note that this is not a renomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names was a successful batch nomination of several lists of given names, and this is a nomination of several more.

(View AfD)

List of Indian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Dayanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

List of tabarian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of popular American given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Hebrew names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of hebrew names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

List of Polish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Polish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. Recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted; these are, as far as I know, the last remaining ones, which have just been transwikied.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Indian given names should be deleted. It is nearly 100 % north-indian names. Does South-India not exist?? The writer of this article do not know south-india obviously. HE/SHE should know her own country. Manzhivago — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep/Conditional delete on List of Hebrew names if the transwiki can be cleaned up (see [52]), otherwise keep. Delete the rest per convention. -- Black Falcon 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Will the "Transwiki:" prefix be eventually removed from these article titles (or at least redirects established)? -- Black Falcon 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean; the articles are in the "Appendix" namespace according to Wiktionary policy. The Transwiki namespace is just a holding cell so they can be reformatted according to Wiktionary standards before going into the main namespace. Articles are automatically transwikied nto that namespace. As for List of Hebrew names, there's nothing wrong with the transwiki (though it looks messy now), it just hasn't been formatted yet. A Wiktionarian will clean it up in a day or two. Keep in mind though, that whether Wiktionary has it or not has no bearing on whether it is encyclopedic or not, it's just more desirable not to lose the unencyclopedic information entirely. Dmcdevit·t 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Your first two sentences answered my question, thanks. As for the latter part, I agree that the article should not be in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we should delete it without a proper transwiki. If the transwiki is cleaned up, then all's well and the page should be deleted per convention (note, I've modified my comment). However, if it cannot be cleaned up (meaning that there is a problem, perhaps with the Hebrew characters), I don't see why the article can't be kept on Wikipedia until a solution is found to the problem. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes I agree with you that if an article is worthy of transwiki to somewhere else, we should definitely wait until everything's transferred. I've just seen the argument that it's information used to mean it's encyclopedic too often. The problem with the Hebrew article is pretty simple: all Hebrew letters are templates on Wikipedia, and not on Wiktionary, so they turned into broken linked instead of letters. It just requires some find-and-replace when I get a chance; all the content is there. Dmcdevit·t 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, then. I have no problem with the articles being removed from Wikipedia (in fact, I'm all for it) as long as the content is preserved somewhere else (in this case, Wiktionary). Cheers, and thanks for your dedicated efforts to transwiki all of the "List of given names" articles. -- Black Falcon 05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • See wikt:Appendix:Hebrew given names. Dmcdevit·t 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the link. I think it's safe to say delete all now. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:14, 25 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:22Z

Sano The Pup

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

A dog who was a regular in some dog food commercials. Doubtful notability even for a human. BanyanTree 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Even if there were some form of sourcing for the article, there is virtually no encyclopedic value. --TeaDrinker 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• If Verified, could this material fesably be merged into the Iams article, the company whose commercials the aforementioned canine was in?

*Merge IF verified into Iams article as suggested. Does not merit own article - non-notable, non-verified. Suriel1981 14:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

update for some stupid reason I actually checked the Iams website AND google for this dog and I found nothing apart from mirror sites, even by doing a site search on Iams. Suriel1981 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, unverifiable. Suriel1981 14:44, 24 February 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aerosmith's outtakes

Aerosmith's outtakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of unpublished outtakes is too specialist for a general enyclopedia (WP:NOT). kingboyk 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The Beatles bootlegs is also too specialist then. List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs is also too specialist then. I think it's important to chronicle the unreleased recordings of an important band (many songs of which actually worked their way onto subsequent albums). I think having one article for unreleased recordings is OK, considering many bands on Wikipedia have separate articles for every song they've ever recorded. I think we can spare one article for Aerosmith's unreleased recordings. I'm sure it could be modified, so it's not an all-out list and possibly converted to paragraph form. However, that can be done over time. Deleting an article and having to redo it again is a much more difficult and time-consuming process. I also urge that Gonzaloc be notified of this AfD nomination, since he created the content anyway, and would be the one most likely to be able to verify/cite the data. I simply rescued the information as it was deleted from the Aerosmith article a while back and tried to make it more visually appealing. --Abog 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Outtakes are non-notable. Agree that the other mentioned articles are far too specialist as well. Would need to see reliable sourcing for this one. GassyGuy 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I also recently found Unreleased Madonna songs, List of rare AC/DC songs, and Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings. And I'm sure there are more such articles. Until these, and the ones mentioned above are Afd'd too, this can simply be written off as a case of total bias against Aerosmith, or myself. --Abog 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, actually, nominating all of those now would probably be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. Regardless, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to keep. GassyGuy 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that many of these Wiki rules contradict each other. Regardless, no real reason why this particular article (and not the others) should be deleted has been presented yet, other than the subject matter is "too specialist", which makes it no different from the other articles. I think it's just a case of someone hating and denying the notability of Aerosmith is really what it all comes down to. --Abog 05:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the other articles, more likely than not, need to go too. One thing to consider, however, is the presence of reliable sources. Sourcing this article would be a step in the right direction. Again, though, the fact that other articles exist which shouldn't exist doesn't mean we have to give up and let every article on an unencyclopaedic topic stay. GassyGuy 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pull the other one mate. If you checked my contribs you'd see that I've been working on articles one band at a time, and I've been adding and fixing details in Aerosmith articles. More recently, I've been doing Hawkwind. This is because I'm cataloguing my record collection. Hardly an Aerosmith hater then, eh? If that's the best counter argument you can make it really proves my point doesn't it? BTW, we have a rule on AFD - the existence of other bad articles isn't acceptable as an argument to keep. --kingboyk 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying that any of these articles (on B-sides, outtakes, bootlegs, etc.) should go, I'm just saying there shouldn't be double standards applied on Wikipedia. I think these articles on unreleased recordings of all major artists have value. Many of these sub-articles were created to make the main artist page or discography page not as long, as well as allow users to know the important musical history of many important, prominent musicians. I alsmost view the deletion of these articles as depriving users of historical research and music in general. When we have 100s of articles for all individual songs an artist has recorded, yet we can't even have just 1 article chronicling unreleased material? It just doesn't seem justified. --Abog 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Every song an artist recorded also doesn't get an article, only the notable ones. Simply existing doesn't make a song (or anything else) notable. I know I probably seem like a broken record, but rather than make accusations of inconsistent standards or hatred of Aerosmith or other such things, could at least some time be put to reliably sourcing this article? GassyGuy 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have you been? AC/DC has 104 songs that have their own articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they have List of rare AC/DC songs. And personally, I have no problem with that. I don't view it as being other crap that exists. I view it as useful information that exists. I just wish Aerosmith could have the same, that's all. I just don't understand this sudden article deletion campaign. As far as souring the article, there are notations after many of the songs on where they came from or where they later resurfaced. And the ones that resurfaced need not a citation as one can just look at an album like Pandora's Box and see that it's there. Additionally, I didn't really come up with this list. If you look at the discussion page for the article, you'll see that I simply rescued the information as it was originally on the main article but deleted as it was out of place there, so I made this article and cleaned the info up a bit. But if you want citations, you're going to have to contact Gonzaloc as he came up with the information. --Abog 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase: Every song an artist recorded is not supposed to get an article. I don't have the time or energy right now, but quite a few of the songs in Category:AC/DC songs need to be merged and redirected to their parent album as non-notable for stand-alone articles. And since you don't like "other crap exists," you probably right like this one either, but, we have an essay about potentially useful stuff as well. Since I think I'm starting to steer this discussion off course, I'll back off and let other folks comment now. GassyGuy 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, why should I bother creating any more articles on Wikipedia? I thought Wikipedia is to expand knowledge and make the internet not suck, rather than be a generalist encyclopeida. I thought it was supposed to draw on a multitude of people with specified areas of interest and knowledge to create articles in their special areas. But if Wikipedia is all about being generalist and deleting articles rather than creating them now, I guess I'll be leaving. I mean why should I waste my time creating an article on an Aerosmith song if it's not wanted and will be deleted anyway? --Abog 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been about a week now, and I think the result is "no consensus". I already compromised by letting the "Aerosmith in popular culture" article go, by merging the info into other articles. However, this is a notable list of unreleased recordings of a notable, long-lived highly important musical group. I believe Aerosmith is listed as a high-priority musician, and thus I think it's important that an article exists chronicling their unreleased recorded material. I know that most of this info is pretty reliable and indeed true. One needs to only read the band's autobiography Walk This Way, purchase Pandora's Box, buy a few singles, etc. to verify most of this information. Sure, it could be better sourced and cited, but that is no reason to delete it. Additionally, as already stated, almost all other artists of the same prominence and caliber of Aerosmith have similar articles chronicling unreleased material, B-sides, bootlegs, and the like. I believe it is important to have these articles, as they are chronicles of the artists' music, whether it has been recorded or not, and gives more insight into the artist, their music, and their albums. Remember, when in doubt, don't delete. Abog 07:28, 23 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AB Row

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

NN road. Lack of non-trivial published sources about this road. Doesn't even meet WP:LOCAL IMO. See also prior discuss on article talk. Delete. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - As there seems to be not enough sources to make this an encycloepediac article (as WP:LOCAL states) then there seems no point in keeping the article. But, I think certain information can be merged into History of Birmingham, Aston and Eastside, Birmingham. - Erebus555 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jreferee has expanded this article to a larger size and the importance of the road has been very well explained. - Erebus555 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge historical content per Erebus555, scrap the rest. The road does not appear to have any particular significance on its own. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Cited sources in the article show that the media think its worthy of being noted. The article now meets WP:N and there is sufficient source material to include a verifiable, encyclopedic article about each topic. -- Jreferee 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't feel a road which marked parish boundaries and used to be home to a brass foundry and Co-op is of historical significance. The article is undeniably well-written and sourced but for me it lacks the requisite notability. Suriel1981 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Suriel1981. Willie Stark ^{"Believe in Me!"} 12:43, 26 February 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Really Heavy Greatcoat (comics)

The Really Heavy Greatcoat (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was deleted on 31 Jan 07 via the PROD deletion process with the comment "NN-comic". That deletion was contested on 15 Feb at WP:DRV. The page was restored pending the conclusion of this discussion.
This is a procedural nomination. I abstain. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete NN-comic. I stand by my PROD Cornell Rockey 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• restore How can a comic that has been published in various publications for 20 years including an international be a 'NN-comic'. It has certainly had wider print exposure than, for example, the briliant but relatively young Beaver and Steve by James Turner which however has an even larger Wikipedia entry. Please reconsider. User:johnfreeman96 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• As both a reader and a comics seller and reviewer I would second John's opinion here - TRHG has a longer history than many recent webcomic entries to Wiki and is published in Comics International, one of the most respected journals in the comics industry. It is also accessible via the Down The Tubes website which is a frequently visited site by many in British comics (Joe Gordon, Forbidden Planet (bookstore). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ByronV2 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 Feb 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. ("Comic that is currently also published online" sounds webcomic-y enough to me... if it's wrong, please remove.) -- Sid 3050 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per publication by not only one independent distributor, but apparently 2-3. And I would tend towards calling this a print comic primarily. Balancer 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Keep please. The initial publication point of the Really Heavy Greatcoat is online (although the strips in Comics International are published in the magazine, first they are later archived on downthetubes). To add to the claim of noteworthy publication, the downthetubes site generates some 14,000 unique user hits on average per month. User:johnfreeman96 23 February 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  I sruck out the user's vote. User already voted up above. --Iamunknown 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. No evidence of attempt to establish notablity (tagged since June), arguments justifying inclusion based upon existing articles are specious, no secondary sources. --Iamunknown 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The comic seems to be primarily a print comic. It's carried by non-trivial independent distributors Virtual Lancaster and the journal Comics International. --Kizor 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Information. Wikipedia's primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects. TRHG has been independently published, in Comics International, syndicated US cartoonist Michael Jantze's The Norm, the UK comics anthology Paper Tiger. User:johnfreeman96 23 February 2007 15:18 26 February 2007

TRHG rocks! It's been around for 20 years and is well worth an entry in Wiki. It is well-known through it's distribution in Comics International and the downthetubes site, where the strip is usually found, is a prime refernce point for British comics creators. So I say keep it. RSheaf2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.184.2 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: I just added a cite for The Norm. Can those who have other sources add them? This article has been tagged as needing references since last July! --Dragonfiend 01:26, 27 February 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daryl Bonilla

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

This person does not appear to be well known, at least without reputable sources. In regards to Daryl Bonilla's professional wrestling career, usually successful professional wrestlers will have "championships" or "titles" as a part of their resume, but that doesn't look to be the case here with the exception of a single "AZW Tag Team Champion" title. As an actor, there doesn't appear to be any really major roles this person has played although sources could certainly change that. Houstonroxets4 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Owning "the #3 wrestling promotion in Hawaii" may meet guidelines, but I'm not buying that claim (particularly when WWE isn't even considered), and nothing is sourced besides. --UsaSatsui 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mr. Bonilla is an instantly recognizable celebrity in the state of Hawaii, primarily for his television and stage work. If it is necessary to alter the article, I propose removing the disputed wrestling sections and leaving the acting credits. R. Kevin Doyle 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If notability is established through his acting, then the info on the wrestling is OK. The problem is, we need sources that establish notability, and the film credits may not be enough. To save the article, find and add sources. --UsaSatsui 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I have added some external links, including his IMDB listing. I think one of them (The IWA link) is probably pretty weak, but the other two seem to fairly solidly establish him as notable. I will do my best to add more this week. R. Kevin Doyle 22:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notability is proven through the external links provided. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 13:02, 22 February 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

City of Portsmouth Boys' School

City of Portsmouth Boys' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school - not referenced by independent sources Adam 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong KEEP I am the principle author of the page and though I have a vested interest in the article, I firmly believe it should not be deleted. The page links to the Portsmouth article, whereby articles exist for all the citys largest and most notable schools, all of which would fall under the same "non notable" reason given here (indeed I believe thousands of articles on schools would, the Hampshire schools category (of which this article is included) has hundreds of schools with no references).

I have recently edited the article, improved its layout and added some external links as well as two references. However If the question of this article is that it needs more referencing, then I suggest that a tag be added asking for more references and the deletion tag be removed. If after a time, no more references or independant sources can be added, then the page should be reconsidered for deletion then, and only then. LordHarris 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What about this school is notable. "There are lots of non notable schools with articles on WP" doesn't seem to be a reason to keep this one Jules1975 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In response, I would argue that this school is notable, firstly because it is one of the largest three schools in the City of Portsmouth. Secondly it meets one of the criteria for wikipedia:schools which states "A school may meet the criterion of being the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works in several ways". In this case number two: "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas" In this case, the school recieved in 2003, the nationally recognised Investors in People award. LordHarris 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment The Investors in People award is given to hundreds if not thousands of schools every year. Many local education authorities insist that secondary schools apply for it. (According to the page, 37000 organisations hold it in total) EliminatorJR 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • More importantly the article states, for example, "The school has gained a high level of achievement academically" when the links to the DfES stats quite clearly show that it hasn't, low GCSE pass rate and more importantly its CVA (contextual value added score) is well under average. The links to the stats are out of date too. Unless this can be fixed and sources found, Delete I'm afraid. EliminatorJR 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that this article deserves it existence. But I have to say that I actually agree with you arguments EliminatorJR. I just wish that the user who nominated the article for deletion had explained as well in his reasons. I would also like to add a few things in defence of principle. I think when it comes to wikipedia deletion policy on schools, its wrong for articles which contain more than just an address, to be deleted, even if it is by consensus of frankly, a small group. There are after all thousands, upon thousands of school articles that have even less than this one but I dont see a genuine effort by the deletionist community to get rid of them all! It just seems a shame to delete information, in whatever the context, even though in this case the sources are out of date. The information on the history of the school, although unreferenced is the only existing source accessible in an internet search, especially since most Portsmouth schools dont yet have web pages. I cant help but feel that deleting the odd school page here and there, is more about personal opinion, than it is about the pursuit of spreading knowledge around the world. Except for tidy up, legal reasons and for joke articles, deletion should be wrong. Thats my two cents anyway. LordHarris 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - I agree there needs to be a more coherent policy on schools. EliminatorJR 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As the user who nominated the article for deletion, apologies for not making my reasoning more clear. I'm a little new at this AfD thing. Fortunately, others stated my reasons fairly well. I do agree that we need a more coherent policy on schools, but I don't think most primary and secondary schools are notable. Also, I'm not part of the "deletionist" community; I came upon this article on the list for WP:WIKIFY and I wasn't convinced that cleaning up the article would make it notable. Adam 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• weak Delete - Lord Harris, if you can provide proper citations of qualifying sources, that might help your case. -Pete 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong KEEP I have no vested interest in this school but I feel that these articles in general are worthwhile. I feel Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" are being applied far too narrowly here. If this is done to schools, it should also be done to many other areas where not very notable things are being recorded. (For example, individual railway stations, or biographies of individual lower division footballers - which are also of interest to some!) Wikipedia is becoming (or has become) a major source of useful Internet information, often of material that is of historical value but not accessible elsewhere on the web. Schools publish written histories, so why should this material not be included on the web, and made readily accessible for all? Information about its history, founding date, previous schools etc is of value. I found the information on this particular school useful (and corrected some of it!). If it is felt that the article and other similar ones does not meet Wikipedia's current guidelines, then I strongly suggest such guidelines are now outdated and instead of deleting this article, I call for a debate first on the whole question of notability in wikipedia:schools. On several occasions over the last year people have tried to get school articles deleted en masse and this has been rejected. With over 1.6 million articles on Wikipedia, there is surely room for description of any school where the people involved are interested enough to contribute something. Hyperman 42 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, one source is primary (evident from "we" pronoun), others are statistics lists, which are largely primary and pretty trivial. As to school articles in general-if you want to prove that most schools are notable, quit just repeating it, and start writing a bunch of articles on schools with nontrivial secondary sources cited. Every school I see up for AfD (and most I run across random-article patrolling) have a lot of howling about how "all schools are notable", but the one thing that could settle any AfD definitively and on the side of keep (citing multiple nontrivial sources) is never done! Repeating something often enough does not make it true. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, largely per the reasoning of Seraphimblade and EliminatorJR. WMMartin 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think that the usefulness of an article to one person justifies keeping it; that seems to me to be close to WP:ILIKEIT (I know that's an essay, not policy). Furthermore, Hyperman 42's argument that 'there is surely room for description of any school where the people involved are interested enough to contribute something'. Furthermore, I suggest that failure of mass deletion is not a reason to keep individual schools; mass deletions are inherently different from single deletions. User:Seraphimblade also makes an excellent argument, as does User:EliminatorJR. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly it does seem to me that double standards are being applied here. On the one hand seemingly all sportsmen who play in any professional league are considered "notable", even when the articles about them lack any sources other than automatically generated statistics. On the other hand, the background and history of schools that have educated and strongly influenced thousands of people are considered to be worth deleting (especially if they are state schools). Granted, there is a need for better citing of sources; on the other hand, plenty of evidence is available in school archives, local authority records and local/national media (all of which can be quoted as bibliography). These are not generally published or accessible and it is a useful service to present them on the internet. The origin and development of schools in Portsmouth (or any other location) is a significant factual item. There is obviously a difference between deletionists and inclusionists here, but I fail to see why the former seem to have such particularly strong views against schools articles. If they are mere vanity articles ("I went to this school and it's great") then yes, they should be deleted, but this article, though possibly over-long and too detailed, does not seem to me to fall into this category. Hyperman 42 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hyperman, there is no double standard. In order for there to be a double standard, there would have to be a unified body of editors - and there's not! If you think there are railway stations or sportsmen who are non-notable, and whose articles should be deleted, nobody's stopping you from recommending deletion. As to this article, two questions. (1) can the useful information you mention be incorporated into a subsection of a related article? (2) will those voting "keep" improve the article's quality, and address some of the concerns in this discussion? If so, that might be a reason to change my position - but as it stands now, I stand by "weak delete." -Pete 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• You slightly miss my point. I would not want ANY of these articles deleted. They are all of value. I guess this makes me an inclusionist :-) I feel the same way about, for example, keeping articles about obscure rock bands which seem to miss all notability criteria and are of zero interest to me but nevertheless seem to make a reasonable case that they had a significant place in developing one particular genre. Hyperman 42 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also I take your point (1) - it would be useful to have the basic historical information for all Portsmouth schools in a single article (probably based on a wikitable) but it will take some time to get this written. Hyperman 42 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Ive seen articles for deletion for a lot of American High Schools which are just one liners. They are the ones that should be nominated for deletion. This is a nicely written article with a fine layout - as was said above I too have no interest in this school as I live 200 miles away from it but it should be kept! You cant just delete an article as it contains no reference by independent sources. The school does exist - usually you ask for independent sources where the article may be a hoax --PrincessBrat 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, we ask for independent sources in all cases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per PrincessBrat, Chesdovi 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills is a reliable third party source for this rather well written article (especially so for a school article). (jarbarf) 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but there's a DfES entry for EVERY school in the UK - even for my little village school with 15 students. There *has* to be per Government guidelines. EliminatorJR 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a substantial, sourced article. All schools are notable. AntiVan 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, only those subjects which receive nontrivial secondary reliable source coverage are notable. If such source coverage exists for this school, please cite it and this debate is over. If that does not exist, this school is not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability page is only a "guideline", it is not absolute. LordHarris 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If it's going to be kept, the false information about the school's achievement rate (see my note above) needs to be deleted, though. EliminatorJR 13:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Ive just removed the phrase about "high" academic achievement. LordHarris 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for the school, and the first hit - a BBC report - appears to say that the school has a very low academic record.

I'm rather astonished that the "keep" advocates would spill so much ink on this page, but do so little to address the concerns raised here. Lord Harris's deletion is the only edit to the page since the discussion began. While the "notability" guideline is indeed not policy, it is an oft-cited principle that at least merits an attempt at compliance. I'd suggest starting off by linking the BBC report I found, or any other sources a Google search comes up with. My vote, though I would love to see a reason to change it, remains "weak delete." -Pete 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just added the BBC link and mentioned the low academic achievement record. I have also added a link to the schools ofsted report in the external links section and also found the schools official website, now mentioned in external links (with the newsletter referenced to the main article). In a search I was also able to find mention of the school and its design of a new prominent local statue. Have incorporated that into the article with a reference. I also found a link to some of the schools building history, as well as a reference to the engineering department and a donation made by BAE. Both of these have been referenced in the article as well. I would like to add that I think this article has improved dramatically since it was nominated for deletion. LordHarris 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Lord Harris. That's a great improvent - vote changed. Keep. -Pete 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - a significant school whose notability is underscored by being a Foundation school. TerriersFan 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as all secondary schools are inherently notable, as I so eloquently and convincingly state here Noroton 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The current version of the article is adequately referenced. --Elonka 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What makes this school non-notable? -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see anything wrong with this page in its new state to substantiate deletion. I would have thought it was in the public's interest to keep articles about anything of factual worth, and pages about schools may be of use to people moving into an area thinking about choice of schools. -Artybrad 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment That information should go in the article about the area; each school doesn't require a separate article unless the school is notable on its own. I have actually used Wikipedia for a similar purpose (although I was looking for synagogues rather than schools). Adam 04:46, 26 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:29Z

Ben Masters (NZ)

Ben Masters (NZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Benskool.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Kurt Bright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Nikki Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Victoria Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Anna Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Mimi Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Jean Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This might be a hoax and if not would appear anyway to be a vanity page. How can one person be cast as both a baby and an adult character in the Lord of the Rings films? I can't find anything to substantiate the claims that this person was in the LOTR trilogy or in Shortland Street or the musicals listed. I couldn't find a reference to his Shortland Street character on the official Shortland Street website.

Even if the claimed film and TV appearances are true, they hardly seem enough to make this guy notable. Jules1975 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy were shot in the same period of time which makes it improbable that the same actor would play a toddler in one movie and an adult in another. According to this article, he was three when he played his role as a toddler which makes it 1991 while the film did not start filming before 1999. There is no verifiable evidence to support the claims in the article and no other claim to notability in it. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's no mention of him in any NZ newspapers (using Newztext Plus) so the article's information is probably unverifiable. And seeing as I live in the same town and have never heard of him, I think I can dispute the "his face was well known in the Manawatu area" part as well. Ziggurat 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, likely hoax and if not then vanity.-gadfium 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Avenue 11:49, 22 February 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 Redirect to MINI (BMW). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:18Z

Bini

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

Neologism, POV, unreferenced, already adequately covered in MINI (BMW), never likely to be more than the smallest possible stub. SteveBaker 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Background: There is a classic car called the Mini which has an enormous number of fans and supporters (I am one of them). In 2001 BMW bought the company and the name from the previous owner - shut down production of the classic car and started making the MINI (BMW) as a 'retro' car with some of the look and attributes of the original. A small, but very vocal minority of classic Mini owners are utterly furious that this happened to their car and are throwing invective and general nastiness over the web. One thing they have tried is to pursuade people to call the new car the 'BINI' (a contraction of BMW and MINI). This small but notable fact is duly noted in the article MINI (BMW)#Criticism in a suitably NPOV fashion. So - then an entire article has appeared entitled BINI which basically says that ALL classic Mini owners dislike the new car...and nothing else. So - the term is a Neologism, it's been around for a few years. It's certainly not used by all classic Mini owners - I belong to a classic Mini club with about 200 members - approximately a third of whom actually own both a classic Mini and a BMW MINI - and in a recent email thread on the subject, not one person said they use the term BINI. This article will never have decent references - it'll never be more than one sentence and it's already adequately covered in the correct place: ie in MINI (BMW). SteveBaker 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect? to "Mini (BMW)". -- saberwyn 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, i thought it might be useful seeing as it didn't redirect anywhereI may not be the height of Deviance, but i'm trying 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The nominator obviously knows what he's talking about on this one. --Descendall 06:48, 22 February 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.

Sorry - I'f I've made a terrible Faux-pas with procedure. I was responsible for the previous AfD for an article of this name. A new article appeared under the same name - and since it was still on my watch list, I found it. I followed the AfD creation procedure and then realised that this page (which is totally unrelated othen than by the article name) already existed.

Anyway - the article that is called Bini right now is an obvious vanity article - and needs to be speedy-deleted. Ignore the preceeding debate - it's irrelevent this time around.

Thanks! SteveBaker 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:14Z

Walrusy Aunt Sally

Walrusy Aunt Sally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the text, a one time appearing character on a 70s sitcom. At present two google hits. Delete as fancruft. TeaDrinker 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 21 February 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 Speedy deleted as attack page on non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bruce the Australian

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

nn, no real name provided, no relevant Google hits for "Bruce the Australian" Travelbird 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: All of the information already exists at Bruce Mansfield.Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:38, 21 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:09Z

TSA Peru

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

Tsa peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

File:GamenightTSA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This student club at a high school in Peru simply isn't notable. It's as simple as that. Descendall 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A "Garage Sale and the monthly Game Nights" at a high school - hardly notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent on student clubs. Notability neither asserted nor evident. WMMartin 14:23, 22 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alistair bell

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

some claim to fame by an obscure bowling title, but not verifiable, probably a hoax Travelbird 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: "Alistair bell" +"Bermudan Bowls Champion" returned 0 hits on google, most likely a fake vanity article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even with 1000 ghits this article would still be unsourced and unreferenced. Being about a living person deleting is the only possibility under WP:V Alf photoman 19:49, 24 February 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 speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua (db-repost). --- RockMFR 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

Why does this guy keep getting deleted? Ive been a huge fan of his stuff for almost a year. Theres biographies for webcomic creators that are nowhere near as popular as the nerd, every time he puts up a video it gets a few hundred thousand hits, stuff like his article getting deleted is why people rightly stereotype wikipedia editors as pedantic jackasses

At the very least this guy is more than just an internet meme, or viral video. He's on a couple of fairly established videogame websites. The article needs some work, but I'd lean towards keeping it. BoosterBronze 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep! This article has again been considered for deletion without any adequately explained reason. The AVGN is all over the internet. He is a great star that lots of people know about. There are many articles on wikipedia with a far smaller audience so I really don't see the problem with having a AVGN article. He has millions of views on http://www.youtube.com, http://www.screwattack.com and more recently http://www.gametrailers.com Ask on any public forum and you'll find plenty of fans begging for a wikipedia-article. Also the Nerd has appeared on TV a few times, is being discussed in plenty of online communities Again. I really don't see the problem with having an article. Unless whoever nominated this article for deletion (again) can come up with some really good reason for deletion, I suggest leaving this article alone and improving it instead. Also when people hear of a internet celebrity (or any famous person for that matter), where is the first place they go. Wikipedia! Seb2net 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Before the "No new developments" phrase is senselessly dropped on this article, please note that MTV-owned GameTrailers has acquired ScrewAttack and now hosts exclusive rights to premiere the episodes of the Angry Video Game Nerd.216.37.86.10 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

James Rolfe himself has stated that he is very excited about making many new videos in the future (something similar is mentioned in the article, but I've read it in a discussion with him on the ScrewAttack forums as well), probably gaining an even greater fan base as time passes. Thereby making an article even more necessary Seb2net 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep! The Angry Video Game Nerd is an established internet phenomenon, much like webcomics (PvPOnline, Ctrl+Alt+Del, ...) and comedy websites (Ebaumsworld, Something Awful...). These all have their own Wikipedia entries so I can't see why The Nerd couldn't have one too.

For some reason, I cannot find the article. Has someone deleted the article despite the strong "keep-opinion"? I have a feeling this happened last time as well. The main opinion was keep but the article was deleted nevertheless. Could someone please explain what's going on here? I get the feeling wikipedia doesn't want a AVGN article come hell or high water. Seb2net 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does appear to be gone, despite the fact we only started discussing it two hours ago. Isn't that a little fast? BoosterBronze 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep! Currently listed on Youtube as JamesNintendoNerd, he is the #28 - Most Subscribed of All Time, and is the #52 - Most Viewed Directors of All Time with 4324926 views. He even has his own Fanart Gallery Gardenghoul 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone unfairly has it in for this page - the current page was very well-written (much better written then some of the pages that currently remain undeleted) and the subject matter is more than relevant and significant, as Rolfe is a well-known internet personality. Whoever continues to delete this page is, to quote the Nerd, "a shitload of fuck".

I'm not extremely good at all the wiki codes and functions, but someone should revert (or whatever it's called) the page if that is possible. There is no reason why it shouldn't be there. I know the discussion must last for 5 days but I believe we're getting an impression of what the end result will be. =D Seb2net 08:04, 21 February 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. The strength of argument tilts strongly in favor of deleting. The article doesn't meet notability requirements; no reliable sources are provided (what little there is in sources are neither reliable, nor provide any assertion of notability); and there seems little to write about the group that is encyclopedic or that is not better discussed in either YouTube or Rational Response Squad. One of the two references in the article doesn't even mention YouTube or this group. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Youtube atheists

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

Procedural listing without prejudice following overturn of A7 speedy deletion. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, sources indicate it meets our standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs a massive cleanup, as most of it right now is POV/OR or cruft - WP:NOT a list of Youtube Atheists with external links to their pages. FCYTravis 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with above on all points made. Lord Metroid 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article completely fails to fall short of our guidelines here. --Dennisthe2 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Given the news coverage this has received, we have multiple reliable sources for this. I almost tagged it as CSD A7 when I saw the first version, but ended up expanding it instead when I started finding sources. I agree with FCYTravis about the external links -- this should not be a list of dozens of Youtube members that identify themselves as youtube atheists. Dave6 ^talk 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. We also have an article on the Rational Response Squad. Are these the same people? Or closely related? If so, a merge is probably a good idea. CWC(talk) 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the same group. We don't need two different articles. Dave6 ^talk 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and further justification of keepI discovered through the video "youtube atheists" on wikipedia that it is not the same group YouTube Atheists Lord Metroid 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is utterly senseless. If this is kept, completely remove the "Censorship" section, nor is there anywhere any mention of YouTube's policy on using copyrighted music. There is already an article on the Blasphemy Challenge, and this has really become a glorified article for vanity purposes. Not encyclopedic in any sense of the word at all. GravityExNihilo 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am trying to figure out how this is not the most obvious case of conflict of interest I have ever seen here on Wikipedia. Clearly this GravityExNihilo wants this article deleted by his vote here, yet he continues to edit the page only to delete content from it. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it is unencyclopedic and a list of Youtube members don't count as references.--John Lake 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't follow your reasoning. If its unencyclopedic, that doesn't mean it cannot be made so (as so many articles on Wikipedia have had done) and the list has been removed. I don't see how you connect this with a conclusion that the article should be deleted. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right but it still hasn't got any non trivial third party sources.--John Lake 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This topic is already covered in Rational Response Squad, as is the Blasphemy Challenge. The alleged censorship is covered in Youtube. Other than that there is nothing here besides a vanity entry. You can't make a "community" from a list of names. (additional thoughts) having gone through the links and references they either refer back to the RRS or Blasphemy Challenge or a couple of protest vidios surprisingly short on infomation. Clearly this article is a "second bite of the cherry" for the RRS. It should go. --Michael Johnson 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Blasphemy Challenge article only covers the event of how the YouTube atheists got started, not how they currently exist. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just cleaned up the article with what time I have had (which means I deleted a lot of stuff that should not have been there). If you check to before my edits. I'm not saying it's good, at all, I still think it should be deleted.GravityExNihilo 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cleaned it out is more like it. Obviously your edits are intended to be consistent with your desire for the article to be deleted. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think you will find that your edits have been reverted (not me!) --Michael Johnson 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and move. I think it seems relevent to YouTube. Although, it should be moved to "YouTube atheists" (proper capitalization). Cavenba 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting merging into YouTube? That would be appropiate. --Michael Johnson 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Everything worth mentioning on it is already mentioned in the YouTube article. I think cluttering the YouTube article with every single group on YouTube would not be wise (not saying you are suggesting this at all).GravityExNihilo 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge merge into You Tube under a "controversy" section and remove POV rant. I'm not sure this is significant enough, yet, to require a seperate article, let alone two of them. 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (See my reason below for strike through)
• Delete It isnt a group with a stable name and a discernible membership, but a miscellany of people with similar views. For N & V it has to be stable enough to have at least a standard name, and I am not convinced that the references given show it.DGG 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into YouTube. Not notable enough for its own page. Kolindigo 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Muliple published works on this topic [53] [54][55] (and many more) demonstrate notability per WP standards. --Oakshade 07:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment References 1 & 2 were about Blasphemy Challenge and RRS, which already have an article. Couldn't open 3. --Michael Johnson 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are aware of this article, correct? If no, then this may change your mind. Blasphemy Challenge.GravityExNihilo 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with GravityExNihilo & Michael Johnson. Would like to add that when this article was nominated, the vast majority of it (2/3rds) was about the YouTube Censorship Controversy. That's why you'll see a lot of merge votes here and comments about "POV". Those pieces have since been edited out. As such there is nothing of note in this article that's not at Blasphemy Challenge. For me it's a strong delete. YouTube Atheist should redirect there. Note that the YouTube page now has all it needs on this subject there under a "Censorship" section (YouTube) Coricus 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (already done?) with Rational Response Squad i.e. Blasphemy Challenge and Delete Redirect (per Lord Metroid's argument below). Delete per DGG -- "Youtube atheists" is not a group/organization with stable name/membership -- just people who have similar views. utcursch | talk 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment See above for link to YouTube group. Lord Metroid 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. What's next, are we going to have articles for "LiveJournal atheists"? "Facebook atheists"? We need unequivocal and overwhelming sourcing for articles like this; our standards should be higher, not lower, for such marginal topics. -Silence 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its featured on multiple non-trivial news sources. What else to discuss? - Denny 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I might be missing something: I don't see "YouTube Atheists" mentioned as a subject or group in those references. Those references all seem to deal with YouTube and the controversy around whether their actions were censorship. Is this not already covered in the YouTube article under the Censorship section and in the Blasphemy Challenge page -- the group that promoted the atheists into action? I don't see how YouTube Athiests/ Atheism a seperate subject... Coricus 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep For a start, this has been pruned away from the YT article (it's not called the 'Censorship' section anymore either), and it now just says main article - here. More importantly, it quite definitely meets the standards for Wikipedia inclusion. And much of the page was not written by the people concerned - I know, because I recognise the wording of the total banning part - some of that was identical to wording I had used in the YouTube article, which was clearly cut and pasted onto this article. So the text was not written by those concerned (I'm quite definitely not NickG, and I am not a member of the RRS, although I agree with their aims etc.) PT 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question You have stated that the article meets Wikipedia standards. Can you please explain how with reference to WP:A and WP:N? --Michael Johnson 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of all topics that have been featured on multiple non-trivial news sources do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I see articles get deleted all the time that have appeared in much less trivial news sources than Christian Today. (Besides, neither of those articles are actually about "YouTube atheists". They're both about the Blasphemy Challenge, which was nevertheless recently deleted and merged into Rational Response Squad.) So this article's only two reliable sources aren't actually about "Youtube atheists" (except indirectly), and all this article's other references (which are what are actually relied on for the overwhelming majority of the article's claims) are to YouTube pages, the Secular Student Alliance, Nick Gisburne's personal homepage, and an unrelated University of Buffalo policy page. That's pretty damned unimpressive, especially compared to other Wikipedia articles which are billions of times more noteworthy and newsworthy than this one and yet are regularly deleted and merged. That's why Wikinews even exists—and this topic clearly falls far below the standards of Wikinews, so why do you think it satisfies the much higher standards of Wikipedia? -Silence 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like someone have write about themselves. This sounds like a subgroup. it is not important. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge As most of the article seems to be about Nick Gisburne(A member of the Rational Response Squad) It would probably be best to merge and redirect it with Rational Response Squad. Lord Metroid 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a personal pet page to me.--Knulclunk 05:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Propaganda,advertising,self-promotion,biased,all around soap box.Nwoob 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)— Nwoob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete salvagable parts are already mentioned in other articles. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; appears to be self-promotional propaganda. Ral315 » 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete youtube atheist? is this a joke? look like just a buncha greedy know-it-all teenagers, who pretends to hate religion to spite their parents, but celebrate Christmas,Easter,Saint Valentines,Baptisms,Funerals etc etc Mibo123 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just checked youtube, and it appears there are several hundred groups with way more members than "youtube atheists." As well, no sources suggested (other than people's youtube videos) have any mention at all of the group itself, but of the blasphemy challenge. Is it safe to say that this article is entirely delete-worthy GravityExNihilo 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps this could be helped by a single sentence addition to the Atheism page along the lines of: "The Internet is allowing Atheists to assert their views in new ways..." Coricus 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That'd be fine, if (1) we have reliable sources to back that claim up, and (2) it's highly noteworthy and non-trivial information. -Silence 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as it isn't specific to any one group, due to the fact that there are significantly many atheist groups and all of which do not need specific notability given to them.GravityExNihilo 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Christian "News" sources (with the exception of CSM) are generally non-notable. Ergo, this is non-notable. - Francis Tyers · 15:39, 25 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:00Z

Joe Jonas

• Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Brothers
• Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jonas

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

File:Joejonas0.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Joejonas.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not assert the significance of the subject. Personal life section is just gossip, using myspace as a reference. Only external links are "official" websites and myspace. The image is a possible copyvio (taken from a fansite and not tagged). One article about another of this band's mambers is also up for AfD (here) and another was speedily deleted and protected form re-creation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fails WP:BIO: No reliable sources found. Seeing as the main article doesn't have an references, I doubt the kids will get any for themselves any time soon. Delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, as failing WP:RS and thus WP:V. Ohconfucius 02:34, 23 February 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 Pages have been deleted (not by closing admin). Cbrown1023 talk 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quizap

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

Quizap! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Quizap.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not very notable - still under construction (the website, not article), and scarcely heard of. Tim.bounceback 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just because a page isn't noteable doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist. The two stubs you recently upload to Wikipedia are also not noteable, and yet, they are'nt on the deletion page? Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.230.60 (talk • contribs)
  • Would you care to elaborate on which stubs he uploaded? Please link to the articles, and I am also noting that the two edits that Tim did immediately prior to the addition of your article to AfD were minor edits to a childs' novel and to DeCSS. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record, the two stubs I uploaded where XBT Tracker and Sybari, and I uploaded them because they were on the requests page. --Tim.bounceback 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm... well, he does have a point, but I'm not going to nom those. =^^= --Dennisthe2 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The same IP left a note on my talk page for "vandalizing" the Quizap article - must have been pretty mad at the deletion... --Tim.bounceback 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • In that case, I retract my statement about having a point, and replace it with one about proving a point. Oy gevalt.... --Dennisthe2 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this articles possible deletion is a personal attack by Tim.Bounceback on the article's creator. That's right, a personal attack. 66.203.163.180 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — 66.203.163.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • This is not a personal attack - see Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks to see what one is. I am not commenting in any sort of way that is negative towards you. Please, let's not turn this into a huge debate - this is about the article, not the nominator or contributor. --Tim.bounceback 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could explain to us why this is a personal attack? I mean, it doesn't look like one to me, and Tim there has already said it's not. --Dennisthe2 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Now a user - "Imbilly" - has moved "Quizap" to "Quizap!", simply blanking the original page and copying everything to the new one, which complicates matters further. Does this mean that we have two articles for deletion? --Tim.bounceback 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hard to say. I'd say "no", but that's just me. Any admins that can take a look at this? --Dennisthe2 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, so, in summary, we now are voting on an article that is useless to vote on, because it doesn't exist anyway - does the discussion move to the new one. We definitely need an admin - is there any way we can contact an admin, or should we just wait for one? --Tim.bounceback 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If a page isn't notable, then it doesn't have the right to exist on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability for details. If the website is still under construction, how can it possibly be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself? This article is doing little more than functioning as an ad. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and per commentary. To the user who commented in favor of a keep, please note that "not notable" is not only exactly the reason it's here, it is, indeed, grounds for a deletion on Wikipedia. Please reference this link for details on what constitutes notable. Note, this is not to deny any justification of the existence of your page, and I am certainly not prejudiced to recreation of the article if it does indeed become notable - but at this time it does not meet our criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This stub highly appears to have been created by the creator or the website itself. How else could one know of a non-notable under-construction organization?AFYFAF 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Metacomment: I previously closed this as "Deleted by TexasAndroid". There was some confusion because Quizap had been moved to Quizap!, then Quizap was deleted, but Quizap!, the article under discussion, was not. I'm not sure what happened after that but it looks like it's heading towards deletion anyway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 23:06Z

• Comment - the articles above have been speedied (recursive redirection), it should be safe to close this. Can we assume under the circumstances that a G4 in the future is justifiable? --Dennisthe2 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was the one who speedied the two redirects (which only redirected to each other with no content at all) based on this having been closed as delete earlier. IrishGuy ^talk 00:19, 27 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:LC. Completely inapproprtae considering the article List of deceased professional wrestlers was deleted. Just make a category of deceased pro wrestlers and it can serve the same purpose. This is also a considereable arguable title considering there's no clear definition on what an "Early Death" would be. — Moe 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I TRIED to make a category for this topic, but the category police went ballistic (see this link --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Deceased_Professional_Wrestlers There is nothing inappropriate about this list. Sure, it's inappropriate that these young men all died way before there time, but I had nothing to do with that. As far as the definition of an "early death", I'm not sure how to define it, but I'm quite certain that having a heart attack at age 42 qualifies. Leave this article alone. - wfresch

If you want to add something about entertainers death's try Category:Entertainers by cause of death or something similar. Try to add as much as possible to existing categories. Creating categories for deceased/living people are deleted frequently. — Moe 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is the problem with this article? After looking at it, it appears that a lot of wrestlers die at an early age; enough to justify a Wiki article, that's for sure. User:63.215.121.10

Problem is we had past articles about this and it didn't fly with us before. — Moe 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete is impossibly POV. There is no objective standard as to what constitutes an "early death." Otto4711 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: It gives undue weight to deaths in the Pro Wrestling business as compared to other high stress athletic fields like Pro Boxing, Football, Basketball or Baseball (why isn't there a list for these sports? - Pro Boxing would have an even worse record IMHO since its not staged). The POV contention is of course, participation in Pro Wrestling causes "early" (ill defined) death which is not proven (compared to other sports/professions). The only death I can see on the list that can be directly pinned on Pro Wrestling is Owen Hart's accidental death from a wrestling stunt gone wrong. --Eqdoktor 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: It's POV (how "early death" is defined) and possibly OR. Sure, a significant number of notable pro wrestlers had drug problems that may have been a cause of death, but it's not really encyclopedia-worthy to list all of them together (or perhaps categorize them together). Even an article on steroids in pro wrestling I don't think would be good enough to keep (because the well-known cases are for wrestlers who have appeared in the "big league" promotions, which of course is not indicative of the industry as a whole - after all, WWE makes use of an extensive travelling schedule more than the average indy promotion). kelvSYC 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, I hadn't checked this page in a while; I was busy working like normal people do. The fact remains that the 40 plus people mentioned in this Wiki article died early deaths. What are you people debating about?
• This isn't a category, and it doesn't have to be a list. I would say that, if a couple paragraphs can be added to this, and then the list of wrestlers is at the bottom of the article, that should be alright. If you have to, rename the article to "Professional wrestlers who died before age 50." That would get around the whole "what qualifies as an early death?" debate.
• If there can be lists of sexual positions, and lists of "Nintendo games that feature Mario as a character", why should this article be the subject of such scrutiny.

• First, please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comments. Second, there is a strong consensus against either listing or categorizing people on the basis of their being alive or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people which is maintained for legal reasons). Third, regardless of what age is selected it is an arbitary standard of inclusion. Finally, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (lists of Mario games or sexual positions) are not justification for this article. Otto4711 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• So, you're saying, "You can't have lists about people that are alive or dead... unless they're alive" ???

• What I'm saying is sign your frickin' posts, first of all. It's four keystrokes, it's not that difficult. And I'm saying that listing people on the basis of whether they are alive or dead is not done here. Otto4711 01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:*The problem I have with this article is that it (IMHO) gives the biased point of view impression that the Pro-wrestling business "causes early deaths". Its not balanced and rather unfair to the industry. It doesn't take much effort to selectively cherry pick a bunch of deceased wrestlers, put them in a list without any context whatsoever and call it "Early deaths in professional wrestling" - You might as well retitle this article "Pro wrestling causes early deaths", in which case it will be speedily deleted as a biased attack article. There is no context to this list, as I have stated in my comments above - a biased cherry picked list of dead people is simply not encyclopedic and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipeadia. I can selectively list early deaths in any number of professions (lawyers, doctors, policemen, insurance adjusters etc.) and give the false impression that n-profession causes short life-spans. --Eqdoktor 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Go ahead and try to come up with a list of lawyers that died early deaths. You won't be able to come up with 50 people that were significant enough to be mentioned on wikipedia in the first place. There is a list on wiki titled "People that committed suicide by gun." This could just be thought of as "People that committed suicide by working over 330 days per year, for 15 years straight, then had their heart explode." Is it really so different?

• Comment - a search for "People that committed suicide by gun" turns up no results. Otto4711 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a wiki page titled, "Poltergeist curse" that lists actors/actresses that died early deaths that all happened to work on the Poltergeist films. Are they implying that working on a movie makes you die? If so, should that article be removed? By nazi logic, the answer is yes. - Nate Jibb

keep The poltergeist argument is pretty solid. What if this article gets renamed "The wrestling curse"? Will you guys/gals finally get off my nuts at that point?Wfresch 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arguing for the retention of one shitty article based on the existence of another shitty article, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, is not too terribly impressive. Otto4711 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. There is really no need for this type of list. Govvy 12:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

keep Noteworthy, controversial. This subject comes up in the press every time there's an 'untimely' death in the sport. At those times, people curious about the subject would surely find a categorized list like this useful and informative. At other times, the article will serve to educate those who are unaware that there's a controversy about the subject. Gooshy 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Its exactly lists like these that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. Its biased, unverified, does not cite any serious independent source links pro-wrestling to early deaths - its all self researched. Just how many basic Wikipedia encycopedic rules does this article break? People who are curious about about pro-wrestling and other subject matters can be better served than with a WP:POV biased and out-of-context list like this. Without context on each and every wrestler's death, this list is useless - just what can be inferred from bladder cancer deaths (John Tenta)? What of other pro-wrestlers that have retired and gone on (or will go on) to have higher than average median life expectancy lives? Even if the article originator is out to prove a connection between pro-wrestling and early deaths (nothing wrong with writing such an article - you just need to meet the Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NOR and WP:V), a list like this is laziest and the worst possible way to present such information.--Eqdoktor 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Ha ha, right. It's lists like this that give wikipedia its shitty reputation. It couldn't be the anal photo rules, or the army of douche bags that nit-pick every new article. Eat a bowl of dicks, bro.

• Delete. A lot of wrestlers die in unusual circumstances, and this page will thus inevitably result in potentially libellious conjecturing. McPhail 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment.

• What is the cut-off point for "early death"? Does it relate to Average Life Expectancy? If so, is this taken into account for the wrestler's nationality, gender, ethnic group and country living in at time of death? If not then why not?
• Does this section cover promoters and managers?
• Does this section cover deaths that have nothing to do with wrestling (e.g. car crash)?
• Does this section cover wrestlers from present day right back to the beginning of professional wrestling? If so, when is pro-wrestling counted as being in existance from? Suriel1981 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Normy132 04:32, 24 February 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:36Z

Johann Christoph Wichmannshausen

Johann Christoph Wichmannshausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article was written by following the Mathematics Genealogy Project up to the point where mathematics ceases to be a separate subject, but a part of Natural Philosophy, a fraction of Moral Philosophy. This isn't a mathematician; his thesis title is Moral Disputation on Divorce according to the Law of Nature. The only evidence of notability is that he was the doctoral student of a notable advisor. We are not going to include every seventeenth-century doctorate from every university in Europe, are we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some assertion of notability is added to the article. Articles that fail to assert the notability of their subjects are supposed to be fodder for the speedy-deletion process. -- Dominus 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since assertions of notability have been added to the article, I now vote to keep. -- Dominus 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I just added what i could find, I'm wondering how this fits into the 100 years test at wp:bio, as its been more than 100 years, and I'm sure someone will find this info useful. The guy has a few redlinks at wikipedia germany, but no article there. Being a professor back then seems rather prestigious, as elitist as universities were, so perhaps this satisfies examples 9 and 10 at WP:PROF. Also, this is a case of an article which helps WP:Build the web. I have a hard time saying delete for these reasons, and because doing some searches it seems that he played a role in the world that we remember a couple hundred years later, which seems notable enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

comment I understand that I'm sort of saying that we should include almost every seventeenth-century professor from every major university in Europe. I think this isn't a universally held idea, but I think that being so generally means you satisfy the notability criterion I mentioned. Please, let me know how I'm wrong if you think I am. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

strong keep Dr. W. is not being written about on the basis of having a PhD, but of getting the degree, becoming a professor himself at another university, and training doctoral level students. Just getting the degree would not have been enough, and nobody is suggesting that all recipients of the doctorate would be included, any more than they would be today. (For one thing, most of them went on to law or medicine or the church.)

In dealing with contemporary academics, we currently generally include all full professors at research universities, either on the basis that they have been repeatedly been peer-reviewed for quality by qualified and knowledgeable senior faculty from several universities (at least 3 times in succession), or on the basis that they invariably have written a considerable number of well received works of scholarship. In the 17th century there were many fewer universities, and very few full professors in each, and so they can be assumed to have been at least as notable.

His coverage in the Mathematical Genealogy project is accidental, because of the difficulty of setting subject boundaries within the then very broad stretch of "philosophy" but I think this is a plus--the methods used in that project are applicable to what are now the other academic fields. The article should be edited to call him a philologist, not a philosopher, or a mathematician, on the authority of the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie--a truly wonderful resource-- and I have just done so. (He presumable presented a conventional thesis, and then went his own way.) I have also checked for further books he may have written. Now that I realize he was a philologist I recognize the name, because he was also the University librarian. DGG 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I found some actual scholarship citing Wichmannshausen and so despite having placed the original prod on this article I now feel that there is enough meat in it to merit keeping. —David Eppstein 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and User:Smmurphy. This is a very small article, so it's not using up very much of our resources, and I like the notability arguments of DGG. The information that is already in the article is 'hard-won' because it's not easy to research people from the 17th century. So its deletion would represent more of a loss than in some other cases. The sources which are there now seem quite good. It seems possible that the Mathematical Genealogy Project is mixing him up with his father-in-law Otto Mencke, but I haven't traced this out in detail. Our own article does not make that mistake. EdJohnston 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now that article has been expanded. Spacepotato 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- his name appears in the genealogy of countless mathematicians (just google it); this is a non-negligible measure of notability, which, in and of itself, should warrant keeping the article. The recent additions and expansions (by David Eppstein and others) completely clinch the case for me. Turgidson 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO due to recently added non trivial mentions by other notable people, and as a result it is also an important bio for building the web. John Vandenberg 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I absolutely agree with User:Jayvdb about building the web. Moreover, the fact that someone lived long ago and thus is unfamiliar to you is not sufficient to delete the article. As we see W. was the author of several books - and remember that it was something very hard those times to get published. I think it's very stupid to delete something unless it harms somebody. Deleting articles like this is the stupidity squared. Really guys, create not delete. Amir Aliev 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Historical info has its own value, and I seriously doubt this will set a harmful precedent in terms of vanity articles. --C S (Talk) 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If we're still talking about him 300 years later, he's notable enough. linas 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep assertion of notability and surces provided in article as modified during the course of this debate. Jerry lavoie 02:21, 25 February 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 - unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:47Z

Atlantic International Airways

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

Very few non-wiki g-hits, none of which establish notability; no references included in article to establish notability. Kathy A. 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to have to say that I have serious issues with the verifiability of this, especially when no sources have been cited in the article. For a US airliner, even a short lived one, I would expect to find easily something about the airliner with an easy search but I cannot. There does appear to be a website for "British Atlantic International Airways", but I cannot see any evidence that the airline it claims to be the website for actually exists. For instance, I would expect the Airliners.net to have some photos of them in their database, especially when they operate in Europe and America. Jetphotos.ch does have an image for an Atlantic International Lockheed TriStar, but that is a prop for the movie Passenger 57. Although I think commercial airlines with scheduled passenger services are all notable as they form an integral part of a country's transportation network, my belief is that the airline does not exist and has never existed. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article has zero sources, so WP:V isn't met. I'm not sure if this is a real airline or not--without sources it should be deleted. janejellyroll 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• I also checked Newsbank and found nothing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:45Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PARANOiA

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

Already nom'd once, deleted. Fancruft, listcruft, non-notable, etc. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAX (Dance Dance Revolution). Moogy ^(talk) 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I like this page and I find this page interesting. However, it's mostly WP:OR so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. You just don't let it go with these AFDs, do you? Listen up, in a perfect world I don't think that any of these articles would be deleted, but since it's flawed, I guess a few won't make a difference. This particular AFD has moved me, anyways, so I'll agree with the deletion. Voretus 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a DDR fan, but this is game-guide material. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the MAX discussion. Nifboy 16:12, 26 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My Dying Wish

My Dying Wish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously a lot of work has been spent on this page. However, I don't believe this band satisfies the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Although there is one non-trivial article (which appears to be copyvio by the way), there is no mention of the band at All Music Guide All Music Guide (really this time), and a quick Google search only turns up their official and myspace sites. It is possible this band may become notable in the future, but for now I don't think they're there. Flyguy649 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. dposse 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep / Comment - I appreciate the compliment regarding the work put into this page. The copyvio for the Revolver article could be corrected with an edit. This was my first article / entry into wikipedia and still have a lot to learn. Regarding the All Music Guide link from flyguy... that link is to a financial / investment company. No offense, but the band definitely will not show up on that website. Regarding notability of the band, I would aggree that they do not havea commanding web presence at present beyond their official and myspace page, but they are well known in the Harrisburg area and are currently playing with both local and national acts, including Cute is What We Aim For. I am open to suggestions to improve the page and feel that there is room for this entry in the music section of wikipedia. brianrudge 09:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• Comment I corrected the link to All Music Guide above. My apologies for the wrong link. Flyguy649 03:04, 22 February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners

Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this article in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing; as a POV push of User:Patchouli which is banned indefinitely. It doesn't also give any sign of significance. --Pejman47 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete on the basis of WP:notability this isn't an appropriate article for encyclopedia.--Sa.vakilian 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete The source for its one sentence doesn't even work. If this is ever a notable political organization the article can be remade in neutral manner. The Behnam 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Association for the Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners, or Committee for the Defence of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:40Z

Cupcake cafe

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

File:Cupcake2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Flowercup.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

contested speedy. non-notable Nardman1 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - borderline WP:CSD per WP:CSD#G11; delete per WP:SPAM. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Reads like a well disguised advertisement, however it doesn't seem blatant enough for a G11. Kyra_~(talk) 09:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. - Richardcavell 02:36, 26 February 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Idi Amin in popular culture

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

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of Amin, regardless of how trivial, along with anything that reminds an editor of Amin or his name, with no context provided for the reference either within the work of fiction it's drawn from or the real world. Also strongly oppose any merger of this trivia into Idi Amin. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture. Otto4711 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but scale down mercilessly- there are notable things here, especially Forest Whitaker's movie, a song title, to a letter extent the appearance in that puppet movie and The Onion- all about mass media communicating the mythology of an infamous dictator to millions of people. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are already articles on both The Last King of Scotland and The Last King of Scotland (film) which are already linked to Idi Amin and Forest Whitaker. That is how this sort of information should be included, in the subject articles and not in a junkheap "...in popular culture" article. Otto4711 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this article was WP:SPLIT from Idi Amin here: [diff February 17, 2007]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the information was garbage in the main article then it is garbage in its own article. Unless you can explain how, for example, knowing that Robin Williams said the name "Idi Amin" in a comedy routine 30 years ago tells us anything about either Robin Williams, Idi Amin or the world in general? Otto4711 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Delete and No Merge — this stuff doesn't belong in Idi Amin, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia (we aren't a repository of trivia), but people like this stuff, and where it is impractical to delete it due to the ensuing wailing and gnashing of teeth, it should be kept quarantined from the main article. - Francis Tyers · 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, do whatever you do with the article. Actually, I think that a decision for all such "in popular culture" articles should be reached. bogdan 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article has a ton of information, and the guy who wants to delete all of it and not even include it in the Idi Amin article seems to want to hide anything bad about Amin.Sockem 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not merge whatever happens, this stuff was intentionally separated from the main article. The "... in popular culture" articles" do have purpose - to keep the main texts clean. Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These lists are messy research notes rather than encyclopedic articles. Greg Grahame 20:22, 25 February 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:40Z

Why Christ?

Why Christ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Why Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

File:Cover23452623452346.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Contested prod. Novel does not appear to meet WP:BOOK. Fewer than 50 non-commercial/non-wiki Google hits for various author/title combinations. No entry in WorldCat. Appears to have WP:COI problems too. Addere 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising. Page created by book's author. --MacRusgail 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear advertisement of a book that doesn't hold up to WP:BOOK SubSeven 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:N requires some links from reliable sources. Couldn't find any sources on google [56]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above. Advertising. 164.143.244.34 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to just be advertising. I did a google search and turned up nothing excep for this wikipedia article. (Third3rdIII 23:18, 22 February 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.