Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was pwn3d - D3l3t3!. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Leet in videogaming

I usually don't think content issues warrant deletion, but this article is just a mere collection of info that may not even be real, relevant, verifiable or even interesting. Examples are used to illustrate and explain existing article, not to be a actual article by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanx (talk • contribs)

Delete list of extremely trivial trivia, bordering on the dreaded "cruft". Sample entry: "WarioWare: Touched!, a place is called "Hawt House". "Hawt" is a leet spelling of hot." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete must to trivial and arbitrary of a list.-- danntm ^T _C 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:OR. NMajdan•talk 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons listed above. This article was apparently split from the Leet article, which has not suffered from its removal... Venicemenace 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all above reasons ::mikm t 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-leet per nom and Starblind. Agent 86 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I particularly agree with the reasoning that examples should illustrate something and not, except in rare cases, be an article unto themselves.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too trivial and cruft-like to merit an article. How can it continue to be expanded anyway when there are countless videogames that may contain Leet speak?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|>3|_373 This list shall go as the examples will become infinte and trivial. The Placebo Effect 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a random collection of information which will continuously grow and never be notable. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:OR. --Ineffable3000 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Haemo 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG terms and acronyms

I understand that the first afd was closed as keep due to no good reasoning. But i feel that this article still needs to be deleted because it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Sure that this list may contain terms that are notable for everyone (HP-Health Point). But this list is neither verified nor sourced. I won't recommend removing the not-so-notable terms and keeping the obvious, since determining which term is notable is original research KaiFei 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Farside6 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete per above, may change to keep if someone comes up with a convincing reason to keep †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how WP:NFT applies here. Not for things...was written up to prevent people from adding novel, perhaps good but mostly junk, topics that would fall under WP:OR to wikipedia. Many of these acronyms are used by many in the MMORPG subculture. Adding sources is an issue that needs to be addressed in the article, but I'm sure many of the well known terms could be sourced (e.g. PvP, PK, HP, EXP, etc.). Mitaphane _talk 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a large collection of fanbase-specific glossary terms to me, which could be considered under the indiscriminate information policies. I might reconsider my position should a good keep reasoning be given, with accompanying reliable sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fairly comprehensive list, but it's highly specialized and of no use to anyone who doesn't play MMORPGs. Cheers, Lankybugger 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely passes the Bajoran Wormhole test User:Pedant 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialization isn't a good argument for deletion. There must be a million entries that are of no use to someone who's not interested in X. Ford MF 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But neither is it inherently a reason to keep it when it fails explicit Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT). Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you're concerned about sources, pick up a copy of Massively Multiplayer Games for Dummies or a similar books or a site like WOW's glossary. This subject is not something that counts as inherently related to WP:NFT though I'm sure people will try to add entries to the list based on that. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the sole issue with this article. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specifially fan-based list cruft. No people other than these game players would need of want to view this. MiracleMat 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Glossaries of this type serve a useful purpose and are actually quite common in Wikipedia. See Category:Glossaries. In case this is not fit for Wikipedia, it should at least be moved to Wiktionary instead of deleted outright. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP is not paper. Anjouli 07:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an encyclopaedia. Which is not a dictionary or a glossary of terms. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unencyclopedic - glossary with no context with sources. Severe references/original research problems. Actually no references at all. Game guide. Inaccurate and misleading indiscriminate collection of information - The majority of these terms are not original to MMORPGs but come from Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying board games (e.g. XP for experience, 2H for 2 handed weapons, AC = Armor Class, heal, haste, HP=health points, tank etc.) or from text-based MUD computer games (e.g. PK for Player Killer, Emote, Mob etc.) or are not specific to any kind of games at all e.g. "Lmao / roflmao", "afk", "spam", "end-game", "log in/out", mitigation" etc. Bwithh 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although some terms are specific to MMOGs, the current article is really just an indiscriminate mish-mash of collected terms. I might change to keep if the list were heavily cleaned up, and if it provided more information about the origins of specific terms (with sources). --Alan Au 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a phrase book.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary of terms. It also fails WP:NOR (original research), as most of it is unreferenced or referenced from unreliable sources. Proto::► 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, a game guide or a slang guide, and some of these aren't even verified. JIP | Talk 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MMORPG is too wide and varied -Doc^g 11:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I admit it could use cleanup. ~ Flame vip e r 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "No good reasoning" - whatever could that mean? It is presumptious and inherently subjective for editors to judge the reasons given to keep an article, or insist that each deletion must be argued in insiders' terms. The list itself is a perfectly valuable jargon-file type list, and provides a convenient place to merge jargon items that might otherwise end up as separate articles. Moreover, gamers themselves are reliable sources for this sort of information. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. This article is inherently in violation of one of the principle policies of Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is not.
It is also galling, and borders on a breach of civility, to have each "keep" opinion be contested by the busy deletion lobby, and met with a screed of doctrine. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while cleaning up to retain only those terms for which WP:RS reliable sources can be shown. --Pak21 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and smosh to 1000 pieces and blend it in a blender. Most of the terms are thought up by a dozen of gamers and they come to wikipedia to add it. I will change my vote if this list is cleaned up to the point where all the terms are verifiable.

219.74.192.19 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plus, this page is dripping in original research - where, for example, are you going to find a reliable source that states that "1HPP" means "one-handed poisened weapon"? A lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into this article and I appreciate that, but if something breaks the first pillar, it has to go. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable source for a single entry, remove it. That doesn't mean there aren't sources for OTHER entries. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Change to Transwiki to wiktionary, per precedent at Anime and manga terminology. It violates WP:NOT so it shouldn't be on wikipedia, but there's quite a lot of "useful" information there. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ford -Toptomcat 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: While I lean towards this being a violation of WP:Not a dictionary and WP:OR, the fact that there are plenty of similar articles under Category: Glossaries makes its existence at least justifiable. On the other hand, many of the terms are not unique to MMORPGs, so if it remains, it requires a lot of cleanup in order for it to be a true and accurate list of terms as well as conforming with WP:RS --Scottie theNerd 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that the list criteria does exclude such things, so if some have slipped in, it would be appropriate to remove them, though I'm not sure it would be the best idea to remove them. If they're used in MMORPGs, it might be helpful to include them, as people who don't know about their use in RPGs, chatrooms, or whatever, might seek help on them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of one poor article should not be used to justify another. See WP:INN. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people play MMORPGs. Several million alone in World of Warcraft. Accordingly, the language used by this group of people is reasonable to include. If there were some absolute rule against glossaries, that would be one thing, but there isn't. Not in practice anyway. There's not just one article, there's dozens. This is no less useful than a glossary on ballet or tea ceremonies. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, source. If its notable enough to be on the list, it should be able to be sourced. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the only issue with the article. It fails WP:NOT. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Dark Shikari, your argument is "if its notable enough that someone puts in into a Wikipedia article, it logically follows that there must be reliable sources out there on it"??????? Bwithh 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like ZOMG y wud u de133t this? Not only are the acronyms relevent, an article on the topic in general is certainly encyclopedic. WP:IAR >> all "not" arguments. Tarinth 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY? Tarinth 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, does anybody want to try moving Wikitionary? FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely it needs cleanup and sourcing, but these things are not out of the realm of immediate possibility. As cited above, WoW's glossary exists (if that is to be accepted as a reliable source) as well as Massively Multiplayer Games for Dummies [1]. Many glossaries exist on Wikipedia and I don't see how this one is less worthy. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REALLY SUPER STRONG KEEP tho could do with clearing up and removing the nn terms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slogankid (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I fail to see how this is anything but a dictionary or glossary. Agent 86 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you use that argument, do you also advocate deleting everything at Category:Glossaries? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not up for deletion. This one is. If those articles do not comply with the fundamental content policies, maybe they should be - but I haven't read them all. From a brief glance at a couple of the articles in the category, I'd likely support deletion if those particular articles had been nominated. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Just because the articles in that category exist does nothing to demonstrate how this article complies with WP:NOT (and other policies cited in this AfD). Agent 86 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know I would advocate deleting the lot, or moving them to Wiktionary. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Xiner (talk, email) 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree that this can't be anything other than original research, a collection of unverified (though perhaps real) neologisms, and an indiscriminate list to boot.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I produced a book and a web page that provide reliable sources for many (if not all) of the terms? FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website is specific to a single game, and only includes perhaps half of what's on this article. If you want to pick up a copy of the book you mentioned and source all of the terms, that would be helpful. It's still a collection of neologisms and a (rather) indiscriminate collection.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, World of Warcraft is a single game. It's also the biggest of MMORPGs. Even if most of the words used weren't actually common to MMORPGs in general, I'd have no objection to including those unique to the World of Warcraft culture(or some of the other big-name MMORPGs like Everquest, City of Heroes, etc). As a source though, it represents the work of a major company in the business. That makes it pretty good as a reliable source in my book. Yes, these are new terms used by a relatively new social group, but that doesn't mean there isn't documentation from reliable sources about them. The fact is, you said this list can't be anything other than original research. That's flat-out wrong, I found two sources without even trying hard. Maybe you should revise your comments accordingly? I can understand the concern about this being a collection of words (though given the other glossaries around, I don't feel it's especially objectionable), but your description is a tad overzealous. FrozenPurpleCube 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope some of you realise that this is a debate and not a ballot. There's little point in agreeing with another editor when points have been made to refute them. If you're not going to contribute any new perspective, don't stack numbers because debates are decided based on arguments and not how many people agree. The article fulfills referencing requirements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a debate point considering we have numerous articles in Category:Glossaries, and if WP:INN comes into play, we'll need to put all of those up for deletion. Is that the course of action we will take? --Scottie theNerd 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Useful information, worth having handy, substantial precedent for glossaries of this type, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket for it to be here, and it does good for others, and allows better understanding of terms that may leak into mmorpg-related articles (although avoiding those is the best of all) --John Kenneth Fisher 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Useful information. --Ineffable3000 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is not a good reason for keeping it. My shoes are useful, but there's no article about my shoes, nor should there be. See WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is talking about the article being useful, not its subject. An article about your shoes would clearly not be useful. Therefore your analogy is not appropriate. — brighterorange (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any of these terms and abbreviations came up as individual articles they would be wiped out without a second thought as either WP:NN or WP:DICDEF or WP:OR. I do not see how it makes any diffeence if they are all collected together; the same categories still apply. And I don't see how it's useful.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't accept that argument when this exists. Obviously many people feel that glossaries are worth using and editing. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pretty sure that farming and DKP wouldn't be deleted without some discussion, to name two. Bot is another. However, that an individual thing may not be notable, doesn't mean it doesn't belong as part of a collected article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aili, see WP:INN. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it. It's an essay, not a guideline or a policy, and I don't think it applies here. If you think this should be deleted on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then start nominating Glossary of Japanese history, List of musical terminology, and anything else that obviously has encyclopedic value, just as MMORPG terms and acronyms does. The sheer number of glossaries confirms that the community believes these are valuable. If you want to oppose on other grounds, fine, but citing WP:NN, WP:INN, or WP:DICDEF just does not hold water. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Big top 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is very useful, and it shouldn't be deleted... --Catz ^{[T • C]} 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. I find the WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT arguments unconvincing - Aagtbdfoua 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Could use some cleanup, but has encyclopedic value and should be verifiable (as other editors have pointed out). There is plenty of precedent for glossaries (which I would also vote to keep). I don't believe they run afoul of WP:DICT, which concerns articles about single words. — brighterorange (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day applies here. Neither does the game guide argument - a game guide would say how to gold-farm and get "phat lewt", all this does is say what they are. As brighterorange points out, WP:DICDEF applies to articles which exist just to define a single term. Sure, some of the terms in this list should be removed, but there's a big difference between removing terms and deleting the entire list. Several people have pointed out similar glossaries on other subjects. I'm not simply saying "keep this bad article because that bad article exists". What I'm saying is that, the way it is now, glossaries are allowed on Wikipedia. If we want to have a discussion about removing all glossaries from Wikipedia, we can have that discussion. But I don't like this idea of nominating some glossaries for deletion under "Wikipedia is not a glossary", then turning a blind eye to the others. Quack 688 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing wrong with glossaries. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a glossary, not a dictionary entry, and though some people may think that a glossary entry is inappropriate, as long as there is a Wikipedia Category devoted to them, it's hard for to accept that there is a community consensus that such entries should be deleted. JCO312 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — get off your high horse, please. Vranak 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - a distribution restriction isn't something to tamper with. DS 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity code

This is a dictionary definition followed by a paste of a glossary specific to the United States armed forces. The source that we've pasted into the article could perhaps be used as a reference for articles on military terminology or slang, but the paste of this one particular list does not make an encyclopedia article, and it is hard to imagine how it could become one. Further, it is not crystal clear to me that we can be republishing this; while unrelated to copyright, there is apparantly some sort of distribution limitation on the document. This limitation may perhaps be unenforceable, but I'm not sure what we would gain by pressing the matter; I suggest we can just link to this if we need it rather than republishing it. Jkelly 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. Big top 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. The list of codes (pdf) can be an external link at the bottom of the wiktionary article. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. - Aerobird 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. MER-C 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki This looks like wikiordinary articles. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Anjouli 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to rewrite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lund

The article's creation reads, "12:06, October 9, 2006 MarkAshtonLund Talk contribs This page was written by Mark Lund." This article has received most of its edits from its creator and anonymous IPs. My concern lies with it being a self-published article. Fails - WP:Auto. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete self promotion. I like how it has been fixed, no longer selfpromotion The Placebo Effect 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lund is not notable as a figure skater and not really notable in the figure skating community. While he did create IFS magazine and was on the judging panel on Skating With Celebrities, I don't think that adds up to enough to call him notable. He is not a skater, a notable former skater, or a skating official. He seems to be simply a businessman using his wikipedia article as a resume. Awartha 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep neither self-publication nor self-promotion are automatic deleteion reasons if there is asserted notability with references to substantiate it, which appears to be the case here.--Anthony.bradbury 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for self-promotion. boggartlaura
Keep, he is "kinda well-known" in off-ice Figure Skating circles, Google returns Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030 for "mark lund" figure skating. (0.47 seconds) , and without the edit warring, the article would actually be quite decent. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems reliable and notable. It could use a few more references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Self-promotion violating WP:AUTO, IMHO, doesn't meet the notability tests.—ExplorerCDT 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources appear backing claims of notability (e.g. magazine circulation, reporting on judging controversy). This reads like PR puffery. When there is doubt about notability, WP:COI tips my hand. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am the author of this page. My experience in the world of figure skating speaks for itself and I refer to the user who quoted Google. It is fair to say, that having skated for 10 years, coached for several, published a figure skating magazine for 11 years, appeared on countless TV shows as an expert, my work during the 2002 Winter Olympics, winning an award from the Professional Skaters Association for best figure skating publication, published a book on the sport and was selected by one of the top four networks in the United States for a television show specific to the sport of figure skating, speaks to notability. Whether it is I, or a publicist, or other person that promotes the facts of my experience based on truthful knowledge, the page should stay. This page has been up for months and it is only because of a recent television appearance that certain users want this page removed. Everything in this article is factual and, I believe, keeps within the policies of Wikipedia. This great Web site should not be a forum for those that wish to delete pages because they simply do not like someone or disagree with what they have said.MarkAshtonLund MarkAshtonLund 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominate solely on the basis of WP:AB. My history of AfD noms is clear. If I were under an influence, I would not nominate nor contribute to the debate. Ronbo76 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious violation of WP:AB-. Most 'accomplishments' are not notable. (cant log in for some reason)-155.144.251.120 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above Farside6 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but work to convince Mr. Lund to stop editing his own article - Mark, it's pretty clear that you have sufficient notability to sustain an article here. What many people are having a big problem with is that you're creating and editing it. Please read WP:Auto and WP:COI and see if you don't understand why that's troubling. Otto4711 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if... other people start contributing to the article besides Mr. Lund. Overall it does seem notable enough to remain in, but could still use some touching up.Gan fon 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced autobiography. MER-C 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE autobiographical self-promotion. Somebody above mentioned that this isn't automatic. I wish it were. Writing an article about yourself is the exact opposite of wht we are about. Let someone ELSE write it. MiracleMat 07:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Self-promo. Anjouli 07:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MiracleMat. It should also be noted that Mr Lund wrote the IMDB resume that sources a lot of the article as well. Weak keep Re-write has addressed many of the concerns regarding the article. One Night In Hackney 08:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:AUTO. Notability is irrelevant since User:MarkAshtonLund is the admitted author of the page. If he is as notable as he claims, the page will be re-created by a third party. I see no evidence that anyone is out to get him, despite his personal attack on User:Ronbo76. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venicemenace (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given the drastic rewrite by a third party, I'll change my vote to Weak keep. Venicemenace 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:AUTO says this article should be deleted? --Charlesknight 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself." Count me among the many. Venicemenace 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs an edit by independent editors but a quick google would suggest that this figure warrents a page. I see clean-up and sourcing required (editoral) rather than AFD (Administration). --Charlesknight 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has accomplished nothing worthy of inclusion, other than offending thousands of people — Politmuse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and stubify, pruning it back and letting it grow, respectfully without Mr Lund's contributing. Malla nox 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per Mallanox. Lund is definitely is quite well-known as a journalist and publisher in the figure skating world; like Christine Brennan, he's one of the people that the mainstream media tends to bring in as an "expert" analyst on the sport. But like anyone else, he must let other people write the Wikipedia article about him. Dr.frog 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completely rewritten the article as proposed, discarding all the autobiographical and unsourced material and providing verifiable sources for Lund's accomplishments. Mark, please keep your hands off the article now, and let other people write about you based on published sources. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dr.frog 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of the article meets WP:BIO, and there are reliable soruces. Any WP:COI issues can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq 17:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seven external and separate references, very NPOV, no reason to delete. The problem here is the nominator's misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and failing to realizing that not everything is set in stone. He needs to see WP:IAR. John Reaves 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! An article about someone notable should not be deleted only because the creator is the subject. As far as I can tell, Mark Lund is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable (...). for his career as the long-time publisher of International Figure Skating Magazine for 11 years, as well as CNN and other media companies usage of him as an expert in relation with ice skating.

Put together with the rest I'd say that he's notable enough to stay, regardless of how the article got started, who edited it, and who/how many people will edit it in the future! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's a journalist, not an athlete. Awartha 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, my rewrite has removed all content relating to Lund's own skating career since it appears he was never notable enough as an athlete to have verifiable, third-party references about his skating accomplishments. But his publishing/media/TV accomplishments are verifiable. Dr.frog 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed reason for keep based on Dr.Frog, but still a strong keep from me! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets WP:BIO and Dr.frog's rewrite looks good. I've cautioned the subject about editing the article. Really, it just needs to be watched by a few editors and it should be fine.--Isotope23 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is possible to write a balanced and referenced article about oneself. This page, or any other, should not be deleted based on blind following of Wikipedia policy. John Reaves 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is nothing in current policies saying that articles where the subject is also the author has to be deleted. However, due to the possibility for bias, it's advised against, regardless of weather it's Jimbo or others! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets WP:Notability, although I wish the guy would stop editing his own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original reasons, if he's actually that notable then one of his "fans" will write the article when needed. Nashville Monkey 10:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will admit Dr.frog's edits are a step in the right direction. Nashville Monkey 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if Mr. Lund keeps his editing of this page to a minimum Because previous to Dr.frog's edits, some of Lund's edits seemed really close to violating WP:COI. --Lmblackjack21 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Obviously watch for the author editing and ensure everything is well sourced, but that applies to all biographies anyway, regardless of autobiography concerns. CiaranG 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement Guy (Help!) 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miklos Kanitz

non notable individual; a Holocaust survivor, but there were thousands of those. The award he was given goes to multiple people and organizations each year, in a province with less than a million people in it. Brianyoumans 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - good biographical information about a Holocaust survivor whose family played an important role in postwar Hungary, including an account of how he survived and his activities in describing his experiences. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I feel that any Holocaust survivor is automatically notable thereby. But I spend a lot of time fighting Holocaust denial and may be biased.--Anthony.bradbury 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read other comments, I change my !vote to Neutral--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing that makes this person notable. There are five Holocaust survivors that go to my synagogue, do they all deserve a Wikipedia article? Certainly not. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A well referenced article if a little bit heated with visceral descriptions. It appears he has been referenced in multiple reputable sources, if he was notable enough for the award and for the articles about him he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Also if the survivors that attend the above users synagogue have multiple third party articles written about them then by all means they should have wiki pages. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming this person is truely notable, shouldn't there be more information about why he is notable in the article rather than a single sentence at the end of an inspiring, yet common story? A Wikipedia article needs to assert the notability of its subject. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could put a reference to the award in the first paragraph, I don' think the format of the article is particularly important during a AFD. It seems to me we have notable survive (not famous) of a notable event. Daniel J. Leivick 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Only 735 Google hits! Big top 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well documented. Remember notability is not subjective, if others have written about him, he is notable. If all 1,000 had well documented lives, that were mentioned in other sources, they deserve to be here too. Or, all 1,000 could appear in a single list, with the little bit known about them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There isn't a real assertion of notability other than being a Holocaust survivor, but nothing makes him stand out from other survivors. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Surprisingly, Kanitz's father is more notable and far more deserving of an article. However, this Kanitz is just a mediocrity: the negative (not unique) side of being 1 in 6,000,000. —ExplorerCDT 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can understand (though not agree with) the argument of insufficient notability, but "mediocrity" seems oddly harsh and out-of-place in this context; I wish you'd used a different word. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I think "mediocrity" would be the most appropriate word. And even though it sounds unsympathetic for me to say: in a world of famous Holocaust survivors, this guy's second-tier at best, with no real accomplishments post-Holocaust. He's not an Elie Wiesel, Władysław Szpilman, or Władysław Ślebodziński who have done more than have an ironic survivor story and be the son of a slightly famous father whose contributions are discussed in his son's article more than the son's notability. I don't see any notable reason why to keep him just because he suffered and that he now, after fifty years of internalizing, is talking about it. At that level, we'd have everyone who ever did time in prison and then became a "motivational speaker" with an article on Wikipedia. Suffering is not and should not be part of the inclusivity criteria. —ExplorerCDT 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debated over this for some time. He has a great story and is notable...but overall doesnt seem notable in the same way as Wikipedia demands. Sorry, I do like this article.Gan fon 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ... and this !vote I found,somehow, slightly sad. We are writing an encyclopedia, but after all, within the vague and general bounds of appropriate coverage, why would we not keep a "great [factual] story" about a "notable" person where one "like[s] the article" when one is "sorry" and (per edit summary) "regretful" about losing it? Notability and our guidelines about it are important, but their purpose is to improve the encyclopedia. Are we really a better encyclopedia without this article than with it? Newyorkbrad 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. If a factual article improves the encyclopedia then there is no reason to exclude. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The danger is simple: precedent. There are hundreds of millions of elderly people in the world, many of whom have interesting life stories, and many of whom have relatives who would be glad to put up a well-written article about their uncle who served in the war, their grandmother the college professor, etc. How many of these are truly notable? And who would verify them all? And maintain them? We are an encylopedia, not a memorial. --Brianyoumans 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some legitimate questions of notability, but there are a few other sources that have written about him. He's a more-documented-example-than-most of a very notable group of people (Holocaust survivors, that is), and I think it's beneficial to have a specific example like this. I don't agree with User:Anthony.bradbury that all survivors are notable, or User:Daniel J. Leivick that all factual biographical articles should be kept, but Kanitz's experiences are rare enough that I don't think that it sets too much of a dangerous precedent. At best, it's a strong keep like some people have suggested. At worst, it's a good time to ignore all rules and keep it in spite of some questions. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in theory but many many many articles exist on this sort of expectation that maybe perhaps (wouldn't it be great if) more sources exist and will be added later--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable example if not a very notable individual. We are on thin ice and lose valuable information if we block all examples. They have a place. But that is not to say we include all similar individuals. For instance one might usefully include an example of a specific witch-burning,Anjouli 08:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC) but listing them all would be wrong.[reply]
Strong Keep - Meets WP:BIO as this person person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person as per the article's reference section. If you look at the first reference citation, "Anne Frank Exhibit Magazine" Holocaust Survivor Opens Saskatoon Exhibit, his story and picture are fully recounted on page 24 of the PDF (as displayed on my laptop doing a search for his name {page 13 of the article story}) and from the article appears to have spoken internationally on his experience. The third reference cites an award he received that is mentioned in a Canadian paper. He seems to be a notable speaker on the Holocaust both in print and in speeches he gives. Ronbo76 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable, encyclopaedic, passes WP:BIO - why are we even discussing this? WilyD 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you assert he passes WP:BIO and is encyclopedic does not make it so - why do you believe this to be true?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He specifically meets the The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO. WilyD 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three references given, he is possibly the primary subject of the newspaper article (it isn't online, I haven't read it, so I assume it is about him). The Anne Franke Exhibition book has a page on him, out of a 24 page booklet on the exhibition (and I think it is obvious he did NOT open the exhibition in other locations; the exhibition is customized for each location, and probably in each location they find an appropriate opening speaker). The other article mentions him briefly in a list of award recipients. So, so far he is at most the primary subject of one source. --Brianyoumans 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he is, on the balance, not notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unforetunately, you are wrong. Notability is not subjective and He is notable. This is indisputable. WilyD 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not agree that this is indisputable (and not just because over a dozen people above dispute it.) He was the subject of one profile in a local newspaper, from which the vast majority of this article is constructed. He was also the subject of a short profile as part of a press packet distributed upon the opening of a museum; I am not sure this is a notable source, and in any case that profile itself might be culled from the original article in question. The third source merely confirms that he won a probably non-notable community award. I maintain, then, that his notability is arguable, and that is in fact what this AfD is for.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not subjective. Remember that the article may have been in worse shape than it is now when some editors argued for deletion. Or editors may have wrongly concluded that he's non-notable due to insufficient evaluation of the article. He meets the established guidelines and policies for notability - i.e. He is notable. If you disagree, the correct action is to review the relevent guidelines and policies - because he is notable, and this is an established fact of this debate. The The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO is met - I cannot understand why we're even having this debate - the correct decision is obvious and guided by policy without the need for much work at all - if we all work to discover the truth earnestly and diligently, the outcome is as clear as this AfD WilyD 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - With all due respect, I just specifically provided my reasoning for why I don't think he meets the criteria. You have just repeated your argument that he is notable and linked for the fifth time to the same policy page. Also, unfortunately, the use of terms like "non-trivial" and "primary subject" mean that there will always be people who dispute whether a given article meets the standard, so despite the policy's insistence that notability is not subjective, in several ways it still is. Appealing to the policy multiple times does not automaically make this guy's notability an "established fact." Also, if notability's non-subjective nature were as cut and dry as you argue, there would be a LOT less activity on the AFD boards.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People ignore policy and concensus to argue from the gut all the time. I'm not too concerned. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and any halfway competent Admin will see that the arguments for delete are inconsistant with the facts. Your arguement even admits he meets WP:BIo in the premise, but then tries to explain it away with arugments that go against the policies (like "notability of sources", which is bunk). It's not a big deal. WilyD 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My arguments above are not "from the gut", and you should also realize that a LOT of discussion goes on about how notable a given source (for example, a press packet) is. I also do not appreciate claim anyone who is halfway competent must agree with you. But on the whole I think we are on the same page that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Incidently, I believe the article has not been altered materially since I AFDed it. The reference to the Anne Franke Exhibition was added, that's about it. --Brianyoumans 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I would have kept him if he has written a famous book about the Holacoust or something like that. --Ineffable3000 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Agree with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) above - _if_ 1000 more survivors shows up with likewise well referenced stories, maybe we should convert them to a rich list (separate expansion of List of Holocaust survivors?) but keep for now. highlunder 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, at least I have provoked a bit of a discussion! I would put this article in the same class with one I afd'ed a while ago, on Leutnant Helmut Frohberg, a German WWII officer - someone who lived through an interesting and notable time or event in history, but who did not play a notable part and has not written or spoken such to shape our ideas about that time. He was just there. And remember that keeping non-notable Holocaust survivors leads to also keeping articles on non-notable D-Day soldiers, Iwo Jima soldiers, civil rights movement footsoldiers, anti-apartheid activists... People do bring these things up in AFD discussions - "Why can't we keep this article? This other person is just as non-notable, and they have an article!" Brianyoumans 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above, though, does highlight that any person who comes up on AfD must be discussed on s/his merits. Perhaps "he was there" is not a reason to keep, but "he was there and has since been written about substantially in multiple non-trivial independant sources" probably is.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BIO with verifiabl reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:BIO. Many of the delete votes make me sad. :-( S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepLike the previous editor who commented, I am unable to fathom the reasoning of the people who would think this either undocumented or not notable. DGG 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as original research. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hell problem

A mathematical problem proposed on Usenet (and apparently, an article that dates back to 2003). But it's unreferenced, and excluding Wikipedia mirrors, "Monty Hell problem" receives only 36 Google hits, showing a clear lack of notability. Because of its almost complete lack of coverage elsewhere, I'm inclined to call it Original Research as well. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it clear that I do not support a merge into Balls and vase problem as is described below; it only makes the problem worse by adding original research to another article. Ral315 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This problem, from what I can tell, has not seen publication outisde of usenet, but the last part is written very well. The Placebo Effect 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 36 Google hits does mean not notable. Big top 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret (maybe userfy or wikibooks?) A lot of good work has gone into this article; hopefully it can be saved in some form. However, it shouldn't be in mainspace unless it can be shown that this is the standard naming and specification of the paradox. --Trovatore 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret per Trovatore. - Aagtbdfoua 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Appendix: Proof" is (like the whole article) unsourced. The question is logically flawed because it takes an unending progression, yet ask what happens when it does end creating the 'paradox'. Unnoteable question made by unnotable people answered and discussed unnoteably.--155.144.251.120 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You happen to be wrong on the merits of the question. Unfortunately that's beside the point. BTW unless something has changed, anon "votes" aren't counted in AfD discussions (of course, they're not supposed to be votes, but for practical purposes they often are). --Trovatore 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an anonymous IP contributes meaningfully (i.e., they provide a reasonable explanation of their !vote), I don't see why the opinion expressed by that IP should be ignored. Obviously, that would be understandable if it was just a "per nom" type of explanation, but anyone should be able to contribute. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It's certainly possible that an argument given by an anon contributor could convince others, and thereby influence the debate. However in my view the closing admin should not count it, as an opinion per se, for the purposes of determining "rough consensus". It's not hard for the same person to contribute multiple times under different IPs, giving different rationales, and moreover someone contributing to an administrative decision should have a fixed point of reference by which to find him/her, and if appropriate compare with his/her history of contributions. --Trovatore 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My opinion has always been that IP opinions are valid so long as it's clear that they're not being used to influence the vote. While it's certainly possible that the IP is also someone else who's already commented on this page, it's unlikely that they'd use only one additional "vote". In cases where the vote has clear sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, such as when a website gets their members to vote one way or another, I think IPs can easily be discounted, but just having an IP does not make one not worthy of having their opinion noted- AFD isn't a vote by any means. Ral315 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        At the very least I think an IP's opinion is less worthy of note. If you want to make non-controversial improvements to articles, great, log in or don't, no biggie. But if you want to weigh in on an administrative decision, or for that matter any controversial content dispute, you ought to let us know who you are, at least with a fixed pseudonym. "Where you stand depends on where you sit", and people considering your opinion are entitled to some context for it. --Trovatore 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For reference, the AFD etiquette guidline says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." In other words, anon users can participate but we're also allowed to take what they say with a grain of salt since we don't know who they are. Dugwiki 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has anyone noticed that this is a great article. Furthermore, mathematical issues tend to have less google hits. This because it's not pornograhy. Nlsanand 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move out the of the mainspace or merge somewhere. Put it anywhere. Transwiki, Userfy, etc. Far too good to be deleted. --- RockMFR 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete per above. MER-C 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical unreferenced Usenet drippings. Note that this should not be confused with the legit Monty Hall problem article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary because all the math just shows .9=.9 which is obvious. TonyTheTiger 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to user page but recreate if appropriate reference found While the article is accurate, far as I can tell, it's not referenced by outside published sources and doesn't look like it's going to be referenced any time soon. If a published text can be found talking about the "Monty Hell" problem using that exact name, then the article can be reinserted in Wiki. Meanwhile, I'd recommend that an editor interested in maintaining the uncited information make a copy for their own user page to archive it. That way, if a reference turns up, it can be easily recreated. Dugwiki 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The issue isn't simply the mathematical accuracy, but also verifying whether the problem is actually commonly known in math circles as the "Monty Hell" problem and uses the same "plot". It's possible that this problem was formally published elsewhere using a different fictional premise, for example, in which case we should be using the name of that story instead. Dugwiki 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment there's a technical issue here; the history needs to be preserved, not just the text, for GFDL purposes. But if I'm not mistaken, it is preserved anyway, and can be resurrected administratively if so decided. The rub is that I'm not sure there are any procedures for resurrecting an article "because circumstances have changed" rather than "because it was improperly deleted in the first place". There should be, but I don't know that there are. --Trovatore 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, should references be added, the article can be recreated. It might go back to AFD, but if circumstances change, speedy deletion of recreations doesn't apply. Ral315 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I wasn't talking about re-creation, but undeletion, which is different. Undeletion restores the history, which would certainly be desired. I don't know of any existing procedure for undeletion because of changed circumstances. --Trovatore 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear enough; what I meant was, if it's recreated, the history would be undeleted upon asking an admin to do so, and the work put into this article could be reused. Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or present the reliable source at WP:DRV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Painful Delete. Unsourced and confusing, but somebody worked like hell to make it shine. I suggest moving it to userspace. ~ Flame vip e r 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - It is based on something someone wrote in some chat or board. --Ineffable3000 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex43223 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Balls and vase problem, and move Redirect into Userspace or Wikipedia space (killing the resultant re-redirect). The name is bad, but the problem is a probabilistic version of the named one. Alternatively, move to Talk:Balls and vase problem/Monty Hell problem, and kill redirect from mainspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shove onto a userspace. It's a good article, and I'm sure there's notability out there, but it's not currently in the article. If nobody can find any before the AFD ends, then we should hide the article in a dark corner until someone can. -Ryanbomber 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As pointed out by ~~User:Ryanbomber~~Arthur Rubin, this problem is a restatement of the Balls and vase problem, but named the Monty Hell problem as a play on Monty Hall problem. However, none of this material is sourced. It was posed on a Usenet group, and the term doesn't appear to be in common use. -- Whpq 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balls and Vases, or userfy it. This is an interesting problem and well done. Too bad there are no reliable sources.... --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 11 January 2007 (GMT) 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balls and Vases, by Arthur Rubin's arguments. I see no problem with leaving a redirect there; redirects are cheap, and if someone tries to ask Wikipedia "What is the Monty Hell problem?", I see no reason not to answer him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balls and vase problem per Arthur Burin - I'm also happy to leave a redirect there, though. Quack 688 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balls and vase problem per Arthur Rubin, with redirect. Robin Z 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the merges might seem like an easy way out, but I don't see that it addresses the problem. The only sources are still to a newsgroup, and it is still not established that this is the standard terminology. --Trovatore 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, the material should only be merged into another article if it can be sourced. A redirect would be useful, though, regardless of whether the article is deleted entirely or merged first. Dugwiki 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and do not merge. This appears to be a reformulation of the balls and vase problem, approximately, but that doesn't mean we should merge it with that article. After all, it's possible to come up with numerous examples of any problem type. We should only add those that are notable--those that have been in published papers, in this case. Since the 'monty hell' problem doesn't seem to exist outside the internet, it's not notable, not verifiable though reliable sources, and should be deleted. --Sopoforic 05:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agel

Self-promotion of MLM health-supplement company that does not appear notable. Contested prod. NawlinWiki 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's over 239,000 Google hits, but it's not notable. Big top 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not notable enough for Wiki and seems very self-promotional.Gan fon 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN self-promotionMiracleMat 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom `jaydj 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious spam. JIP | Talk 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve all articles have potential. this is no different. just needs objectification & more details -- Cannibalicious!
Delete, it's evidently self-promotional spam. Venicemenace 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent, credible, and non-trivial sources are indicated, and I could not find any on my own, thus, I believe that the article fails WP:WEB. TSO1D 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC). WilyD 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply no. ~ Flame vip e r 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Say no to bad articles. --Ineffable3000 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death cube

Delete - non-notable fictional technology, the aricle itself describes it as a "throwaway reference" in its main use. Other uses are described as "implied." Otto4711 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article describes this as an insignificant mention, the other references appear to be conjecture, not a clear reference. SkierRMH 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fictional Technology. Daniel5127 <Talk> 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MiracleMat 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite my general fondness of The Cookie Monster. per nom. TonyTheTiger 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Death to this cube. ~ Flame vip e r 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper nom---SUIT⁴² 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete — Article describes this as a "throwaway reference" and "from context they appear to be", both of which indicate that this article is original research. Take what can be referenced and merge it in to the article with the book cited. Val42 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per nearly unanimous discussion, and User:Kyaa the Catlord. JIP | Talk 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSF-007 Gundam Mk-III

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the MSF Gundam Mk-III for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Content? What content? Kyaa the Catlord 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Also, that entire Gundam template needs to be cleaned up since it's huge and I doubt every single mech on the show deserves an article (I am not familiar enough with the franchise to know which ones are or are not notable). TJ Spyke 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Oh come on. This is an encyclopedia, not an... I don't know what... this doesn't belong here whatever the case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is more what I like to see instead of the WP:POINTed {{Prod}}ding of articles in-mass without taking time to determine if it should be cleaned up, merger or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, {{Prod}} is for uncontroversial deletions which do not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If someone thinks it shouldn't be deleted, but rather cleaned up or merged, just remove the prod tag. It seems now as if you do not actually have anything to object... so why the prod tag removal? How could deletion of an article on a fictional weapon (mobile suit) from the Mecha design series Ζ-MSV be controversial whatever the case? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The person who originally prodded the article was doing so as part of a WP:POINT campaign about a group of articles that are in serious need of cleanup and mergers. Such campaigns should be automatically be contested, even if some of the articles that were prodded should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Big top 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article without real content but spec, so no objection here. L-Zwei 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show notability. Have there been articles written with this as the primary subject in verifiable and reliable independent sources? Edison 05:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear notable within the Gundam series. Even the de-prodder doesn't appear per his comments above to want this kept. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and ALL related articles. This reminds me of when Curt Cobain died and somebody told and I said "Who?" MiracleMat 07:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - does not assert notability, and per my PROD nomination. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exsphere

Delete - non-notable piece of fictional technology, insufficient to justify its own article. I don't know enough about the game to know if it's worth merging any of the content or not. Otto4711 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About 6,720 Google hits. Big top 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tales of Symphonia since the Exspheres play a big part in the game. TJ Spyke 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many scores of articles at WP on games, fictional technologies, fictional characters. Seems to me the only justification being offered for the "non-notable" tag is the fictional nature of exspheres. On this basis many, many articles would have to be culled, to be consistent. If that is the agenda then it should be discussed at the WP:VP. This article should be properly categorised and improved. And kept. Paul Beardsell 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Pokemon defense. If there are other articles you believe should be deleted for notability issues, then nominate them. Don't hold them up as proof that this article is somehow notable. Exspheres have not been the topic of multiple independent sources as required by WP:NOTE. Otto4711 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any independent sources in which this was the primary subject. Edison 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would need to see a non-fictional secondary source (ie. one that relates the subject to this universe as a creative concept) to sway me. --maclean 06:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. I also believe that this topic can be jusdged using the criteria layed out in WP:SCIENCE, and it does not satisfy a single point presented there. TSO1D 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tales of Symphonia ::mikm t 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Xiner (talk, email) 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one source makes it useless. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete — there appears to be significant material here, so it should be merged back into the article where this object appears. After that, this article should be deleted. If, after a week after this discussion is closed the information hasn't been merged, delete this article anyway. Val42 05:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually merged information cannont be deleted. --65.95.16.65 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is this: Whatever useful information there may be in this article, merge into Tales of Symphonia. Then delete this article. But this duty should be the responsibility of whomever is interested in keeping this information. Val42 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tales of Symphonia. Significant importance to the game. Xenon Zaleo 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The information is certainly important in it's own context, even if it's not enough to warrant it's own article. SAMAS 13:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or *Merge. Anyone who says otherwise is a terrible person.

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

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

The result was delete. No policy or guideline reasons for keeping were provided, and the nomination is not in bad faith. --Core desat 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMX-003 Gaza-C

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the AMX-003 Gaza-C for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Oh come on. This is an encyclopedia, not an... I don't know what... this doesn't belong here whatever the case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT. There's enough content here to be included into a "List of" article along with other mecha from the same series and faction. Cleanup and mergers are always preferable to deletion, which should be reserve for extreme cases. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources in which this was the primary subject. Non-notable. Edison 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Get this crap OUTA here MiracleMat 07:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and don't let this turn into listcruft. - fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:FICT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, lack of references.--Folantin 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No notability asserted, just a bunch of stats. JIP | Talk 10:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. Doesn't deserve its own article, but the information isn't useless as well. Shrumster 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak merge into a new list of Gundam mecha (per WP:FICT for minor characters) as the first of the Neo Zeon mecha. --Pak21 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C}
Keep Bad faith nomination. Jtrainor 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..? Why is this a bad faith nomination? --TheEmulatorGuy 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not a bad faith nomination. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the reasoning behind this nomination and behind most of the support for deleting it. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. Redxiv 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:FICT are. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Artifact (Eureka)

Delete - non-notable fictional technology item, insufficient to sustain a separate article. Could possibly be merged to whatever episode article it appears in if it's not already there. Otto4711 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. The show is still young, maybe in the future and this item becomes more importent it could have its own article. TJ Spyke 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable thing mentioned on a TV show. No sources are cited which had this as the primary subject. Edison 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge... for now. Though it is clear that it is intended that the Artifact play a major part in the series, it really hasn't yet, and as the entry notes, little usable information has been released about it yet. The notability case may get stronger as the series progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Eureka article --CTho 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please discuss any merge on the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabber

Delete - article has been tagged for notability and verifiability for months, does not appear to be notable or verifiable. Otto4711 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

112,000 hits at Google. I've quickly added a few links. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - weak but has promise. These devices do exist, y'know! And they are going to be one of the more important technologies of the century. Perhaps article should be renamed to one of the redirection links now pointing to it. The article requires improvement but that is what WP is all about! I think we can fix the deletionist problem by requiring the deletion proposer to fully justify the deletion - the burden of making the argument should be theirs. It's too easy to wander about slapping delete tags here, there and everywhere. Paul Beardsell 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Merge To Desktop manufacturing which has 19 million Google hits and is a descriptive term rather than a neologism.See[2] where they also refer to these as "3-D printers, rapid prototypers, and stereolithographs." I have not heard this neologism, but 3-d fabrication machines have been built and are an emerging technology of great importance for prototyping. Sometimes called the "Santa Claus" machine. Edison 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)editedEdison 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend that the article contents be lost? I agree with you: "great importance"! What about a rename to desktop fabricator? Paul Beardsell 11:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be an article under some title for 3-d fabricators. They exist,they are used, the scale and range of material they can fabricate are increasing. Find an industry-standard bname and move the info. Edison 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until shown to pass WP:NEO. MER-C 07:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If neologism is the issue, we can use one of the many alternative, less hip, names. Several redirects to fabber. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be already established enough (you cannot expect that a name for a very special piece of technology will have 10M+ Google hits)--Ioannes Pragensis 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge On its own it's no more than a dictionary definition. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs a better name though. --Gwern (contribs) 19:33 11 January 2007 (GMT) 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the more descriptive desktop fabricator. I don't like desktop manufacturing as a rename because I think that implies mass production as the primary use, whereas a home fabber could be used to make art or a one-off chocolate fantasy castle for a dinner party. Notability: I don't know of an academic article about the potential impact, but economic (home consumer goods) and intellectual property (design share/theft) ramifications come to mind. Possible link to add to the page:

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10922-desktop-fabricator-may-kickstart-home-revolution.html --selkins 16:24, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Merge with redirect to Solid freeform fabrication. Robin Z 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as the article has been merged and redirected to MS-06 Zaku II, so the arguments here no longer apply. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GM camouf

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the GM camouf for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no notability. Delete per nom. Edison 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant WP policies for this sort of thing (as stated by other users above). --Folantin 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to MS-06 Zaku II. Redxiv 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into RGM-79 GM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtrainor (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. A redirect would be fine, but a merge wouldn't be helpful as this is simply a Gundam guide (unencylcopedic). --maclean 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:FICT. --Core desat 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAN-05 Gromlin

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the MAN-05 Gromlin for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Oh come on. This is an encyclopedia, not an... I don't know what... this doesn't belong here whatever the case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is more what I like to see instead of the WP:POINTed {{Prod}}ding of articles in-mass without no regard to if it should be cleaned up, merger, or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and due to lack of sources. Edison 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super SPeed-Delete Yup, get rid of em all. It's an article of ONLY headlines MiracleMat 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails every policy that is supposed to apply to this kind of article. --Folantin 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely. Akihabara 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no encyclopedic content at all. --Pak21 14:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, pending somebody actually writing this article. If there's no chance of that happening, then redirect to G Generation Original Units. Redxiv 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a listing with other G-Generation units. The SD Gundam: G-Generation stuff doesn't have much in the way of official information (i.e. Bandai's MS Encyclopedia series of books), certainly not enough to warrant a standalone article for the likes of the Sisquede(sic), Gromlin, Gundam Mk.IV, etc. Could be Transwikied to GundamWiki as well, but only a couple of people seem to be giving that an honest effort at the moment. Maikeru 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability as a major character, places, concepts, etc. --maclean 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy/guideline reasons for keeping provided (aside from accusations of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and there's nowhere to merge it to. The article is mostly empty and lacks context. --Core desat 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAM-07 Grabro

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd {{prod}} and have listed this one, the MAM-07 Grabro for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Oh come on. This is an encyclopedia, not an... I don't know what... this doesn't belong here whatever the case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is more what I like to see instead of the WP:POINTed {{Prod}}ding of articles in-mass without no regard to if it should be cleaned up, merger, or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No citations to show it has any notability. Edison 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. MER-C 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Duper Delete The mere fact that we have to vote on these individually is enough. THe template at the bottom contains 10 times the info as the article MiracleMat 07:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely unintelligible for any non-fan. Utterly unencyclopaedic. --Folantin 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a list of specifications. No encyclopedic content at all. --Pak21 14:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nothing wrong with mass nominations per se. These are even being treated on a case by case basis rather than a group nom. What's to complain about. It's efficient not timewasting. Bwithh 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?). In this case, there is very little information, and a seperate article does seem a bit much. Still, no reason not to merge. Also, to first response "Speedy Delete", your inability to justify why it doesn't belong here makes it seem that you are just deleting because you dont' care about it. Xenon Zaleo 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. --maclean 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Halo series characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarus (Halo)

Non-notable, both per the primary notability criterion of WP:N and the oh so much more liberal WP:FICT. See also related AfD on Cortana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana. I seriously hope noone will argue for keeping of this one though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No case made that it is notable enough for an article. Edison 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Halo-cruft. MER-C 07:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DumGameCruft MiracleMat 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ne absorbeat eas Tartarus ne cadant in obscurum. Or something like that :-) Guy (Help!) 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this would fit in fine over at List of Halo series characters. -- Ben (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge There's absolutely no reason not to just throw this back to the characters article. Tartarus isn't notable enough on his own, but he's far more than notable enough to have a couple of paragraphs in the character list. -- Kicking222 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kicking222. Usually I wouldn't say this do sub-articles, but it's too far along for a keep vote to hold weight. Anyway, Tartarus isn't even split into sub-sections; a merge would be straightforward and no information will be lost. However, it will make the parent article more than just a bit larger. Hmm... --DavidH Oz Au 07:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Halo characters list. The content is definitely interesting and useful. I've played the Halo series but I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know from the article. Shrumster 08:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the List of Halo series characters. For now, Tartarus doesn't have a large enough background, and isn't that notable. After Halo 3 however... Ghetto Gandalf 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Kicking222. The article should probably have never been split off from the list in the first place, if indeed that is the case. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect- If he survived Halo 2 and was going to continue as a character, then maybe, but besides being the final boss level, not much else. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - the article is doubtful to recieve enough sourcing, currently it has none. Fails WP:RS and WP:V, but would fit into the minor list of characters. --Quirex 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Unlikely to have a mention in any third party sources, worth a few sentences along with other minor characters. (Or should I say "keep because he's really pretty"?) Gimmetrow 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It isn't notable enough to have a separated article. Merge with the characters list. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I oppose the Cortana delete, but I see no reason per WP:FICT to oppose merging this. Peptuck 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Note that other characters with their own article survived more than one version of the game. --gxti 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Not enough background info for the character to have it's own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuillOmega0 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Artifact (Doom)

Delete - not notable outside the game, insufficient to sustain a separate article. Could merge to the Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil article. Otto4711 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - does not merit its own article. SYSS Mouse 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No case made that it is notable enough for an article. "Artifact" is apparently a really popular title for something in this genre. Ran out of letters and numbers? 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Edison
Merge to the game. Does not deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 10:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article of the game. I don't believe that this specific subtopic is sufficient to warrant a separate article. TSO1D 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the game's article ::mikm t 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not only is it "just a weapon", there's little backstory to it (even though it's an interesting weapon, I must say). Torte 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the type of information presented, I think it should be kept seperate from Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManaUser (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Gluten

Disputed speedy with author. Desperately fail WP:MUSIC, an IP sockpuppet of the author has also been editing on the talk page to try and dispute the speedy RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author admitted on talk page that he has got people to come and back him up RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note none of the users commenting on the talk page are from a "sockpuppet". I don't know why you think that, but I know that there are at least three distinct people commenting on the page. I am one of them, the author another, and another person that is neither him nor I. I hope that before considering to delete this page you visit the homepage and listen to the song "Got Wheat". If you don't have the time to research this issue, I don't know why you would take the time to consider deletion of the page. 64.223.180.118 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Death by Google - plus death by WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The talk page for the article is turning into a farcicle, could people please read that before expressing judgement. It makes the article come awfully close to db-nonsenseRyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1) I do not appreciate the insinuation that I have been using sockpuppets. I have in fact signed each and every one of the comments coming from me. I see no reason to do otherwise. I believe that there are enough different IPs commenting on that page to show that Mr. Ryan is throwing around false accusations. If you end up deleting the page, I will respect that decision, but I'd like to see this fellow take some heat for throwing in nonconstructive insults and accusations with no evidence to back them up.

2) Since we have now established (at least, I have said as much as I possibly can to try to convince you) that the other comments are NOT me, I'd like to point out that I can't control what they say. Whether their arguements are good or bad is irrelevant to me, because I did not make them. If that page has degenerated into farce, it is not good for me either, so why would I be doing it?

3) I realize that you may call me on 'meatpuppeting', but the fact is this: I myself never bothered to create a Wikipedia account until I decided to create this entry. I admit that some the people whose attention I have called to the article probably created accounts just to comment, but I can assure you that they are all regular Wikipedia users. I realize that that may not have any relevance, and also that I have no way to prove it, but I thought I might throw it out there on good faith.

4) My main arguement for the relevance of the page is this: The band does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, that much is quite clear. However, as previously stated on the page's discussion, the main purpose of the band is promotion of Celiac Sprue awareness. That purpose comes ahead even of making music. Since that is the case, I would prefer that the entry be judged as a disease awareness tool, rather than as a band. If that is unacceptable, so be it, but please, Mr. Ryan, give me some specific points that we can debate instead of throwing the same sorry links at me when I have already accepted your point and explained why I think the entry is still relevant. I'd like to establish a dialogue here, but all you have done is paste internal links, insult me, and throw around accusations. But as I said, I respect the judgement of Wikipedia in the end. Shathaniel 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an article on Coeliac disease. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on this band to call awareness to it. You don't get to decide the criteria under which your aricle is reviewed. It's an article about a band and the band does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guideline, WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would in turn argue that Wikipedia doesn't "need" a lot of its articles...but if the article is not competely farcical or frivolous, why go to the trouble to delete it? Obviously I can't decide the criteria under which the article is reviewed, but I am allowed to recommend the light in which the article is viewed. If you believe that the entry should be deleted, then I respect that opinion. But please do not talk down to me. I believe that the article does contribute something, whether as a band or otherwise, but as I have repeatedly stated, I will respect the final judgment of the Wikipedia admins.Shathaniel 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC 99of9 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Typical high-school band vanity, with some random nonsense added. No need to waste further time on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't provide any on-trivial and credible sources, thus the criterium of WP:MUSIC is not satisfied. TSO1D 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per WP:MUSIC rather absurd and a huge waste of time! Venicemenace 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, This is a prime example of non notable bands. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that this be a speedy merge and redirect. I be inclined to acquiesce to your proposal. Arrr. Proto::► 10:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sparrow's compass

Delete - insufficient to sustain a separate article, the important information seems already to be housed in the Captain Jack Sparrow article. Otto4711 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect on the theory somebody might possibly type that in, and this would be helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't stand as an article by itself, too nn, but agree w/FrozenPurpleCube, redirect might be possible. SkierRMH 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better, IMO, and it's in some WP guideline, somewhere, to have more, shorter articles. Paul Beardsell 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete item that does not merit its own article. I find it hard to believe that a redirect is necessary. Doczilla 03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain Jack Sparrow. Merge anything else if necessary. --- RockMFR 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Captain Jack Sparrow which I am doing right now, if you feel strongly about it nominate the redirect for deletion, here I go, I'm running with scissors to do it now. User:Pedant 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Pedant. JuJube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the compass, keep Sparrow. Harr! Edison 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close AFD as the merge and redirect has been done, does not seem to clash with anyone's viewpoint. Looks dandy, off we go laughing. QuagmireDog 09:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dermaplex

Delete - non-notable substance from a made for TV movie so non-notable it doesn't have its own article. Otto4711 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not advisable to have an article for each thing mentioned in every 30 year old movie, which has not been the subject of any independent source. Edison 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random factoid from a movie with no article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the thirty odd year old movie is not on Wikipedia, then a random prop/plot should not be on it either. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DarthGriz98 ::mikm t 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Zahir13 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History eraser button

Delete - non-notable fictional item from a single episode of Ren and Stimpy. The article itself says that it has no known function. Otto4711 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow... I love Ren & Stimpy, and the history eraser button is from a great episode, but it's not even close to notable by Wikipedia's definition on its own. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible merge to the episode where it came from if it has one. I dunno, I'm not a R&S fan. JuJube 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not necessary to have a separate article for each device mentioned in each episode of every cartoon show, when the device has not been mentioned in any independent sources. Edison 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable one-off fictional item, article reads like an episode review. JIP | Talk 10:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there really is no reason to have an article about such an obscure imaginary device included in a fictional work. TSO1D 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was Deleted by user:RadioKirk, "Fails WP:N as written". Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Upon further review, I've restored the history for potential merger and redirected to Gerald B. Winrod. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders of the Christian Faith

I proded this, but TruthbringerToronto removed it. This article has no sources. A yahoo search "Defenders of the Christian Faith" bring us less than 800 hits, the first being wikipedia, second a wiki mirror. Most of the hits don't seem to be about this group. For example, some refer to a group in Dorchester, Massachusetts. PatriotBible 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Removed prod. Once notable, always notable. If its leader was the basis of a character in It Can't Happen Here, then the group is notable, even through it is (or was) both unpleasant and incorrect. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You selectively read. The article, unsourced, says "Winrod may have served as the prototype for the character..." Again, that concerns Gerald B. Winrod, and not his organization. PatriotBible 02:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Defenders of the Christian Faith" contains no sources, failing WP:CITE, and it also appears to fail WP:NOTE. I can find zero g-hits that refer to this organization specifically beyond a small handful that refer to the organization as a footnote. Certainly nothing that shows notability. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's an inadequate article, but take a look at Charles Coughlin for an example of another demagogue from that era who had a lot of influence. Other references to this group can be found by searching for its name in combination with that of Gerald B. Winrod :

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gerald+B.+Winrod%22+%22Defenders+of+the+Christian+Faith%22 See http://ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1939_1940_4_YRUS.pdf (page 216) for example, which refers to Winrod and Defenders in the same sentence. (American Jewish Yearbook which covers the period from July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1939.) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, and use as redirect to Fidei defensor. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gerald B. Winrod. However I'd like to say that the number of Google hits isn't really proof of anything when we're discussing 1930s Kansas. There are things in Encyclopedias I have which likely would get few Google hits as the Internet skews against Depression-era Middle America. Scholar Google does show some results for "Gerald B. Winrod" "Defenders of the Christian Faith." Not enough I think it deserves its own article, but enough that more detail about it can be added to Gerald B. Winrod--T. Anthony 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the utter lack of multiple independent sources to show this is notable. Edison 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gerald B. Winrod. It is, in my opinion, better suited for a merge unless it can be fleshed out a bit more and score some of those notional notability "points". --Dennisthe2 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN MiracleMat 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge but please watch WP:BLP on his one.--Doc^g 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Winrod's article per T. Anthony. -- Kicking222 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above, if Winrod's article doesn't already sufficiently cover it.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gerald B. Winrod. Pastordavid 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gerald B. Winrod. ^Blank ^Verse 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The nomination is centered on the fact that this article is poorly-referenced. Failing WP:CITE does not mean deletion. The improvability of the article should also be taken into consideration. --RebSkii 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be easily improved, I suggest you improve it. Alan.ca 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete From reading the current article, I don't see any claim to notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon and Suger

AfD nominated by Nut-meg with reason: "Spoon and Suger recommended for deletion because it is obviously a self promotion page. The user that wrote the article has the same user name (paperjammer) as the filmmaker's You Tube account. The user portrays his film as being a "cult classic", even though it is only a month old and has not had a significant number of views on the site. Also, the article is fraught with NPOV issues. I fixed some of it, but it's really not worthy of wikipedia." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable, not to mention that 1/3 to 1/2 of the article is crystal-balling. Otto4711 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with Nut-meg. Vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Self-promotional, non-notable, OR, crystal-balling, filled with exaggerations ("controversial", "cult classic"). Venicemenace 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User took off the required AfD tag and reverted back to all of the NPOV problems that had been corrected.nut-meg 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under the US constitutions 1st amendment they are allowed to put whatever they please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drfreid (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Mm...not quite. The First Amendment says the government can't arrest him/her for what he/she says; it says nothing that forces Wikipedia to have an article about this band. —ShadowHalo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting free speech. Wikipedia is not the government. Nor is it a vehicle for high schoolers to promote their home videos on YouTube. nut-meg 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Holden (political activist)

I don't think Lewis is quite notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, he may be known among the blogger community in New Zealand, largely as a result of his blog and the Republican Movement. Yet there's nothing in this article that indicates that he's actually notable by wikipedia biographical standards Brian | (Talk) 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should deleted. Same views as above. - Shudda ^talk 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Brian | (Talk) 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but only because it lacks WP:CITE and hence, for me, WP:V. (I don't go out of the way to look for sources). Otherwise, his achievements seem important. --CyclePat 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect that this is a tough subject for which to establish notability. It seems that quotations from blogs are not considered credible evidence at WP. However, if someone is "attracting notice" from a significant number of bloggers, then the subject meets the criteria for inclusion: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". This is the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability.

--Kevin Murray 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. Wikipedia is not a listing of famous people or concepts but a reference Alf photoman 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - as Alf photoman states. -- Greaser 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per changes made since nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most games played, NFL history

unneeded trivial list which would be good for a sports wiki but not here, violates WP:NOT, we rarely have articles on a individual record, deprodded by author, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that if more effort went into providing context to the list, rather than just the bare-bones list, it might be salvageable. Unfortunately, it's extremely narrow in its focus, to the point of being excessive detail. This is true especially when comparing it to other major sports' record articles, which don't included individual lists for every record, only a compilation of all record holders. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this kind of argument never works, but FWIW, there are lots of similar pages at Category:Baseball records (some of which are really narrow in scope). Zagalejo 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded a few of them Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, me and my big mouth... I do think the triples list at least deserves an AFD discussion, though. Zagalejo 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a list which serves no useful purpose. JIP | Talk 10:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination.-Robotam 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's incomplete, I'm doing it in my spare time, that's the reason I put "work inprogress". The reason I believe it's important it's because I haven't found anyplace in the web a page who contains this stats, and also helps to contribue to the bios of these players (i believe that the 150 plaayers with the most games in NFL history shoulkd have their bios in Wikipedia). Remember that I'm making the list manually, so I have to search in different sources or by memory which are the players with the most games. If Major League Baseball has it's list, why not the NFL? Gypaetus 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I want to support the page or listification. However, given the state of NFL records (individual), it is too extensive a listing for one record. I do not see such list for other NFL records. TonyTheTiger 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, I'd like to see tables like this for other NFL records. I don't think this counts as indiscriminate information. Career games played is a major statistic, and I've seen general-interest almanacs with similar (though shorter) lists. Zagalejo 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per TonyTheTiger - Fedayee 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all the delete voters: what specific part of WP:NOT does this violate? Zagalejo 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Which specific part of WP:NOT is violated? This is not indiscriminate information, as there is a good chance that if someone read this sentence from George Blanda Blanda held the record for most professional football games played with 340 until September 26, 2004, when it was broken then, a link (not added, to prevent a red-link should this be deleted) to Most games played, NFL history would provide added context which is notable and verifiable. Neier 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't have informations, they created article for listing each games on different purposes. Daniel5127 <Talk> 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Zagalejo 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it is perhaps longer than it should be, there is a clear criterion for individuals to be included in the list. Poor quality of other articles is not a reason to delete this. Eludium-q36 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this info should be in a sports wiki at best, not here, it's unneeded and dumb to add record stats of every record possible unless it's in one page Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which part of WP:NOT is violated by this article? Since WP:5 mentions that Wikipedia incorporates elements from almanacs, and a list of records like this is something I would expect to see in an almanac or a specialized (sports) encyclopedia, I don't see what makes it deletable.Neier 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's unneeded and dumb; I think it's perfectly reasonable. If it were, say, List of NFL players ranked by number of touchdowns scored at Lambeau Field in the snow, then I would agree with you, but career games played is an interesting and important statistic. Zagalejo 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have now completed 99% of the list, I believe, I have already 211 players (each of them also has ihis page in Wikipedia) who have played at least 200 games in NFL history. I know the list should be shorter, biut here in Wikipedia you can fin the 500 baseball players with the most home runs. In the forthcoming days I will ewxpand everything.Gypaetus 20:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Neier.Patken4 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neier. Spy1986 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per failure to meet WP:RS and WP:BIO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Barwell

A Conservative party functionary. No independent sources cited, no credible or substantiated evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO unless reliable sources can be provided for proof of notability. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep this. Google searches confirm he is a Croydon councillor. This link shows he was Operations Director of the Conservatives in 2004. This link includes a list of Special Advisers from 1997 in which he is included at the Department of the Environment. I think that, even if holding these posts individually would not make him notable, holding all of them at various times (and being on the 'A list') makes him worthy enough of inclusion. Sam Blacketer 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added sources from some leading national UK newspapers, and believe that there is just about enough to pass WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources do seem to confirm notability. Has been written about independent third party reliable sources. Passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the references make him enough notable. -- Cate |_Talk 10:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references (i.e. outside of party / house of commons) to assert notability. The other articles are not about him as subject; he is only mentioned in passing. Akihabara 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that subsequent research has made the nomination for AfD obsolete. The sources demonstrate that he is noticed, or holds positions which are inherently noticed. The second paragraph of the notability criteria page specifies that being noticed is sufficient for meeting notability. The sources appear to be independent and credible. --Kevin Murray 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources have been added since first nomination ... guess it could pass as “beginner” article and WP:BIO is satisfied Alf photoman 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Xiner (talk, email) 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources. Those provided are not 3rd party or he is not the subject of the article. Nuttah68 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Alex North

Delete article on minor soap opera character not worthy of its own article. Because article is unsourced and was created by User:Fatone411, a confirmed sockpuppet of vandal User:EJBanks, what little content the article has is unreliable. Given EJBanks's history of creating redundant articles, the character may already be covered by some other article anyway. Might redirect to Wayne Northrop, the actor who played the part. Might redirect to Days of our Lives, the program in which the character formerly appeared. Doczilla 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a speedy G5, as the user involved has not been subject to a ban. MER-C 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the user Fatone411 and the user's sockpuppet Poker Master have been banned indefinitely. Wryspy 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to this nomination being an indictment of the author rather than a discussion of the notability of the subject. The nominator also speculates that the subject is covered elsewhere; speculation is irrelevant to AfD. I suggest that this nomination be rejected and reposted without the prejudicial allegations. Is the subject notable and can we find source material? Those are the pertinent issues, the rest is not relevant and confuses the issue. --Kevin Murray 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and properly resubmit for AfD. --Kevin Murray 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced statements into other articles, then delete. Xiner (talk, email) 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has no properly sourced statements. Doczilla 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and bringing up the article's status as having been created by a sock of a banned user is relevant, although not necessarily (in my opinion) an automatic reason to delete.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The information is relevant but not an automatic reason to delete. Even a banned user could have done something right once upon a time. But, as I already said, because the information is unsourced and from an unreliable user, we can't trust it. Were it sourced, I would not have said that. Doczilla 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources, so the information in the article might not be correct. Since it's such a small article, and it would be so easy to keep relevant info on the Alex North character in the articles on Wayne Northrop or Days of our Lives, it's hard to see the benefit of keeping it. EdJohnston 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus (2nd nomination)

Renomination from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Bellinghaus after article was substantially rewritten by Guinnog with help from a few others. Procedural renomination, see my opinion below. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE A completely new and shorter article has been written and is displayed at the talk page Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. This might be a less objectionable alternative to the auto-bio which is contested in this AfD and still published at Mark Bellinghaus. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the above is an "old update", not a current one... Tyrenius 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. The cleanup exposed some things, such as that he has had a minor, but not trivial, role in a major US film, a fair number of German roles which sound reasonably impressive (I'm not a German acting buff, so open to changing opinion if someone more knowledgeable says that these roles are either very impressive or not impressive at all), and that the Marilyn Monroe expose has had some coverage - that adds up to a keep, weak only because of lack of German acting knowledge. This information may have been in the article before the rewrite, I just couldn't see it for the huge images. Good work Guinnog and friends. Will go off to improve the references even more. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to ~~Weak Delete~~ per trialsanderrors's explanation of the German acting parts. More below. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing back to Keep per the latest LAWeekly article, which is noticeable coverage of the person himself. Yes, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds... AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~; sorry to repeat myself from last time around but I think the subject is marginally notable as a result of his acting and the Monroe thing. Thanks a lot for the nice comment and for alerting me to WP:HEY, which I hadn't seen. --Guinnog 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The substantial rewrite leaves a credible article and contributes to wikipedia being a useful reference work on contemporary culture. Tyrenius 18:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~. I see no reason why this article should be removed. I just read it and actually learned a few things. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator in the first afd, I wish someone would have informed of this renomination. Anyway, well done to Guinog for making the effort. I'm looking over the new article now - first thing that comes to notice is the first footnote reference is unreliable, as was noted in the first afd nomination. Bwithh 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep on condition that the Marilyn Monroe section is cut down + further referencing or removal of unsourced claims~~ Firstly, thanks again to Guinog and others for their efforts in revamping this article. I still think this article is problematic, but is a borderline keep needing better referencing - based on his TV acting career, and absolutely NOT on the Marilyn Monroe stuff.

The comment by Downtownstar below was removed from here to avoid the breaking up of Bwithh's text. Tyrenius 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the article's claims have yet to be referenced - his early purportedly "championship winning" skating career is unverified. His stage career is unverified (and we have little idea of what level he was acting at - key player or minor role). The claim that he was the lead in an award-winning short film is unverified -"Susanne Aernecke"+"Josephine" gets 9 google hits of which 2 are somewhat relevant (counting all the multi-language imdb hits as the same), neither of which confirm that the film won any recognition - its not even listed in Aernecke's IMDB profile[3]. I can't find anything much with an alternate search using the film festival name either[4] (24 hits for festival name + josephine + susanne; perhaps my German isn't good enough but I'm not seeing anything relevant here).

In addition there was some puffery-by-association over his film roles that I've now removed - his role in The Name of the Rose was a minor bit part as I pointed out in the first afd. Just because you've had a bit part in a movie with a Hollywood star (or in a German TV screenplay by a famous writer) doesn't confer encyclopedic notability by association.

Assuming that the database references used are reliable, I think being a non-bit part actor in a major-award winning TV film is arguably sufficient here (though we don't know the extent of his role). Though as far as I can tell by references/searfching, Fremde liebe Fremde won ONE Grimmie not multiple and that was for its lead actress. Other awards went to the cinematographer, director, writer (again, the problematic notability-by-association puffery issue). I'm going to make adjustments accordingly

In my opinion, the Marilyn Monroe business is not significant encyclopedically (there is no evidence even that he is an especially important collector, or that this legal case is especially significant, plus Wikipedia is not news report archive), and is at best a cut-down trivia section - otherwise there are undue weight issues which verge upon WP:SOAPBOX misuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Changed my vote based on further perspective on German TV by trialsanderrors. Bwithh 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. The Monroe section still needs a lot of cleaning up.--Downtownstar 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to ~~Delete~~ per trialsanderrors' explanation.--Downtownstar 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate deleted - Downtownstar has commented below the arbitrary line break on the latest version of the article. Tyrenius 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep, who ever started this article should include the needed citations and a clean-up should follow. The subject itself should easily pass WP:BIO. Alf photoman 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Shorn of the puffery, he has a few supporting roles in a few TV shows, a few lead roles in obscure stage plays and short films, and a witness (not a party) in a not-exactly-earth-shattering court case. I don't think that's enough to get him within WP:BIO, even if verified. Tevildo 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The acting part fails WP:COI. If you've ever watched SOKO 5113 or Verkehrsgericht (a TV docudrama series that reenacts real-life traffic court cases with no-name actors) you know those are embellished bit acting parts. The Meret Becker movie, I see listings mentioning his name but it seems no reviewer noticed he was actually in the movie (same for his TV roles). The Marylin Monroe part is clearly using Wikipedia as a soapbox per User talk:Bwithh, so it fails WP:NOT, not to mention the many WP:V flags all over the article. No problem with a Marylin Monroe forgery controversy if there is enough material on that, but scraping the bottom of our notability guideline doesn't mean we can throw our other guidelines out of the window to promote the campaign of a single purpose editor. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Trialsanderrors an expert on German TV?Downtownstar, AnonEMouse & Bwithh have changed their votes here based on the comments by Trialsanderrors. Why is this undocumented "evidence" about German TV so compelling? It seems as though Trialsanderrors is just expressing an opinion, which is not supported by any objective evidence. --Kevin Murray 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says on T&E's userpage that s/he is affiliated with the University of Karlsruhe, a German university. That leads me to believe that s/he has lived in Germany, and thus would know more about German TV than many of the rest of us (myself included). Also, I've seen Bellinghaus' IMDB page [5] It's not very impressive. RedRollerskate 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Roller, your skating on thin evidence of expertise. I use a toilet frequently, but am not a plumbing expert. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say T&E was an expert. I said T&E knows more than the rest of us do. There's a big difference. Also, did you read Bellinghaus' IMDB page? He has seven credits listed. One of them (The Name of the Rose) is a bit role. Two are one-episode appearances on German TV shows. Do you know anything about the others? If you do, please say so (and I'm not trying to start a fight, I really want to know). RedRollerskate 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other people, but you'll notice I specifically disavowed knowledge and asked for more knowledgeable people to help one way or the other on the German roles. T&E is the only one that has volunteered this help. Are you going to say differently, that they are, in fact, major roles? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I think that the acting is non-notable and irrelevant to the notability. Please see my proposed rewrite at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus.
On the other hand, I object to any implied "expert testimony" in support of an AfD nomination which would not be considered applicable to supporting the article.
As T&E is a fellow Cal alum, I'm inclined to feel he is automatically credible, but I have to stand on my principles.

--Kevin Murray 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up in Germany and holding German citizenship helps a bit with the TV expertise, but I commend you for not trusting me on this. I have no credibility that would be sufficient for a Wikipedia entry, which is why I searched for reviews of his performances. The shows and movies he lists are amply covered on the web, so his roles are certainly verifiable. Do they give him notability? I don't think so, unless I read some review that actually comments on his acting. On the MM scandal, I only glanced them over and watched the KCAL clip, but in what way do those clips differ from interviewing the next-door neighbor of a shooting victim at the scene of a crime in your local 9 o'clock news? ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)We are not assessing the article as originally written by the subject. We are assessing an article which is the result of a standard editing process by other editors, including myself, none of which, to my knowledge, had any acquaintanceship with Mark Bellinghaus beforehand, so there is no COI. As far as I know, none of these editors has any personal investment, or any particular interest, in Marilyn Monroe memorabilia (I certainly don't), so the accusation of soapbox is equally misplaced, as is the suggestion of a campaign by a single purpose editor. These are simply red herrings. It is not an argument for deletion to single out the least important roles. These are there to flesh out the picture, and could for that matter be left out with no great detriment. It would be more useful to have proper observations on the more important (and referenced) roles, for example, In 1991 he played actress Meret Becker's brother Kurti, in the multiple award-winning Fremde, liebe Fremde (Foreigner, Dear Foreigner). In 1993, he played Malte Borrell in the TV show SOKO 5113. He played Knut Sonntag in the hit TV show Immer wieder Sonntag, written by Herbert Lichtenfeld. There does not seem to be a refutation of their worth, only that no reviewer noticed them (or at least no reviews are quoted, which is a different matter), but they are referenced, which is the wiki requirement. There is no wiki stipulation that reviews per se are mandatory. Regarding the WP:V flags {{Template:fact}}, these are specifically for information which "is not doubtful"; I see no reason, from observing the original editor's general behaviour, not to AGF that they are true, unless anyone can point me to evidence that indicates differently. The MM clips and quotes differ from a next door neighbour, because the latter is interviewed as a bystander (i.e. it could be anyone), whereas Bellinghaus is interviewed purposefully because he is considered by those media to have something of particular significance to contribute through his prior learning and knowledge. I consider that I and other editors on this article have followed the guidelines properly and not thrown them anywhere. At the moment there are two reactions to the two parts of the article: 1) the Monroe is the important part 2) the acting is the important part. I suggest that, taken together, they delineate an individual who is not major, but who is of note, i.e. "notable". Tyrenius 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to double-check, do you think the article meets the 20-dollar-test? Iow, do you think the article would've been created by anyone other than the subject? ~ trialsanderrors 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a nice (in both senses of the word) lateral approach, but of course has to remain hypothetical and has not (yet at least) been incorporated into the guidelines. I'm particularly interested in the less mainstream aspects of culture and society, as I find they're a valuable aspect of the whole and think there should be a place for them in wiki, provided a degree of notability is credible. I've speedy-deleted plenty of "non-notable" articles which are commonplace — mostly subject-created — but occasionally one seems worth bothering with, despite its genesis and even its initial state. I have enjoyed and found my knowledge enriched by articles of this nature, some of which might well not have been started without their self-author, but would certainly (as in this case) not had any chance of being kept had independent editors not found them worthwhile. Tyrenius 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds very noble. In this spirit, I could use a hand at Bill Owens (photographer). ~ trialsanderrors 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T&E. Kudos on the cleanup attempt, but I'm afraid this is still a clear fail on WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Mark Bellinghaus For anyone interested, Mark has left me a lengthy argument for keeping this article on my talk page (he mistakenly addresses me as Brad Patrick, the Legal Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, presumably because he saw the link I have to a Brad's anti-spam message on my userpage). As the argument is lengthy, I think it best that interested persons should look at it on my talk page here, rather me pasting here. If it is preferred that it is pasted here, please go ahead and do so. Note that I have previously emphasized to Mark that 1) this is a community discussion 2) he is welcome to join in 3)it is not my sole decision whether to keep this article or not or whether to cut down the Monroe section in a kept article or not. As Mark's message is intended to persuade people to keep this article based on what he views as the importance of the Monroe controversy, I am bringing it to the attention of the afd discussion group here. Bwithh 11:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- sidenote Mark has pointed out to me that there are other unreliable blog-based sources in the article (in the Monroe section) - I agree with him on this - such as the "Citizen Media" link - (I did not add these links however, as he thinks). Bwithh 11:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the Citizen Media link, and it doesn't look like a blog by the classic definitions. It claims to be a New Mexico news and education group, has multiple articles on different subjects, and the writing reads like it's written by someone who knows a few things about journalism, and is trying to appear balanced. Anyway, even not counting The Citizen, that leaves the Long Beach Press Telegram, KCAL, and two from the Los Angeles Independent, which would be all right sources for the controversy and subsequent lawsuit, but aren't really about Bellinghaus per se - they don't say much about him, they're really about the exhibit. Trialsanderrors writes the German roles aren't much. So I'll change my opinion to delete on an article about Bellinghaus, and a weak vote for rewriting about the controversy - weak, because I've had enough and am not going to do it if no one else will. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guinnog and Tyrenius did an excellent job cleaning this up, and while the article is in much better shape, he's still not over the WP:BIO hump. RedRollerskate 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep & Rewrite~~ Notwithstanding the discussion of the German TV issues, this subject is clearly notable as being "noticed" by multiple non-trivial and independent sources regarding the Monroe controversy. There are three newspaper articles and a TV segment. The acting is just icing on the cake and should be trimmed in the article to avoid vanity. I'm not happy with the auto-bio aspect and puffery, but the guy is notable. --Kevin Murray 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New vote! under arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReferencesIt seems inappropriate for the article to be referenced to articles written by the subject. At Daniel Terdiman it was important to show some of the writer's work so we created a separate section with links to his work, and then referenced the footnotes to that section. Maybe that approach could work here. Any thoughts? --Kevin Murray 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to use articles by the subject as references to provide information about the subject, such as his views, for example. Tyrenius 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REWRITE I rewrote the article and posted my proposed text at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus, rather than disrupt the current article. The objective was to cut to the core and take out the vanity fluff, and get this to an encyclopedic context. With a consensus I can transfer the new text to the article, which will then require some work to include the referencing footnotes. --Kevin Murray 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only thing notable here is the memorabilia controversy, not Bellinghaus himself. Venicemenace 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Given the LA Weekly article I'll grant the subject some notability. IMO the article is way too long with a lot of detail irrelevant to the reasons for his notability, but that doesn't stop me from changing my vote to Weak keep. I think the proposed fake-memorabilia article would be an interesting one... Venicemenace 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Venicemenace if there is a better place to put this story, I'd vote to redirect to that article. As Bellinghaus discovered the fraud, to me this is a good place for the story, but it will always be prone to creeping vanity spam after the AfD is closed. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have enough material to write an article named Marylin Monroe forgery controversy? ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People get articles if they're associated with controversy, cf Mark David Chapman (this is not meant as a reflection on Bellinghaus, nor asserting an equivalent level of media exposure, just illustrating the principle). I'm sure there's quite enough material out there for a "forgery" article (or in this one for a stub), but I'm not touching it! Tyrenius 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP PRESS

(This article has just appeared)
Another Strong Reference http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/immortal-mayhem/15364/ seems non-trivial and credible. --Kevin Murray 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't open for me. I'll try again later. --Guinnog 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the link. It works now. ~~If you can get it, then the sub page below can be deleted.~~ Tyrenius 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA WEEKLY article ~~on Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/LA WEEKLY 10 Jan 07.~~ ~~Obviously it'll have to be deleted asap, but it~~ features Bellinghaus strongly at the top of the article (and even mentions wikipedia!). Tyrenius 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Update Per Tyrenius suggestion (see discussion) have substituted the truncated and rearranged text at the article. Due to substantial rewrite the references are moved out of footnotes and segregated between (1) articles about Bellinghaus as collector, (2) articles about him as an actor, and (3) articles by Bellinghaus. Some references will be obsolte since much of the acting discussion has been removed. I suggest not spending time putting the references into footnote form until the AfD is decided. Attmpt to publish new form reverted by Tyrenius with my understanding and support--Kevin Murray 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~References need to be put in properly. Here is the version with them in. Tyrenius 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

More work than I'm willing to do for an article with a 50-50 for deletion -- I'm done here; good luck! --Kevin Murray 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've restored the article to the former referenced version. The "new" version (without inline refs) is now at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/Mark Bellinghaus (collector). Comments on them welcome, either here or on article talk page. Tyrenius 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all & after latest rewrite

Now rewritten throughout: In the light of the front cover LA Weekly Marilyn Monroe story, published yesterday, in which Mark Bellinghaus is featured strongly throughout, I have been able to do a complete rewrite of the whole article, with previously unavailable information and verification. I have also removed all items tagged as ^{[citation needed]} to the talk page. I'm sorry to say it yet again, but preceding objections refer to the preceding version of this article, which is now radically different, so editors should confirm or amend their earlier statements in the light of the current article. I think the cumulative work done on it has now taken it to a different level which should satisfy previous objections. Tyrenius 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LAWeekly article JohnRussell 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (We're supposed to vote again here, right?) The LA Weekly article only goes to show that the Monroe incident is significant. By all means, let's launch an article on the Monroe controversy. Mark Bellinghaus can be credited there. --+Downtownstar 16:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the incident is significant and he instigated (and continues to maintain) it, being given media credit for the same, that is an argument to keep. If you want to launch an article on the controversy, where Mark Bellinghaus can be credited, that is an argument to merge (or move) and redirect. It also acknowledges that he deserves credit, i.e. he will still have a presence in wiki, which your delete opinion would remove. Tyrenius 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll rephrase. While the incident itself is significant, I do not consider Mark Bellinghaus a person worth an article of his own, seeing as he has barely achieved anything "remarkable" (read: encyclopedic). Even if his name appears in the article about the controversy (as well it should), I don't see that as an argument to keep up his own page. However, I seem to be in the minority here so you do as you wish with him.--Downtownstar 11:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per my previous comments. Tyrenius 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repeat of above vote It seems arbitrary whether this information should be here or as Downstar suggests, but why reinvent the wheel? We are here now let's keep the staus quo. --Kevin Murray 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - really, isn't this becoming a bit silly? Seems to me the, albeit minor, notability contest has been settled. Don't we have more important things to do? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repeat of above vote. Seems even less deletable now. Well done Tyrenius. --Guinnog 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that declaring all existing !votes void in the middle of an ongoing listing is proper process. At least inform all the commentators involved of the changes. My vote is still to delete. The LA Weekly article doesn't change my view that the Marilyn Monroe association is of insufficient encyclopedic significance to justify an article for Mark. Wikipedia is not a news report or magazine article archive. And as I said before, after trialsanderrors' perpective on the acting career, I am not convinced that there is enough acting credentials to justify an article. No prejudice against a Marilyn Monroe forgery controversy article, to be judged on its own merits, as per trialsanderrors and Downtownstar's suggestion. Bwithh 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this hadn't been relisted before, I'd consider relisting it now, but as is, I'm leery of doing it twice myself. This is the Afd that doesn't end; Yes, it goes on and on, my friend; Some people listed it not knowing what it was; And they'll continue listing it forever just because— AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've not been declared void, but they are undermined if they comment on something which is not there any more. This is a debate and participants should watchlist it so they can respond to developments. Tyrenius 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my previous opinion and/or per Bwithh above. Tevildo 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete "is a major collector of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia"? As evidenced by what? The LA Weekly article which most likely got its information from Bellinghaus directly? Whenever this thing ceases to be a puff piece I'm changing my vote, but by then there's probably nothing left. ~ trialsanderrors 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article conforms to WP:V and provides valid sources. Your argument is invalid as it is not using the source objectively, but pure speculation. As it happens, the LA Weekly article clearly shows the journalist had visited Bellinghaus and seen for himself what he reported on. Tyrenius 19:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have strong doubts the LA Weekly has the editorial oversight in place to comment on Bellinghaus's acting career in Germany or even his status among MMM collectors, which moves the source into dubious reliability territory in my book. That call perfectly within my purview as an editor.~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply substantiation for your questioning of LA Weekly as a reliable source. It is certainly taken seriously by the LA Times, which observes the Weekly is focusing on "hard news".[6] I have deleted the last sentence of your statement under [BLP]. This is not a platform for insulting the subject, who should be treated with courtesy. Tyrenius 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the subject of the article has refrained from commenting in this AfD and has not edited the article since other editors started working on it, so has had no say in its current state. Tyrenius 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with the overly chatty details and NPOV of the article either. I think that it should be cut in half and then trimmed some more, but I don't think that is a subject which is pertinent to AfD. I'll debate the issue with Tyrenius after the AfD, but until then, why spend the time on nuances until the AfD is decided? A draft for a trimmed version is at: [7]
Kevin Murray 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus bordering on consensus KEEP Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babu (red panda)

Story of minimal media interest and no encyclopedic value; sorry Babu your 15 minutes are over. Delete --Peta 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pandas are cute Josh Parris#: 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Meh.Keep Pandering to his cuteness, he caused notable pandamonium and got in the newspapers and on the telly. Edison 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And his lasting significance is? --Peta 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Babu panda gets 139,000 Google hits. Edison 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All that proves is that the story got media coverage in the UK in 2006; it provides no indication of the lasting importance of the topic. --Peta 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Babu is the primary subject of 2 stories on the BBC and 2 newspaper articles. That constitutes "multiple independent, reliable and verifiable coverage as the primary subject" and thus satisfies Wikipedia's policy for notability. Unlike Babu, the majority of Wikipedia articles lack any references at all. Edison 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are guidelines for notability, not policy. And all policy and guidelines are primarily intended to help Wikipedia be an authoritative encyclopedia rather than a news report/cute story archive. Bwithh 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I strenuously object to the idea that a lot of media coverage, however brief or trivial, automatically confers notability for the ages, many editors do feel this way and many articles get kept on the basis of that argument.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Goldie the Eagle's reputation over an identical incident has survived for 40 years, and I think Babu has the same chance of immortality. Tevildo 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're making a Pokemon defense argument and 2) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (you think Babu has the same chance of "immortality" (?!?!?!????????)) Bwithh 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was making a general comment about notability, in reply to Peta's comment "your 15 minutes are over". Nobody will remember, say, Leona Lewis in eighteen months time, but she's article-worthy. People still remember Goldie 40 years after the event. It's possible that Babu will be forgotten; but it's not as clear-cut as some people here seem to think it is. Tevildo 10:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a crystal ball obviously does not apply to AFD (or any talk page for that matter). Really, to say we can't speculate anything on discussion pages is ridiculous--the 100-yr test is based on total speculation. Also, I don't see a Pokemon defense here, he's offering support for his speculation, that a similar case may pass the 100-yr test, which is much more than anyone else here is doing. hateless 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Oh good grief. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a cute animal story archive. Trival news items and trivial polls do not make for encyclopedic notability. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. No encyclopedic value as per nom. I'm skeptical about the Goldie article as well. I'll check into it. Bwithh 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why should I care, especially in a hundred years' time? MER-C 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without specifically addressing the merits of this article, I tend to think that when a topic is verifiable, especially from unquestionable reliable sources, we should never rely solely on the five/ten/twenty/hundred years' test to justify deletion. Because Wikipedia does not have "editions", we do not rotate content as do print encyclopedias. This feature is valuable in the context of historiography. Serpent's Choice 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced, presented in mayor nationwide media. WP is not a paper book, we have place enough even for Babu.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per "multiple independent, reliable and verifiable coverage as the primary subject" Jcuk 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, encyclopaedic with plenty of reliable sources. This article is stupid is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it made media coverage that much then I think it's significant enough. It deserves to be in wikipedia. --Melanochromis 07:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though penguins are cuter. .V. (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1818 tusculum

This is an article on the adress of a character in a movie, nothing links there and it contains no info of any notability in regard to the film, could even be boarderline OR †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say buildings are generally only notable if they have a long standing history. This building is far from that. If someone asserts an importance outside of being a set in a couple of movies then it can stay, else give it a mention in the Rocky article and delete this. —Mitaphane _talk 04:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bignole 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fictional address (this was the real world shooting location) can be added to List of the addresses of fictional characters, like 77 Sunset Strip and Surfside 6. Edison 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#:
Delete. An address is not notable simply because it was mentioned in a movie once. JIP | Talk 10:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone feels like compiling "real life" information of all of the major set locations (and, if anyone can find out things like why they chose them etc) and sticking them into the Rocky page, this is pretty unimportant to the Rocky page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete 1818 tusculum has no meaningful purpose and is only a scene location from the movie Rocky having no encyclopedic content - should not be merged and instead be deleted Gohiking 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this was going to be about another of those damn asteroids. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is way too short and on a subject that does not require a whole article on it. SetofFive 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the one who expressed concern about deleting this article because it was the sole contribution of a newly registered Wikipedian. I do not see any inherent value in the article, however. I posted a note on the user's talk page (User_talk:Adrian74) just two days ago. --orlady 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content on this article should only be a MENTION or factoid in the original Rocky article, if anything. President Rhapsody 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft product activation debate

WP is WP:NOT for essays, nor is it a place for WP:OR. This is an unencyclopedic topic that is covered in about 3 different articles. ju66l3r 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomintor. Gwernol 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Product activation, which has plenty of room to talk about the product activation practices of different companies. Tarinth 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very POV, bordering on an attack page, and per nom. Yuser31415 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move what little useful stuff there is (citations, etc.) into product activation, Criticism of Microsoft Windows and similar articles. I'll do this work myself since it's unlikely this article will survive. -/- Warren 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Product activation. As Tarinth said, there's plenty of room there for a merge. Quack 688 07:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personal rant. MER-C 11:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is any important information that is not found elsewhere, it should be merged with Product activation or Microsoft, but such an article should not exist as it resembles a personal essay. TSO1D 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Tarinth. --Gwern (contribs) 20:19 11 January 2007 (GMT) 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Someone who has the expertise or reliable sources on which are the canonical works on the subject can merge them into a shorter list at the main article. Mirrors and caches of this page can be found at [8]. —Centrx→talk • 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder

I think this falls into WP:NOT, it's just a list of books on a two topics, there are no criteria for inclusion and the books don't appear to be reference materials for the related articles; delete --Peta 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(see below). This is effectively the further reading list from the article on narcissistic personality disorder, moved to a subpage so as not to make that article too large. A further reading list seems perfectly encyclopedic. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This list clearly violates Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; trim the list to the most relevant texts and put it back in the article. --Peta 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is someone going to volunteer to check out all these books from a library and work out which is the most relevant? Its going to be quite difficult to work out which are the main works on the subject. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than a list! Speedy Delete A3. --Dennisthe2 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge back into the main article Shouldn't be its own article. If there is a size issue with the main article, just reduce the text size and/or trim the list to the most important texts. We don't need thesis-style bibliographies on wikipedia - just the main works. Bwithh 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an excellent list of reading materials equally relevant to at least two seperate articles, not one, but far too long to include fully in either or both, and IMHO too relevant to trim. I do not see how deleting this article will improve the quality of Wikipedia in the slightest. --Zeraeph 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abridge and merge or transwiki to wikiversity. We don't do this.--Doc^g 10:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly the Wikiversity suggestion is not really viable as there is no open content here. --Zeraeph 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and merge back to the main article ::mikm t 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable topic, non-notable article. Xiner (talk, email) 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong merge I don't understand the "this list is on its own page because the article is long" rationale, as the article is not particularly long. I have no particular problem with keeping the entire list intact, but not as its own article. -- Kicking222 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I wouldn't necessarily object to condense/merge, I am leaning toward Delete because I don't think it's wikipedia's place to provide an extensive bibliography/"further reading" list for every topic. Does it seem like an endorsement of these books to list them all as relevant to the articles? Do we know for sure that they all exist? Simple lists like this, unchecked, present too many problems.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and furthermore, regardless of whether it's a good idea to have such a list in an article, the list itself certainly shouldn't be it's own article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever did this was well-meaning but didn't get how further reading sections are done on Wikipedia. Place important texts back on the pages concerned and delete the page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I accept the endorsement argument above and that this probably isn't an appropriate stand alone article. If we are to merge the content back to the main article, does anyone have an idea for how practically to ascertain which are the most important texts on the subject? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do know how to sort them enough to pull out the generic and completely irrelevant ones (it will also be possible to exclude any that also appear in references), also how to prioritise which article they go to (some are more applicable to one than the other). It can be done, as long as the "reading lists" stay under control in future. I take the point about "implied endorsement" but the effect seems even stronger when the list is appended to an article. --Zeraeph 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry is a bibliography, not an encyclopedia article. Agent 86 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP has numerous list articles. How is a list of books, such as List of books by Martin Luther, not encyclopedic? I'm not convinced that with inclusion criteria and some cleanup, this list could not be as encyclopedic as most other lists. Gimmetrow 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article such as this is of great value to persons pursuing research in the area. I really fail to see the harm, considering the great number of lists on Wiki, some quite frivolous.--Mantanmoreland 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the parent article somehow managed to cite all of these, then I'd see a reason to keep the list. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Note that, if moving some of these items into the parent article is considered too bulky, consider using the <small> HTML tag. Limiting a reference section to only the articles actually cited does help to reduce bloat. It would be perfectly OK to cite a single review article (preferably one available online) and tell WP readers that its references would be a good reading list. EdJohnston 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ceptor

This obscure arcade game will never be nothing more than a stub - it isn't even emulated in MAME. Namcorules 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game was real, and can be expanded beyond a stub (despite the nominators claim). TJ Spyke 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some list of arcade games, due to no citations to show notability since the article was created in March 2006. Edison 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources indicating that WP:SOFTWARE is met was found. MER-C 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be expanded, and contrary to what the nominator says is emulated in MAME [9] Metrackle 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saying it's not in MAME is not an argument. MAME is not the definite reference here. The fact that the article is still a stub is irrelevant. --Darkstar 16:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ceptor II

This obscure arcade game is not emulated in MAME, and will never be nothing more than a stub. Namcorules 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real game, just very rare: [10]. It CAN be expanded, despite what the nominator says. TJ Spyke 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some list of arcade games, due to no citations to show notability since the article was created in March 2006. Edison 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thunder Ceptor; also emulated in MAME despite nominator's comment [11] Metrackle 01:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Thunder Ceptor. Saying it's not in MAME is not an argument. MAME is not the definite reference here. The fact that the article is still a stub is irrelevant. --Darkstar 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martie Salt

Entry does not establish proper reason for being listed on Wiki. Other than being a local news anchor, this is an unremarkable entry. If deleted, must remember to get the picture too. Harvestdancer 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy, but not very notable either. --Doc^g 10:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 12:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO ::mikm t 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja zafar iqbal

Non-notable journalist. Salad Days 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 12:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I've listed his Press for Peace organisation as well. Worthy but not encyclopedic. --Mereda 13:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hurts (Incubus song)

This song is only rumored to be a single. Other Incubus non-singles do not have pages, and neither do some of their singles. Furthermore, this article is very short and does not feature any information about the song itself; this information could just as easily go in the Light Grenades page. Mikibacsi1124 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT Crystal Ball. Josh Parris#: 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the album will be officially announced, it will be notable, as the band is. Nevertheless, so far only speculation exists (as the first sentence asserts), so the article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL TSO1D 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL for sure. Venicemenace 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Wikipedia is not the future. Ronbo76 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Yuser31415 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey of the Ring

This article does not assert notability and contains no reliable references; I nominate this page for deletion per these concerns. Yuser31415 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN fan video made by a bunch of high school kids. TJ Spyke 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not even an article. Not even a real stub. Barely a seed. Probably not even a sprout-able seed. Does not pass my ridiculously low notability threshhold User:Pedant 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanvid by high school kids... NN-NN-NN. SkierRMH 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unremarkable web content. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Sakamoto (2nd nomination)

Previous deletion discussion resulted in a no consensus keep; as is the article is still unverified, does not explain its importance and is a violation of WP:NOT. Delete --Peta 05:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Previous AfD here. Tevildo 05:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A sad case, but there's nothing in the article as currently written to indicate any more notability than the thousands of other murder victims each year. Someone makes a vague reference in the previous AFD that her death caused laws to be changed in Hawaii, but there's nothing in the article discussing this. 23skidoo 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable, and I can't understand how the verdict of the last debate was "Merge". Victim of an unsolved murder, with speculations about whether it was or was not a serial killing, and no legal or any other consequences. Ohconfucius 07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. MER-C 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. There is nothing that makes this incident stand out. Nuttah68 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Richards

Fails WP:MUSIC; one release on a non-notable label; a career that extends back to 2006 (remember then?); biggest claims-to-fame are being #1 on said label's download chart and receiving some airplay on the very-niche BBC 6 Music Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Engineer Bob 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jones (music)

Fails WP:BIO biggest claim-to-fame is that his was the manager of AFD Andy Richards Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Engineer Bob 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, though he has been associated with certain individuals who have attained fame, there are no non-trivial sources that assert his own notability. TSO1D 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Fresh Music

Fails WP:CORP key people seem to have known a lot of famous musicians, but aren't notable themselves. Company founded 2005. Most notable act is the AFD Andy Richards. Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Engineer Bob 10:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-Robotam 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination)

Procedural nomination, previous discussions here and here. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original nom. MER-C 08:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Might be useful to spell that out for those of us who missed it.) I think the question here is: can we verify this from any independent sources. I can't seem to, so tending towards delete, but I'll watch and see if anyone else can first.--Doc^g 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm searching, and I've added a couple more external links. I could use a little assistance, though. Please. -DarkAudit 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources appear to be primarily about the proprietor, not the club. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not any more. I've added a few about the club this morning. DarkAudit 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contacted the local college radio station that sponsors a lot of performances at the club. hopefully they can get word out to help fix the article. DarkAudit 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, none of the links provided meet WP:RS or WP:V. We have personal websites, blogs, and news articles primarily about the owner, not the club. On the new links:

1)Jambase simply is a listing of the club.

2) Graphiti is an opinion article that is written in a 'state-wide' printed magazine with a monthly run of 30,000 copies. I'm not sure about it. It could be concidered a vanity mag and not meeting WP:RS. I'm not sure it's a Reliable, reputable sources.

3) Morgantown and West Virginia Music Sites is a private website with personal opinions without editorial review. It is not a Reliable Source.

4) Greater Morgantown Arts & Culture is a community/city website run by the visitor's bureau. The page in question simply lists points of interest in the community and is not concidered a Reliable source. Also the article is not primarily about the club...a trivial source if concidered a source at all.

On the Old Links:

1) We have a link to the club's personal website. Definately not a Reliable source

2) The broken link was removed however a missing person's page on a private website is not a reliable or valid source (nor has it and relivence in sourcing the club).

3) The Doe Network missing person's page did have a listing for the missing owner but the page said nothing about the club. The link, at 7:19pm CST on Jan 10th, is not working.

4) The local news story was primarily about the owner and in fact did NOT mention the club at all, except to say she went missing at 123 Pleasant Street (which to the normal person not from the area, would assume that was just an address, not a club).

5) The last link is a personal blog from a band. Per WP:RS, blogs are not concidered valid sources, especially those without editorial review.

On very very very weak source from a questionable publication? Still believe in deleting this article --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment At least I'm making an effort to save the page at all. Instead of paragraph after paragraph on why the article needs to go, why not put that effort into helping save the thing? Considering WV's population, Grafitti's 30K circulation is understandable. The paper is just like any other indie paper in larger cities that cover the music and arts scene. But in this case it covers the entire state. DarkAudit 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Atheneaum, the WVU newspaper is a reliable, verifiable source. But without archives online. The Dominion Post charges just to read anything from their web site. I do not have the time to go scour the microfilm archives at the WVU library. The campus radio station is on the case. Give them a chance to help out. DarkAudit 03:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DarkAudit, the burden of proof for this is not on me but on those that wish to keep the article. I do no see any value in it nor do I see anything that meets WP:RS in my google searches. It's not on me, someone voicing an opinion here in AFD, to add anything to the article, and as a wikipedia editor you know this. You also are aware, or should be aware, of the main wikipedia policies and the many guidelines, and hence you should have known that the sources provided are not acceptable per WP:V, which is explained more in WP:RS. A reasonable person who is not from that area can not easily find information readily available about this place of business. As you are asking a radio station to help, this indicates to me that even someone interested in this club is having a difficult time finding reliable sources. Now this afd runs for another 4 days. That should be enough time to find a chapter in a book, a national/international newspaper or magazine that has a feature length article primarily about the club, or a national news network that has carried a story primarily about the club (not the owner). Please remember that a place of business could have dozens of articles in local newspapers, but that does not mean it is notable. What makes this club any more notable than any other indi club in the US or even the World? We need sources that pass wikipedia's WP:V/WP:RS policy. So far, none provided do. This isn't personal, so please do not feel this is an attack against you, the club, the owner, or the city. I'm not saying that the club isn't important to those that enjoy going to it, nor am I saying it isn't a part of the community's history. What I am saying is nothing about this club makes it notable (there is a local club that has hosted even bigger named acts than this club yet it is not notable either) --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per user Bschott's reasons. SetofFive 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds a great place, but unfortunately it appears that is is not notable in any form. Nuttah68 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability isn't the issue here. The article was kept on those grounds the first time. The sources are what's being challenged now. Please base your decision on that, not notability. DarkAudit 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - if the article has already been kept as notable, according to your argument above, then an AFD would not appear to be the proper way to handle a problem with soruces. The sources could be cleaned up. perhaps a maintenance tag would be appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brian's exhaustive rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced sufficient to survive AfD, editor committed to improvement, notiality established by role in regional music scene. If a music venue has "dozen of articles"(not adds) in local press it is notable. Period. You are setting bar too high. Mystery about owner just some more "icing"Edivorce 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LOCAL is the correct standard here Graphiti link alone should suffice.Edivorce 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable enough to me. ALso just recently went through AFD and result was keep. Looks like editor has done some cleanup, but still has a little more to do. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After consulting with the Admin posting this nomination I sent notices to all Users contributing to the prior AfD on this article. I do not believe that this is sufficient, however, to remedy the situation. I request that the comments of all editors from the previous AfD be considered as part of the record of this AfD. To do otherwise would be profoundly unfair. Notice to the Users is not adequate because: 1)the tight time constraint imposed by the AfD, and 2)The chilling effect on expression which is caused by upsetting the first Consensus. It would amount to blatant "do over." Please consider this a formal request to incorporate these commentsEdivorce 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This current re-do AfD is the product of a flawed WP:Deletion Review. The initiator of the DR and the sole User responding in the DR misapplied the process and did not seem to understand the nature of "Consensus." The Consensus is a process that requires gaining the acceptance and agreement of the parties participating in a discussion. Although Consensus need not bring on board every participant, it is not a question of "having the better argument." You have to convince others. If you fail to do this your arguments may be "superior" in your own mind but they did not prevail. A process in which a User replaces the views of the participants with her own is not Consensus. It is at best arbitration. At worst it is whim. The Admin closing the original AfD was correct in finding a Consensus of "Keep."Edivorce 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Why was the Deletion Review closed after only one day and not the five days required by WP:Deletion Review? Who was the Admin who closed the the DR? Edivorce 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag I agree that this article does not contain many independent sources, but what it does have seems sufficient enough for an article that is notable under WP:LOCAL. I believe an appropriate course of action would be to keep the article and tag it with {{local}} until additional independent sources are added. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brian's very extensive survey suffices to convince me that my original comments, and impression of this page, were incorrect. --Haemo 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks to satisfy WP:LOCAL. It's a major venue in Morgantown. Could use more sources but it is all still verifiable. --Oakshade 07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the WP:LOCAL that some people seem to be using as a keep (not sure how)? WP:LOCAL specifically states that local subjects without enough reliable source material for a comprehensive article should be merged into the parent locality, if appropriate, or deleted. What's "enough"? The big overarching guideline is found at WP:N-multiple, nontrivial, and reliable sources exist on the subject. Only one source of questionable reliability (and questionable triviality, local rag) has been found, so regardless, notability is not satisfied. Seraphimblade 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Betrabet

A person who appeared very briefly in the Borat movie; prod removed by anonymous user. Note that this was created and is being edited by one of the perpetrators of the Hari Ananth, so expect sockpuppetry here as well. JuJube 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JuJube has yet to substantiate his/her claims that Ashwin Betrabet and Hari Ananth are illegitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madndndrumr711 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Actually according to Wikipedia policy you are the one who has to prove they are legitimate, something you have royally failed to do, and your continued disruption is not helping matters. JuJube 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking verification. Two sources appear to be given; one is for somebody else, the other is (oh dear) MySpace. -- Hoary 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You stated that one source is for "somebody else." That "somebody else" happens to be Ali G, who, as stated, interviewed a former ambassador also by the name of Ashwin Betrabet. ...One of three edits placed simultaneously and anonymously in this pair of edits by this IP
Delete IMDB claims that the antique store owner was played by Larry Walker. And I also don't think that Borat is such an enduring classic that a minor supporting role makes you notable. Brianyoumans 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ You may not think that Borat is an "enduring classic"... however, your opinion should not influence the status of this page. Furthermore, Larry Walker may have been a stage name given to Ashwin Betrabet, which is his real name. ...One of three edits placed simultaneously and anonymously in this pair of edits by this IP
Delete and salt the earth Betrabet does not appear on the Ambassadorial lists for the United States to India[12] nor for India to the United States[13]. I suspect that everything else on the page is just as imaginary as the faux ambassador is. This article is being used to vandalize Ali G articles, and needs to be salted so it won't be recreated. Wittyname 07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - if the name of the person is correct - so what? Every minor part in a film does not need a seperate article. --Charlesknight 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Why not? Everyone is equal, and should therefore have equal rights to having a page in Wikipedia. ...One of three edits placed simultaneously and anonymously in this pair of edits by this IP
Delete per above, even if this article's claims are true notability is suspect. User:Madndndrumr is missing the point. Venicemenace 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Madndndrumr711, the creator of the article, is a vandal who was blocked for, among other things, vandalizing Borat-centric articles. Frankly, this article should be speedily deleted as nonsense. Wittyname 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 12:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danika Cleary

Individual fails WP:BIO. I don't believe we need the Product Manager of Pepsi, Sony, et cetera here either. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of edits is longer than the article MiracleMat 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something of substance is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - fails notability. Avi 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cat (music)

This is confusing. It's an article about two different musicians - both apparently non-notable - yet not. Of the records covered, nobody's created them; one label is a label catering mostly to Olympia, WA, the other is a movie from 1985. Google turns up something of the techno film, but nothing more apparent than possible club notability. Dennisthe2 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The former is actually a reasonably prolific record producer. If you use his real name rather than the "Space Cat" name he's got a comprehensive listing at Discogs [14], with plenty of releases under his listed pseudonyms as well. I can't find anything that pushes him over the keep line though. One Night In Hackney 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge and redirect to his real name would be in order then. Still, I'll leave it to concensus. --Dennisthe2 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep don't know about the American guy, but the Israeli is one of the Israeli pioneers of Goa trance. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep too The israeli guy Is pretty widely known, he has done some nice stuff with big names of trance, like Infected mushrooms for example, It's not because you don't know about him that noone does... Okay, Not a very widely star but he sure passed the club phase.... And no, even if google knows a lot of stuff, it doesn't know everything. I'll just add that not everything is on internet and that wikipedia should overcome simple digital world... It's an "encyclopedia on internet", not an "encyclopedia of internet" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.38.238.66 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Furey

Non-notable TV personality. The article does not assert her notability, and my attempts to find independant verifiable sources haven't turned up anything. Fails WP:BIO Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a local news anchor in a small market doesn't confer adequate notability. Also delete the station's weatherman, Jonathan Cash. Caknuck 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason stated by Caknuck. Since Cash is also an author of several end-times novels (similar to the Left Behind series), I would not vote to delete his article, however.

WAVY 10 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor alcantara

Seems to be nothing but a vanity article; consists of only one sentence fragment. Closest hit on Goggle si for the "Victor Alcantara trio". Jeske ^{(Complaints Dept.)} 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete rather obvious. JuJube 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A1/A3/G2. Tevildo 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Hess Kramer

Non-notable summer camp, no evidence of multiple external coverages. Found a few articles about stuff that's happened at the camp, but not about the camp itself. Contested prod. MER-C 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Agent 86 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Bernal

Delete. Doesn't assert notablity, the fourth season of StarStruck still has to "heat up", yet this one already has her own article. Many dean listers don't have articles, either. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. So what if Starstruck season 4 is yet to heat up? Kris already has a considerable fan base, and i think she is already deserving to have her own wikipedia article. and this is not just a dean's lister, she is a small time beauty queen, reality show contestant and dean's lister. wikipedia is for everyone, which means everyone has the right to create articles even if it is about the most senseless things. people of all kind browse stuff here in wikipedia, and some people care heaps about this article. aren't the articles in wikipedia created for the benefit of the public?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.199.237 (talk • contribs)

Ahem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People can't (and shouldn't) create articles even if it is about the most senseless things. That's why Wikipedia has AFD. With that said, if an when Bernal wins, or if she has a career (becomes notable), then an article can be created. But as of now, the only people that will recognize her are her fans. And solely having fans won't be enough for a Wikipedia article. I suggest creating a fansite, instead. --Howard the Duck 10:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO for not having widespread recognition. MER-C 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Howard the Duck. Also, reads like a fancruft article as it is right now. Lmblackjack21 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. why delete it? so what if the other finalist doesn't have a article, if you guys have a problem with that then make one. Wga niyo na lang idamay tong article na toh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searcher007 (talk • contribs)

- Comment None of the other finalists seem to be notable as well. Plus, article has no sources. Lmblackjack21 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any article, no matter how notable the person is, that cannot be verified for want of citations and sources should be deleted. Alf photoman 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and indistinguishable from a fansite: "She was regularly a part of their batch's Top 20 students and was dubbed a "head turner" or a "beauty and brains" because of her striking good looks and intelligence." Who is being quoted here anyway?! Venicemenace 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability ::mikm t 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BuickCenturyDriver 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Haemo 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. By virtue of reaching the Final 14 of StarStruck: The Next Level, she is already assured of being a bona fide actress with an acting job at the GMA Network as per the latter's tradition. It's an absolute waste of time to delete this article now about a would-be actress and then create it again only after StarStruck: The Next Level is over. Note that even non-StarStruck winners like Nadine Samonte and Jade Lopez have their own pages here. The only thing that remains to be seen now is how long she would be able to last in showbusiness.--Pinoy Pride 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine and Jade's articles were created after their eliminations from StarStruck (btw, they were from the first season, 2003-04). And since, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for comparison, Yeng Constantino's article, which was previously deleted, was recreated after she won at Pinoy Dream Academy. --Howard the Duck 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever. but as u say that! Why other people redirected Vivo Ouano he was already an avenger like Nadine and Jade! dont tell me just beacuse he's not famous! and why? we people just share our works! and other people just delete it?!! Wikipedia is not even yours! Jerks! Whatever delete it the article if you want! And again WIKIPEDIA IS NOT YOURS!. -Searcher007

Exactly, he (and Kristine) is not yet famous so he can't have an article. If everybody can create an article for anybody, I should've written mine a long time ago. As for your works, you can always create a fansite, a blog, etc. --Howard the Duck 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia is not his but it is not yours either mister Searcher. WP is for everyone. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so it must be encyclopedic. Can you find information about every single person in the world in Britannica or other Encyclopedias? Of course not. See WP:NOTE to be enlightened. We appreciate your interest in sharing here and making an effort to contribute, but it would be best to redirect energies into creating or improving articles that are more important. =) Also to sign in your name with date type in 4 tildes(~). Berserkerz Crit 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are u a filipino?? if u are, oh my god i can't imagine it.... Whatever. Delete it already! why is the article still there? go redirect it! quick times fading! -searcher007

Delete per nom. Notability yet to be asserted. --- Tito Pao 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Howard. Berserkerz Crit 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING!? DELETE IT IF YOU WANT TO FOR CRAP'S SAKE! YOU SHOULD'VE JUST DELETED IT ALREADY MR.HOWARD THE DUCK, INSTEAD OF CREATING THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT. IT SEEMS AS IF YOU DON'T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS ANYWAY, SO DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DYING TO DO DAYS AGO, AND JUST DELETE THIS ARTICLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.50.85 (talk • contribs)

That's because only users with administrator status can delete articles on Wikipedia. Nobody just deletes an article out of a whim; there must be a clear consensus that an article does needs deletion, which is why we need to solicit the opinions of other concerned Wikipedians. If you're having problems with the AfD (Article for Deletion) tag (specifically, with other members questioning the subject's notability), I suggest you take time to read the guidelines on notability. --- Tito Pao 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable as of now. And Searcher007, calm down and read this.Lenticel 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaraja (wrestler)

I can't find any reliable sources to support this person even exists. The article does not provide sufficient reason to imply that Yamaraja is notable, so I'm nominating this page for deletion. If anyone can find reliable sources and add citations to the article I will close my nomination. Yuser31415 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN backyard wrestler from a backyard wresling "fed". Backyard wrestling feds are almost always deleted as being NN, so that doesn't bode well for the "wrestlers" who compete in them. TJ Spyke 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Hey, I'm the owner of Hardcore Sacramento Wrestling. I didn't know how to answer your above message so I edited it to put my answer here. I don't have citations yet but I will in the future. Future meaning in a few days to a week. See our site is still under construction. I put the link to it under references but it isn't up yet. it will be soon though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Sacramento Wrestling (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Backyard wrestling is basically the antithesis of all that is notable. And Mr. Owner, your own site will not suffice as a source, sorry to say. Reliable independent sources are required. SubSeven 10:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I verify that I exist. if you want, I can upload a video of me doing the springboard moonsault to show that I exist. what do you mean by reliable source? if our website isn't reliable I don't know what else could be. -Yamaraja- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X Yamaraja x (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Read this for what he means by reliable sources DXRAW 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I verify that I exist too, I'm 15,000 years old, come from the planet Neptune and can lift boulders with my mind. See, that's why we need reliable sources instead of just taking someone's word for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Borg of Chicago!! Attempting to establish notability is futile! Prepare to be deleted! Borg Mighty Ruler of Chicago 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Backyard wrestling = NN DXRAW 11:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oops, did someone just reveal a conflict of interest? MER-C 12:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DD_eleT_e Make it onto a PPV, then we'll talk. Caknuck 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy backyard wrestler. Whether they exist or not makes no difference with such a hopeless claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what you're saying is I have to prove he is an actual wrestler because I could have just made up all that stuff? We will upload videos onto our website of all the wrestlers in action. That will prove he exists and is a wrestler. right? ... And man, some of you guys are some serious nerds. especially Borg. You are loser! prepare to get a life! I don't mean to be insulting man, but seriously.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardcore Sacramento Wrestling (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have to prove he's notable wrestler. Notable enough to get a cyclerpedja article. Click on this link: WP:N. You are loser! prepare to get a life! Hmmm.. Borg is claiming to be Emperor of Chicago, which may have a slightly greater and perhaps genuine assertion of notability (see Emperor Norton) than being a wrestler in a backyard wrestling fed. Maybe not quite Vince McMahon, yet? Tubezone 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Avi 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brinkman v. Miami University

This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable legal case. The case was dismissed at the trial level because the Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the University's actions. It therefore produced no binding precedent on the underlying issue of the constitutionality of same-sex benefit programs. Heybrent 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is well-sourced. And more sources are easily available. Google gives 10k of hits [15] on both sides of the debate [16] [17], and there are neutral reliable sources [18], and media attention [19]. Plenty more where that came from. I see no reason not to keep. --Doc^g 10:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much ado about nothing. Xiner (talk, email) 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its the subject of multiple non trivial sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DocG. AndyJones 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if all the other sources mentioned above by Doc in the AfD debate are added to the article. Benefits for same-sex couples are a generally interesting issue and the person bringing the suit was an elected official. This kind of topic wouldn't justify a huge article but this one is about the right size. EdJohnston 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}--Doc^g 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 by Kinu. Tevildo 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI Role Play

This article is about a non-notable web role-play gaming forum (see WP:WEB) that yields no hits on Google. The article even states that the forums were established on January 9, 2007. I prodded this article however the prod tag was removed by the creator. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A messageboard less than 1 day old? That's about as non-notable as a website can be, likely an attempt to get free advertising. TJ Spyke 07:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable web content. So tagged. MER-C 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lewadny

deleteNot really that notable. Peter Rehse 08:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:BIO is met. MER-C 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Alf photoman 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete vandalism. The name Percy "Nobby" Norton is all we need to see. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Experimental Rock

delete Frivolous, apparently self-promotion disguised as imaginary music genre... article even makes note of the Elfboyz, a band I can confirm is non-notable because I am in it (and we certainly aren't following any wave of Australian underground music that I'm aware of...) Mrmctorso 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn music genre, only 105 ghits. MER-C 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it was set up to promote a non-notable Perth band with an article about a made-up genre. No reliable independent references: a MySpace page, a forum post and some band homepages. --Canley 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monique Sweep

Term appears to be a protologism that was literally just made up at school one day. I cannot find anything on Google that suggests this term is in use outside of WP and its derivative works. hateless 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable protologism, fails WP:NFT. Wikipedia is not MySpace. JIP | Talk 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, bordering on nonsense. MER-C 12:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable neologism, possible attack page. Edison 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits all point to WP/mirrors. Caknuck 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete glaring instance of WP:NFT! Venicemenace 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom CRiyl 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save see Talk:The Monique Sweep Rsinfreo 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that the page should be preserved as part of your effort to enlighten other actors? See WP:NOT: "it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it.". Should you manage to get this term printed in a reliable third-party publication, you can re-create the page and cite that publication. Until then, it's effectively original research. Venicemenace 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete something made up in school one day --Infrangible 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete

Jamify

Dictionary definition for a neologism. Google search gets 232 hits, with no verifiability or coverage of the word by reliable sources. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT a dictionary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-10 Pezun Dowadge

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The burden of finding reliable sources falls on the creators of the article, not the nominator for deletion, as per policy WP:V. Bwithh 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry, Ned, but that's no better reason for keeping than WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In universe, OR, trivia, no assertion of why this particular fictional weapon is particularly notable in its field. Proto::► 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Some Gundum robot thingies are wellknown enough for their own articles. This one seems to be quite obscure even for Gundam fans, and there's a hefty bit of crufty info too. Bwithh 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This suit does seem a bit too obscure to have its own article (which is why I vote Merge), however, no one looks up stuff in an encyclopedia that they already know. The idea is to find out stuff that you don't already know. Xenon Zaleo 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?). Also, assertion that the article isn't written in a "real-world perspective" (while this this seems completely subjective and a questionalble assertion to me), even if true, isn't grouds for deletion, as it's a simple matter to re-write information from a different perspective. If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through. Xenon Zaleo 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. I don't see how a 'merge' is an option if the entire content of the article is simply an 'in-universe' Gundam guide. --maclean 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Avi 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSM-07 Z'Gok

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for any number of reasons. Yes, I feel the same about the lightsaber and deathstar. Feel free to nominate them and I'll vote in support. I feel a certain amount of Gundam information could be appropriate on Wikipedia - but it should focus more on summary information rather than in-depth on every little facet of the fictional world. Real-world information on Gundam would be great, too, as few places provide anything about that. Zaku kai 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Oh, and Zaku kai? You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? The fact that your account was apparently created today and your only "contributions" to Wikipedia are voting in a few AfDs (these aren't elections, so "vote" isn't really the right term, but whatever), not to mention your silly assertion that Death Star and Lightsaber should be deleted because they're fictional, make me doubt you're actually a serious contributor. Redxiv 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Redxiv: if you'd like to discuss my history as part of the Gundam fan community, or my history of (admittedly minor, previously anonymous) contributions to Wikipedia, feel free to go to my talk page and I'll be happy to enlighten you. IMO this is not the place for that discussion - and please consider that the quality of the message does not depend on the history of the messenger. Everyone starts somewhere. My questioning of the Lightsaber article is serious - regardless of the quality of the information in there (which I do enjoy!) I am not convinced that that kind of information belongs here. So if someone wants to claim that article's existence as somehow being a compelling reason why some other article should also exist, I don't buy it. I recognize that my opinion about fictional articles isn't shared universally - and that's why I'm participating in this dialogue rather than trying to assert my opinion more forcibly. The Z'Gok is a fairly prominent machine in Gundam, for a couple episodes at least, but I don't believe this level of depth of fictional information is worth having in an encyclopedia. MAHQ provides most of this information already, and with somewhat more reliable accountability for the sources of the data. And efforts like the Gundam Wiki are in the process of establishing themselves - and would be quite perfect for this kind of information. Zaku kai 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?). Also, assertion that the article isn't written in a "real-world perspective" (while this this seems completely subjective and a questionalble assertion to me), even if true, isn't grouds for deletion, as it's a simple matter to re-write information from a different perspective. If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through. Xenon Zaleo 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21 and Moreschi. It is completely in-universe POV = Gundam guide = unencyclopedic. --maclean 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Suit plays a strong role in the invasion of Jaburo from the Original Mobile Suit Gundam.--Scotterdoos 12:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - In this case both potential merge targets were alrerady deleted, further underscoring the lack of notability and the -cruftness of this article. Avi 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP-02A Orgg

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of MS IGLOO Mobile weapons or something of that sort. Articles of fictional weapons are perfectly valid if they are the major characters of a series per WP:FICT, Articles of lists of fictional weapons are perfectly valid if they are minor characters of a series per WP:FICT. Move this to AfM. MythSearcher^talk 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as of now, there's nothing to merge to. When there is, I might agree. Then again, I might not. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing verifiable, unsourced, no assertion of notability. --Folantin 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous - did you bother to read my nomination? Do you realise how many policies these articles fail? Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?). Also, assertion that the article isn't written in a "real-world perspective" (while this this seems completely subjective and a questionalble assertion to me), even if true, isn't grouds for deletion, as it's a simple matter to re-write information from a different perspective. If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through. Xenon Zaleo 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge and Cleanup with EMS-10 Zudah as part of a "Mobile Weapons from MS IGLOO" article. Not noteworthy enough to warrant its own standalone article. Maikeru 04:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. I don't see how a 'merge' is an option if the entire content of the article is simply a 'in-universe' Gundam guide. --maclean 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAN-03 Braw Bro

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. --maclean 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMX-000 Messala

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. Articles should not be deleted if they can be sourced. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak merge to a list of Gundam mobile armours: assertion as first fully transformable suit possibly just enough to qualify it as a minor "character" per WP:FICT --Pak21 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination, the nominator has been shotgunning entries at all sorts of mobile suit entries. Jtrainor 11:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's the first transformable robot in Gundam, and was piloted by not one but two important Zeta Gundam characters, including the main villain of the series. And yes, Moreschi does seem to be shotgunning in hopes of getting at least one Gundam articles deleted, so that he can use it as a precedent to come back for the rest. Redxiv 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup per Redxiv. Kyaa the Catlord 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi. Wikipedia is not a Gundam guide. This article is appropriate for the Gundam Wiki. --maclean 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fax software

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories;

reference Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_open-content_projects

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since few if any of these will ever have articles, and WP:NOT a software directory. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Primarily a list of external links, and we don't allow those. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory. ~~This is a reluctant delete vote, because~~ Although the large table is very well organized, it is still not an encyclopedia article. I wouldn't consider this particular article to be spam. Still, if we accept this list we will get thousands of them. EdJohnston 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. It's a redirect now, presumably somebody merged the content. Sandstein 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RGC-83 GM Cannon II

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. What is more, apparently these "Specifications" are often rigged by fans to make my weapon seem more powerful than yours, so yet more WP:OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --Folantin 11:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. MER-C 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines, and the nominators are not given other editors time to evaluate and cleanup these articles. Also, if sources are a problem, then they should be requested first. Articles should not be deleted if they can be sourced. The nominators have made no attempt to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge to what? At the moment, there's nothing to merge to. And WP:V is non-negotiable and if stuff is unsourced is should be deleted right now. This stuff gives no assertion that it's anything other than OR and large parts of the conjecture read as WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and read WP:V. The onus is on you, not me, to find the sources. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironically wasn't that the original purpose for Wikipedia? To be an indiscriminate collection of information?69.244.126.189 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Pak21 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The last time I checked, which was recently, encyclopedia's are also indiscriminate sources of knowledge. Not to mention Wikipedia's own mission statement is to be a collection of information. Simply because you don't know, like, or enjoy the information is not just cause to go deleting it. Which is why merging this information would be so much easier and more true to the spirit and point of Wikipedia's existance. 69.244.126.189 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment While encyclopedias cover a wide range of topics, it's not correct to say they are indiscriminate. If you submitted your own life story to an encyclopedia, would they publish it? Most likely not. They are not indiscriminate, they have an editorial process which determines what content is appropriate. The same is true here. Wikipedia can not be, and never can be, a collection of all the facts that exist. Technical limitations and manpower limitations prevent that. Therefore, some information must be considered too trivial, too unreliable, or too useless to retain. I believe the appropriate course of action would be to move most of this stuff to Gundam Wiki, and on Wikipedia focus on real-world information about what Gundam is, and its real-world history. And I think we should take a good, long look at Lightsaber and Death Star, too - how much of that information really belongs in an encyclopedia? Zaku kai 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'cause everybody knows the GM Cannon II isn't as cool as the MP Guncannon - er, I mean because information about particular, individual MS from the various series, many of which differ in no real relevant way beyond their stylistic appearance, is too much in-depth information about fiction for a factual, encyclopedic article. Zaku kai 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I'm not a fan" and "It's fancruft! I know because I've never heard of it!" are not valid reasons for deletion. Redxiv 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they also ignore the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. You've "cited policy" in that you claim it "reads like original research", but you haven't actually shown any actual original research. Redxiv 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The GM Cannon II is also heavier armed than its predecessors. It is equipped with two shoulder-mounted beam cannons, un-like the Guncannon, and can carry a 90 mm machine gun as well as a beam saber for close combat. It also includes two 60 mm vulcan guns mounted in the head, but these are usually strictly last-resort weapons. To power this strong weapons the GM Cannon II has a stronger reactor. It is also very heavily armored, featuring Chobham armor based of the same design as the RX-78NT1 Gundam 'Alex'. However, it pays the price for this durability for this with very low speed and mobility. A GM Cannon II on its own has been shown to not be able to fend for itself due to opponents being able to outmanuver it, unless its opponent also lacks speed."
As all of that is completely unreferenced, for all I know chances are it is original research. And do you see any sources? Certainly fails WP:V. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here, at Bandai's official English-language Gundam site. Lack of references in the article doesn't mean they don't exist and the content is original research, it means that the article needs work. Redxiv 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge This mecha certianly isn't notable enough to deserve it's own article, but as it fails to violate any of the condictions established by WP:FICT the rules in place to govern all Fictional Articles I don't see why perfectly good information should be thrown away simply because people want to delete it rather then put effort into cleaning it up. 69.244.126.189 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RGM-79 GM. Cleanup and source it, while we're at it -- the sources are out there, primarily from the MS Encyclopedia series of source books published in Japan. I like Gundam, but there could be a lot less clutter and pointlessly-seperated Gundam entries -- Universal Century especially -- on Wikipedia. Maikeru 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Utility rating of this article is (i^2 + 1^2) * 100%. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raytheon Six Sigma

Article describes a Raytheon internal company process and is non-notable outside the company. The tone of the article is very sarcastic and appears to have been written and expanded by disgruntled employees -- and in fact, the initial article and most revisions are anonymous edits from a company IP address. Article has been flagged for lack of neutrality and supporting facts since July 2006. Engineer Bob 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. The formula gives it away, as the result is always zero. MER-C 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MER-C. Pure bollocks. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raytheon, it is their trade mark.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about management pseudo-philosophies or pseudo-sciences are often full of complete bollocks. This article might be more accurate than most, its sarcastic tone the product of clarity of thought and vision. But it's still original research. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Wayne Bryce

Did have this tagged as a speedy, but then a large chunk of text was added, none of which is verifiable. Non-notable. 3 unique Ghits for Ronnie Wayne Bryce [20], search leaving out Wayne returns slightly more hits, but no reliable sources [21] One Night In Hackney 10:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable and doesn't meet WP:BIO. Prolog 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article cites numerous appearances at comedy clubs, but some verifiable independent coverage in reliable sources is needed to support having an article, such as reviews in newspapers, TV and film appearances. Edison 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources and citations are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Non-notable. Ronbo76 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. NO sources found or even indicated in the debate, thus OR -Doc^g 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Eragon

This article is basically a list of the ways in which various editors feel the film differs from the book. Seeing as there are no sources listed whatsoever, everything in the article is original research and inherently unverifiable. This isn't even taking into account the fact that the article is just a series of huge lists, whose points are often redundantly repeated throughout the different sections for no apparent reason. Even if it didn't violate WP:V or WP:NOR I still would have my doubts about the necessity of having gigantic lists of differences in a separate article when a short summary on the article for the movie itself could easily suffice. DarthVader1219 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 12:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's original research, as well as an indiscriminate list of trivia. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many differences to list, even if the topic were encyclopaedic, which it isn't. Maybe a few of them could live in the article on the film, if sourced externally, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either the article on the novel or the article on the film. I take issue with this talk about the list being "unsourced" as clearly the primary sources are the film and the novel. However, some of these items (such as eye color) are simply too trivial, and the film itself is not significant enough to warrant a separate article on the differences. 23skidoo 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yeah, there are always lots of differences between books and film adaptations. Edison 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The topic could be notable. Nevertheless, in its current state, most of the information appears to be OR and violated WP:V. TSO1D 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drastically pare down and merge with main film article. At most, this article should be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, then merged. Some of the "differences" listed here are OR analysis, others utterly trivial. Surely SOME of these differences are significant but I wasn't willing to wade through the hundreds of insignificant ones to find them! Venicemenace 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Non-notable topic. Xiner (talk, email) 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a book written on this topic? Is it the subject of any newspaper articles? Is it extensively discussed by notable commentators in any well-known blogs? No? Then it is original research and should be deleted without much ado. Whenever I see a paragraph in a film/book article that collects what various editors think the "theme" is, or feel the work's cultural antecedents might be, I tend to delete them as wikipedia is not the place for editors' essays, however interesting or "True" the observations might be.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out to those voting to merge it that there is nothing in the entire article within the bounds of WP:V to merge. You can't use the movie and book as sources because they do not state within themselves the differences between them. To figure the differences out for yourself is classic original research. As an example of another article where this same scenario came into play, I'd like to point out The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. There are many differences between the book and the movie, some quite as notable as any made between the Eragon book and movie. However, there is no unsourced list of said differences. Instead there is a section detailing the reaction to the changes, which mentions some of the more notable ones in the process. If there are no reliable sources decrying the differences between the two versions of Eragon or even mentioning them than there is no justification for this list's inclusion regardless of how much it could be pared or what article it could be merged into. DarthVader1219 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. This is all original research using the movie and book as sources to derive a conclusion. -- Whpq 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. However, a much smaller section of notable differences would probably be appropriate in the film's article assuming a source can be found. BryanG^(talk) 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly notable enough for an article NBeale 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pare down and merge maybe a couple of the major differences could be included in the main article, but this is a large amount of OR. Crisco 1492 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season

Individual NHL teams' individual seasons are not notable or appropriate for enyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not an up-to-date sports site or Devils fanpage. Croctotheface 10:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, other teams don't have individual season records. It doesn't belong to Wikipedia to have game-by-game reports. --Deenoe 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The way the AfD was presented, it seemed to me like New Jersey was the only team to have this... --Deenoe 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 12:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above above. Also per above. ~ Flame vip e r 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as all National Football League teams have individual season articles for 2006 (see Category:2006 National Football League season), many National Hockey League teams have articles for this season and previous seasons (see Template:2006-07 NHL season by team), Major League Baseball's Minnesota Twins have historical season articles (see Template:MNTwinsYearly), and there are probably many other examples of sports franchises which have season articles dedicated to them. How is the history of a popular professional sports franchise not encyclopedic? Skudrafan1 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
Keep, Skudrafan1 said it all. Bigdottawa 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Skudrafan1. S/he's right that there's precedent for keeping and I don't think this is a bad way to go. This particular article could be made more encyclopedic with some actual writing but it's a good and useful reference point even as is. Every individual sports team article gets deluged with news about each individual season anyway so why not split them into individual articles? I'm planning on doing the same when the baseball season starts. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For an example of what these pages look like with "actual writing" and some references, see 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season. Skudrafan1 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's a better example. Articles that are 95% reference tables and only 5% prose are sure to be brought to AFD. But, at least for baseball team articles, people love to write details about every transaction and how they affected the team, etc., etc., so why not break it into a separate article instead of continually removing it and saying it's too much detail? After all, Wikipedia is not paper. (BTW, by "actual content", I did mean "prose" - sorry for my poor choice of words.) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful reference. TonyTheTiger 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skudrafan1 but improve quality of the text. Venicemenace 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been included at the list of ice hockey related deletions. Resolute 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. A sporting almanac is still an encyclopedia, and I would like to see the nom justify "not notable" in this sense. Focussing on an individual season for each team is no different than focussing on individual episodes of any given television series. So long as the articles have enough prose to provide sufficient context, they basically become historical documents on sports teams seasons. As the season completes, the prose for all teams will become much more significant, and this is something I have attempted to focus on in my articles for the Calgary Flames. see: Category:Calgary Flames seasons. Resolute 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, encyclopaedic. Sure, sources are a little thin, but that's probably because the Devils are a lousy team. WilyD 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Non-notable topic. Xiner (talk, email) 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skudrafan1 -- Scorpion 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skudrafan1 Kaiser matias 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skudrafan1. Why should this article be deleted? As Skudrafan1 said, the other professional sports also have this concept. Also, as Skudrafan1 correctly pointed out, all 32 National Football League (NFL) teams have an article for their 2006 season. It isn't very fair to nominate a hockey article for deletion if it's similar in concept to the one used for the NHL, especially if the reason is because hockey isn't as popular a sport in America as NFL Football is. Ksy92003 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, Absolutely keep, I love this new idea 'NHL team seasons' articles. When & If all 30 NHL team seasons articles are created, then 'NHL seasons' can be moved from NHL team articles & re-directed to these sister articles. Perfect for shortening NHL team articles, plus the NHL team seasons articles, have more room for more elaborate Team season information. GoodDay 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A good example of this is at Chicago Bears seasons, a featured list, which is accompanied by about 80 season specific articles. Resolute 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent example of this being utilized in other sports. I was unaware of this series of articles; thank you for bringing it to the attention of the voters. Skudrafan1 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. I had been holding onto this idea for some time, wondering if it would fit on Wikipedia, but the success with which the WP:NFL and WP:CFB has had with the concept for their leagues convinced me to go ahead with it for hockey. Resolute 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:5 (WP incorporate elements from almanacs), add request for past seasons as well (not just a current events log) and thank you for the featured list example. Neier 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is also my hope and intention. I've been working on articles for previous Calgary Flames seasons, and hope that others will do so for their teams as well. Resolute 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skudrafan1. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overwhelming precedent suggests that NHL, NFL, and other sports can have individual season articles. Even certain college football teams have season-specific articles that are very well sourced. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper. --- RockMFR 05:37, 11 January

2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the nomination. I don't love the concept of these articles, but there's obviously a consensus to keep. Croctotheface 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Skudrafan1 said it all. SetofFive 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too much detail for a general purpose encyclopaedia. - fchd 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above (and this is not exactly "a general purpose encyclopedia"). − Twas Now 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Skudrafan1. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above reasons. --Djsasso 07:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is part of a series of 2006-07 articles and their is now a template linking all of them together. Also, team scores are encyclopedic content because we even have them fpr every game in the Euro Soccer Cup Qualifiers. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G11 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITZoom

This article is an advertisement for ITZoom. Check out also the history of Professional e-mail address and E-mail forwarding which probably also ought to go Watchsmart 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as corporate vanity. So tagged. MER-C 12:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley (dog)

"Dudley labrador" (a liver pigmented type of labrador retriever), or even dudley as a type of pigmented dogs in general, doesn't seem notable by any usual criteria. The google test (a search for "Dudley labrador" on google) finds only 48 hits. A recent AFD was held on the grounds of verifiability. There were 4 responses and some web cites were provided to verify existance of the term.

Relist for AFD is on the twin basis that:

4 respondents (3 keep, 1 delete, excluding nominator) didn't provide a sufficient basis to determine consensus (WP:DP refers), more consensus is probably needed
The real problem with this article and the more relevant reason for AFD listing was not verifiability (the existence of the term can be checked through Google); it's that the "dudley" probably isn't notable enough.

A possible opposing view might be that a person coming across the term might want to know what it means and see a photo. But this could be said of many non-notable subjects and can be fixed by disambiguation (dudley (disambiguation) -> labrador retriever). The "dudley" type in and of itself, doesn't seem very noteworthy. The information that does exist is fully covered in Labrador retriever#Lab nose and skin pigmentation.

(As an aside, WikiProject Dog breeds are developing notability criteria for subtypes and strains; it's questionable whether by any of the proposals to date, this one will be notable either.)

Delete (but noting that information on pigmentation is kept under labrador retriever and dudley (disambiguation) should point directly to labrador retriever.) As either a separate article or redirect, Dudley (dog) is not needed -- nominator FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Labrador Retriever, but no deletion for three main reasons:

It was already mentioned in Labrador Retriever, and I just expanded that section and added the references.
The google test (in this case for "Dudley labrador") is an extremely poor way of testing notability. Other used names appear to include "Retriever Dudley", "Labrador Dudley" and simply "Dudley".
Apparently, the dog breed notability standards are on the way. Speculating that this one might not be included, when the standards are not yet finished is a bit strange and there is no reason to hurry deletion of this article in the mean time.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many of the hits for the search you suggested aren't for dudley labs. they are for web pages which contain the term "labrador retriever" and the name "dudley", either of a person or a dog. A mention in Lab retriever might be relevant, but I just don't see its own article being appropriate. It looks like a fairly minor item within the lab world as it is, a term for a type of coloration. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be right about those hits, yet if you wanted the article merged (as you just included as an option [22] as a 'minor tweak' to your vote, you should not have put it up here at AfD, but simply should have merged it. Merging of articles does NOT include deleting one of them (see also Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion, which says Note that "merge into [[article]] and delete" cannot be performed simply by copying and pasting text from the original article into the target unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved), as the author history should be preserved per the GFDL. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's been a long day. What I mean is, the information on pigmentation in labs is relevant to the lab article, and a disambiguation page on the word "dudley" should include a link to labrador retriever, but the dudley article itself should be deleted. Hence as stated, merging the information (not the entirety of the article). Apologies for lack of clarity, it's been a long day. I've just reworded it for clarification. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, previous, recent AfD, that was concluded only 2 days ago can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley (dog). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
Keep or Merge and Redirect to Labrabor Retriever. Info should not be lost. If expanded, it should be kept, if not, merge to LR and leave a redirect.Rlevse 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, useful information but... does not stand on its own. Feh. ~ Flame vip e r 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Labrador Retriever. It's already been merged by Reinoutr. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep last afd closed 2 DAYS AGO!?? Pah. Jcuk 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was, but it was on an incorrect basis. There were other, legitimate, grounds for AFD -- hence this listing entirely independent of the first (and which would have happened anyway). Hope that explains. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Labrador retriever. Edison 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Labrador retriever and cut out excess information, under new light the article doesn't stand well on its own. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dudley appears to be just a name for an albino lab. There is no evidence offered that this mutation or its name are culturally or linguistically notable, like White elephant. There is room for the verifiable information in this article to be included in the main article. Nick Graves 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is already in the main article and the search term is extremely unlikely. Nuttah68 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 days after last seems to fly in the face of what AfD is for, we do not nominate an article everyday until concensus is what we want it to be. Further the google search above is flawed. The quotation marks mean the terms have to appear right in that order. So people looking for "chocolate labrador" or "Liver nosed Labrador" etc. which are all alternate names for a Dudley will end up not finding the full search. Considering this is out of order renominating 2 days after last close and the google search being used as the basis is incorrectly formatted I think its bes tto keep the article. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (correct) comment about relisting applies to repeated attempts to game the deletion system by instant relist, and also where there was a good quality outcome first time that a reasonable person would have accepted as the view of editors. In the present case the relist is on the twin view that appropriate deletion grounds omitted in AFD/1 are more appropriate for a genuine enquiry "should the article be deleted for these more correct reasons", and because 4 responses is not consensus anyway really (as anticipated and approved by WP:DP). It's not a relist 'just to get it deleted' or similar. Hope that clarifies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt and you never addressed the other points of the flawed google search etc. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Labrador retriever article, as the content has already been merged. RFerreira 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Based on current info. F.F.McGurk 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; keep. Too soon to re-Afd. F.F.McGurk 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete crioerion WP:CSD#A1, no significant content other than links and a re-statement of the title. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free web directory

Duplicates function of Web directory with no real value add. Someone tried a prod but an anon removed the tag. StuffOfInterest 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. StuffOfInterest 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article which is not an encyclopedia. Speedy Delete is possible. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing in that "article" that can't be deduced from the title. MER-C 13:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press for Peace

Small NGO in Kashmir without obvious notability against WP:ORG. Google hits in English have only some 1-line mentions of it, like[23], [24],[25] and [26]. Worthy, but not encyclopedic. See also the AfD debate on its founder. Mereda 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The external link given at the bottom of the article appears to be someone's personal homepage. Salad Days 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Speedy Keep - If you have ever taken international studies on NGOs and and their impact upon war-torn countries, relief efforts or nation-building, their political contribution to emerging nations is huge. That being said, this NGO seems to meet the first criterion of WP:ORG in that its organization is notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information ~~but fails because it does not have a third party source that meets WP:V.~~ Should another editor find that source and cite it in the article, my vote would change to Strong Keep. Ronbo76 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vote changed to Speedy Keep - The nominator in the first two Google hits provided the best citations for keeping this article. Violence against Media in Pakistan : October 2006 Report lists an attack against their NGO media office in Pakistan which confirms they are international in scope of operations. Second, the UN Humanitarian Information Center For Pakistan Contact List (please see page 10) hit shows that they are an NGO listed on a humanitarian center website UNHIC.org. Both the attack and contact list have been referenced on the article and cited. The third hit, [http://reliefmedia.org.pk/p_pressclubequip.php INTERNEWS MEDIA EQUIPMENT GRANT TO PRESS CLUBS IN QUAKE REGION (their caps, not mine), details a grant they received. Unknowingly, the nominator provided the independent news articles that demonstate PFP is the subject of media reports which meet WP:V. Ronbo76 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep non appears to undermine argument about notability by providing examples of multiple mentions. citing other afd is irrelevent 'guilt by association' attempt. ⇒ bsnowball 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "multiple mentions" are all trivial, so they don't satisfy WP:ORG "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject". Mereda 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the reference is to say the least, trivial, with only one mentioning of this NGO. Also, a search for "press for peace" organization in google returns very few hits (519), with nearly none of these related to this NGO.

(Although this might not be of any consequence, their website appears to be down at the moment, despite the fact that their host[27] is up and running.) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. If this NGO were sized up as important by third-party printed articles, I'd be inclined to keep the article. As it is, the article is one-sided and reads somewhat like an advertisement, even though it's for a very well-intentioned group. If the work of this NGO were having a large impact, surely someone in the regular media would have noticed it. EdJohnston 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfyed to User:GSchoenfeld and then deleted. Avi 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Schoenfeld

This is a kind of procedural nomination for Izzy65 (talk · contribs), who's only edits were to today's AFD log. However after reviewing the article in question, I feel that it should be deleted or at least debated because it is an unsourced autobiography. MER-C 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although a bio, it can be reasonably cited. Give it some time. ~ Flame vip e r 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Flameviper. He's the author of a non-fiction book that had independent reviews, like these, and he also appears to have given expert evidence to the US Senate[28]. --Mereda 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless notably expanded, sourced and properly cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete I failed to read the rules on writing an autobiographical entry before writing this. Although I tried to write the entry in a neutral fashion, now that I have read the rules, I see the difficulties. I will be content with whatever consensus and decision emerges. --Schoenfeld 14 January 2007
Delete unless expanded, sourced etc. as argued above by Alf photoman. This article has future potential, which it might realize if it gets third-party printed articles commenting on Schoenfeld's work. Without outside sources, a very one-sided article with a promotional feel may result. No prejudice against re-creation if the author can come back later with a better version. Having the subject write his own article is dubious anyway given WP:COI. If he wants to recreate, he could always send a Talk message to the administrator who closed the AfD. EdJohnston 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club

Twice speedied as WP:CSD#A7, this is a club which exists mainly because te Kennel Club does not recognise this breed, which is the work of a very small number of owners. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Advert. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. ~ Flame vip e r 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Olde Delete per ye olde nom. Edison 15:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And why isn't it "Kennelle Clubbe"? Tevildo 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and what the hell is with all the "bulldogge" stuff on AfD lately? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usual walled garden thing. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no credible and non-trivial sources for this organization, so delete per WP:CORP. TSO1D 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this has been speedied and recreated twice, surely it can be speedied and salted instead of Afd'd? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete and then put a chain-link fence around it to prevent recreation. Third time is a charm, afterall. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and kennel and sic rabid cats upon it. Third time's a charm. SkierRMH 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: Again, people not doing ANY research before making ignorant statements about a topic they're unfamiliar with. This is a DOCUMENTED NON-PROFIT Corporation established in the interest of a specific breed of dog, the Olde English Bulldogge. This is how all the breeds that are currently recognized by the large regisrtries (American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, etc...) got started. This organization is currently working very closely with the AKC and UKC to become recognized by said registries. Recognizing legitimate organizations like this is how the public BECOMES educated about rare dog breeds. Don Pelon 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)•[reply]

However, it is not the role of Wikipedia to do that education. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, You can claim Wikipedia to be anything you want. However, as an informational resource the website by default is recognized as an educational tool. By the basic structure of the website and the way it acquires and disseminates infromation it is FAR more of an educational tool than it is a source of entertainment. Simply because one SAYS or WRITEs that the sky is green doesn't mean that it is. The evidence speaks for itself...Pages FULL of unverified data input by a variety of different people that nobody can verify as legitimate experts on the topics that they input into this website. Therefore, as a Public Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is by default an OPEN EDUCATIONAL TOOL. You are right when you say it is not Wikipedia's job to educate which is why I added the information to the website myself. The responsibility of educating is that of the people inputting the information into the website. Again, as a public encyclopedia or educational tool, it is Wikipedia's obligation to acknowledge NEW and ongoing information. Consequently, assisting their researchers to EDUCATE themselves. BTW, I appreciate your reasonable and mature response. The internet far to pampid with keyboard warriors that would NEVER have the confidence to someones face the way they do on internet forums. Don Pelon 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, because this might someday BECOME notable and have verifiable information written, we should just kick back and wait for it to happen? I don't think so. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and this Kennel Club has not demonstrated any evidence of notability. A cursory search shows a homepage, negligable mentions in lists, and Wikipedia articles and their mirrors. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother...Here we go with the pompous, arrogance again...lol. The internet is such a tough guy haven. As for notability go to the | American Rare Breed Association. This organization has been recognizing the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club for the past 5 years as the breeds breed club. If we were to hold 70% or better of the information in this website to your criteria of notability(a couple of internet searches...lolol) it would fail miserabley. Again, because you have no knowledge of this organization beyond what you read on the internet or what it represents. I can only assume based off of your childish, snide remarks that your arrogance in using the term "WE" is referring to the general public. Well, nobody is asking "YOU" to wait for anything. The OEBKC is offering information to the general public in the exact same manner that all the other information on this website is offered to the general public. I'm new to this non-sense, so please forgive my ignorance for not knowing all the cute little acronyms everyone uses.Don Pelon 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's generally considered rude to directly insult someone by calling them childish and arrogant. If you would like to know more about what is considered a good reliable source, please see the following:

Information on Notability
Information on Verifiability
Information on Reliable Sources

Articles must demonstrate an ability to meet these criteria to be included in Wikipedia. It may be that many other articles also fail to fit these guidelines. This is an argument for their exclusion, not an argument for the inclusion of this material. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah huh...Now that's much better, constructive advice instead of rude sarcasm, Thank you. I looked at your suggestions and I will be happy to utilize them in improving on this article. In fact, I apologize for not doing this in the first place when I created the page. I'm new to this format and I was a little short on time when I put the article together. I also wasn't quite sure what format to follow based on my statement above regarding other articles on this website, so I did the best I could with the time I had. Once again, thank you for the change of tune and I look forward to your advice in the future. I will be working to improve this article in the next couple of days.Don Pelon 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMS-05 Agg

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Irrelevant. All or nothing is not a valid argument, no matter how many discussions you paste it into. I actually do feel the same about those articles, people can go to Wookiepedia if they want to see that stuff, people can go to Gundam Wiki if they want to see this stuff. In some cases the fictional information is very well presented, but that still doesn't make it encyclopedia material. Zaku kai 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.--Folantin 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all existing articles in this series. ~ Flame vip e r 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fancruft and OR. One Night In Hackney 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21 and Moreschi. --maclean 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA-05 Bigro

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.--Folantin 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all existing articles in this series. ~ Flame vip e r 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - merge to where? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:FICT is a guideline. It most definitely does not supersede policy. --Pak21 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: WP:RS is also only a guideline. WP:V is a policy, but there are numerous websites (both commercial and fanmade), as well as books and booklets published by the company that contain this information. Therefore, it passes verifiability. Furthermore, NO WHERE in WP:V is it stated that a source must be from outside the area that the article topic is from. Xenon Zaleo 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete. Also, AfD should not be the first resort if you have a problem with an article. Talk pages exist for a reason, and I notice this article's talk page hasn't been used. Redxiv 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is also not a valid reason to keep it. But the AfD provides reasons why deletion may be appropriate: it questions the article's notability, verifiability, conformance with guidelines for fictional information, etc. I believe that while Wikipedia can be a fine place for someone to begin to learn about Gundam, once they get down to wanting this level of information they should go to a dedicated fan site. Zaku kai 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. I have noticed that they have basically used a template. so basically, we have a troll group aimed at deleting all Gundam articles out there. Cleanup, yes, but keep.George Leung 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup with other Zeon and Federation Mobile Armor articles. Of the various articles, the Mobile Armors are really not noteworthy enough to deserve their own individual pages, especially when they are portrayed in-series as one-off Monsters of the Week. Maikeru 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Perhaps a severely condensed portion could be merged somewhere, but much of this seems to be WP:OR, which means merging it would be a bad idea. GassyGuy 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even close to WP:OR, it's simply a case of bad citing. Xenon Zaleo 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. --maclean 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Airport Skytrain

An article about the meta-transportation system at an airport. Reeks of non-notability, and although formatted correctly does not warrant its own article. ~ Flame vip e r 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Canley 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Singapore Changi Airport, obviously. ~ Flame vip e r 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Singapore Changi Airport, I agree there is not enough content at the moment to sustain a separate article. This site claims it was "a first in Asia"... the first what I don't know, but the slight notability claim of this was what prompted me to remove the prod. --Canley 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first auto-guided system in Asia.[29] --Oakshade 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. --Vsion 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious notability reasons. It runs from terminal 1 to terminal 2 and back, and, in 2008, it'll run to terminal 3. There are also verifiability issues, and the info is all in the Singapore Changi Airport article already. I don't think a redirect would be necessary because I can't imagine that many people searching for the airport skytrain. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Singapore Changi Airport already covers this information. Venicemenace 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Singapore Changi Airport. This is a transportation system which transports thousands of people every day. A system like that is clearly worthy of mention, at least in the airport article (in which case merge and redirect is by far preferable to outright deletion) On whether this should have a separate article or not, I think that either option is fine, though I will mention that AirTrain JFK shows that a substantive and reasonably long article can be written on a subject like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Singapore Changi Airport per Sjakkalle above. I'm not sure if this article has enough detail or need to stand on its own. (Though I do think it's cool that the airport also has its own gym and swimming pool.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. The article doesn't reek of non-notability to me, but then I have the smell filter disabled on my computer. Since when was that a deletion criteria anyway? The article is both verifiable and verified. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is not only part of the airport but also a rail line, and benefits from being able to be categorized as both. Local newspaper articles will cover it in detail. Here's a starter (not local): "Transit passengers at Singapore's Changi Airport are getting a faster ride to connecting flights on a new People Mover train system, the airport authority confirmed Thursday. The 83-million US dollar system began operating last week to ferry travellers between the main Terminals 1 and 2, The Straits Times said." --NE2 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and major intermodel rail project used by millions of people. Also keep per NE2's additional references. --Oakshade 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - As far as merging goes, there appears to be too much subject-specific information to be merged to the Singapore Changi Airport article. That article is already very long as it is so this content should be kept here. --Oakshade 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. This is a inter terminal people mover if I'm reading the article correctly. These are all over airports around the world. I am not convinced that this is in any way notable. The Denver airport has (had?) air driven art in the tunnels, so should this service get an article? What about all of the other automated inter airport lines around the world? Are any of them notable for their own article? Can any of these pass WP:LOCAL? Vegaswikian 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ultra-Loser. *drew 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it only shuttles between the airport, and does not connect to any other system. Calwatch 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article clearly states that the shuttle also connects to Singapores railway system.Arsenikk 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rail line's "connectivity" to other travel systems can hardly be a factor for deletion consideration. The article is well-referenced, and is a notable system in a notable airport.--Huaiwei 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's too much here to merge it, and it's all perfectly notable, to my mind. And to answer earlier questions, yes, I'd be happy to have similar articles on other airport systems. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is notable, verified and meets none of the criteria in WP:NOT. Including it in Changi Airport article would just clutter the airport article and make it difficult to navigate to in connection with other articles related to intra-airport transit systems. There is lots of potential to write more on the topic. Arsenikk 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable people mover system and its referenced, such a thing can become a better article. Its not possible to merge it, if JFK's people mover has an article on its own, why not SIN? The Skytrain is used by both travellers and locals visiting the airport occasionally. Terence Ong 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. --Core desat 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lackadaisy

Minor webcomic with no reliable sources. It's well drawn and rather unique, but it isn't very verifiable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB either. Nothing from Google. Wafulz 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A unique style and good drawing do not make something notable. ~ Flame vip e r 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Very cute, very well drawn, but not notable. It hasn't won any awards or received any press coverage, and doesn't meat WP:WEB. On a side note, visit the web site and scroll to the bottom. It pulls at the guilt strings. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable comic. Edison 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia seriously needs to change its policy in terms of web-based content.--Tenka Muteki 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. Material must be verifiable and not original research. --Wafulz 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Not a major webcomic, but brings up a number of Google hits. Probably doesn't meet the WP:WEB but I'm not sure what's meant by "verifiability" or "original research" in this case. Surely its existence and content is self-verifying? Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not relevant to determining anythin. By "verifiability" we mean multiple, independent reliable sources (ie something with an editorial process) have published material with Lackadaisy as the subject (so more than just a passing mention). My rule of thumb for "multiple" is at least three sources. If there are no secondary sources, then we would just be examining the subject itself through primary information. This is original research. --Wafulz 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I'll give you verifiability, and I only mentioned Google because it was in the original nomination. I'm still not seeing original research though. The comic itself and materials from the artist regarding the comic are the primary source. The article is based on that, which is not original research. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Google searches aren't meant to say "there are no hits"; instead, they're meant to say "I could not find sources on Google", which is pretty significant for a topic which is in the online world. We also can't base articles entirely on the only primary source- essentially we would be taking the author's original research and using it in the article, which is blatantly non-neutral. To correct this, we'd need more sources, and the only way to do that would be to find secondary sources (of which there are none), or to supplement it ourselves or use unpublished sources, which amounts to original research. --Wafulz 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closed, clear bad faith in nomination (school remains open). Proto::► 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion-Franklin High School

This article should not be deleted. End of story. All high schools in Ohio will have an entry.EagleFan 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS SCHOOL IS OPEN AND OPERATING. STOP WITH THE BOGUS CLAIMS OF THE SCHOOL NOT EXISTING! EagleFan 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) This deletion nomination should be removed. EagleFan 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this link to view the school's 2006 football results. They were even a playoff team! Further proof of the school's existence...

http://www.joeeitel.com/hsfoot/teams.jsp?year=2006&teamID=962

EagleFan 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, schools = notable. ~ Flame vip e r 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close Bad-faith/vandalism nom. This article was nominated by anon IP 66.82.9.86 (talk · contribs) with the comment that the school is closed and no longer exists. Per school district website it is open and running. Fan-1967 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Jcuk 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich von Mollingrad

Looks like a hoax. Zero hits. Is it loosely based on Heinrich Himmler? Sander123 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unverified + nonsense names + zero formatting + Spongebob Squarepants reference = delete. And yes, there is a Spongebob reference in the extremely long name. ~ Flame vip e r 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, patent nonsense, no references and as far as I can tell non-existing person Alf photoman 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the important of the individual is not asserted, so it's a candidate for speedy deletion. I tagged it as such. TSO1D 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rogers

Musician with very little notability. Joltman 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, Tim. Keep it. ~ Flame vip e r 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Heartbreakers and redirect: being a session drummer for one song with a major group doesn't make you notable. --Pak21 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Howard

Contested speedy. Bio and promotion for an author telling you how to win the lottery. Looks like spam to me. Fan-1967 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BALEETE. Contains everything that you don't want in an article. ~ Flame vip e r 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and purge from spam. Although a hustler, she looks like a notable hustler having published many books for gamblers (Amazon).--Ioannes Pragensis 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Seems to meet the criteria under WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." (emphasis added). Fan-1967 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but this does not need a fundamental rework - it is anough to drop the advert-loaded 50% of the article and tag it as a stub.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate the advert as closer to 90%. Fan-1967 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. FYI, heres how to win the lottery. Write a book called "how to win the lottery" and sell a million copies at a tenner a piece....simple really! Jcuk 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, no matter how notable the person it cannot be verified without proper sources and citations Alf photoman 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is User:X121314x's only contribution to Wikipedia. This smacks of self-promotion to me. Venicemenace 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. As Ioannes said, she's quite notable as hustlers go. Lots of books (four currently available from Amazon, some with ranks in the 50K range), annoying commercials, little pamphlets to buy at checkout counters, the works. Yes, the article's a mess, and needs work for POV, sounding like an ad, being unsourced, etc., but I think some work should turn up plenty of sources. Pinball22 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CSD#G11, because what is being proposed above is a complete rewrite. WP:BIO, because I don't see any links to multible reviews of her work. Sandstein 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and Fan-1967. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA-002 Neue Ziel

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and [[Death Star}]? Edward321 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.--Folantin 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BALEETE per nom. ~ Flame vip e r 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just merged a shiteload of those articles into Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe. It's a bit rough and needs an introduction, but I assume the same could be done for the rest of these behemoth collections of articles... ~ Flame vip e r 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pretty sure the Ziel is notable in its role in 0083, serving as the fleet's vanguard during Operation Stardust, crippling Delaz' flagship, serving as Gato's personal vehicle through which he was able to implement the final course corrections for the decending colony... From a perspective from the narative it serves as the representative of the antagonist during the hero's final battle. And from a wider scope its design looks to be something of a tribute to a certain other mecha franchise who's name escapes me at the moment. When citing sources for the significance of a particular vehicle or technology from fiction, can said work of fiction be cited?--205.211.141.243 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21. Edison 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner is just in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The machine plays a pivotal role in Gundam 0083, and just because you personally are not a Gundam fan doesn't make Gundam aricles non-notable. Redxiv 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, an important mobile armor in 0083.--Father Vice 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per aboveOo7565 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PAk21 and Moreschi. Does not assert notability with encyclopedic treatment per WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia. Since this only has in-universe POV, a transfer to the Gundam Wiki is acceptable (the above keep votes based on notability in the series would be valid there) but a merge into Wikipedia would go against WP:NOT#IINFO (plot summary and video game guide). Wikipedia needs real world notability as established through secondary sources and encyclopedic treatment. --maclean 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why is it necessary to remove any article which is neither vandalism prone, misinformation, or plagiarism? Why on a comprehensive encyclopedia does a well written article about a notable item of technology in a piece of literature need to be removed? what exactly qualifies any article as not notable? there is a wikiproject to make comprehensive guides to anime and manga, it is a recognized cannon topic of Wikipedia. there is no reason to remove this article. Perhaps for some less notable articles and stubs on gundams/mobile suits the merger idea fits, but the lack of a gundampedia means this stuff has to be preserved somewhere at least for the purpose of keeping it available —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prawnshu (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment This stuff is already "preserved" rather well at sites like MAHQ. There is also a Gundam Wiki at gundam.wikia.com which has a copy of this article. I would say that the Neue Ziel is more "notable" than many of the Gundam articles currently up for deletion, in that it played a major part in a popular piece of animation (as compared to some of the MS-X stuff, which was never animated and in some cases never kitted, either.) If you ask "why must it be deleted?" I would counter "why must it be kept?" Retaining the article incurs a non-zero cost of various resources, as all articles do. The fact that most of the information in the article is fiction limits its useful benefits, as well as complicates the process of verifying the data. (Let's not forget that Sunrise has the ability to invalidate "factual" data on this machine at any time, and replace it arbitrarily with new data.) There is not a single real-world fact in that article - no mention of Gundam 0083, no mention of Akitaka Mika, not even any references to the real-world publications where the fictional data originated. (Most likely the info in the article was drawn from gaijin-friendly intermediate sources like MAHQ) As "notable" as the machine may be in Gundam's fictional history, I think the notability of the information provided in the article (useless, inconsistent statistics about its weight and thrust, backstory about its manufacture, etc.) is quite minimal. Zaku kai 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Jesus as myth

Unsourced OR POV fork: POV fork from Jesus as myth, unsourced OR, with an addition of a summary from a section of another article (Historicity of Jesus#Greco-Roman sources. New contributor acting like an old contributor has created this POV fork. Criticism belongs in the Jesus as Myth article, if appropriate. No merge indicated, as this is OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No need to split up original Jesus as Myth article - just needs shortening to accord with wikipedia guidelines (e.g. no OR, undue weight, etc.) Especially no need to create a POV fork. TheologyJohn 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:OR synthesis. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR religious polemic. Edison 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classical POV fork. TSO1D 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and KC, you might want to wading through the Islamic article forks if you're into that sort of thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, OR, prostletising, fundamental garbage. Jim62sch 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textbook POV fork.-- danntm ^T _C 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it couldn't be more obvious that this is a fork. Put it in the article if there's concensus, if not it probably doesn't need to be on WP. Pastordavid 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork Agathoclea 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Jesus and Horus

Group of OR Forks from the Jesus as Myth article. Unsourced, unsupported fork from main article. Author deleted the sections he was "replacing" with these essays. I am also nominating the following related pages, same reasons:

Strong Delete - no need for them, they're contained in the Jesus as Myth article, which has no need to be shortened in this way because just editing it to accord with wikipedian policies on OR etc would shorten it no end. TheologyJohn 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Equally Strong Delete - large-scale original research, essays of this nature neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BALEETE THEM ALL! Seriously. ~ Flame vip e r 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete All as OR unsourced religious polemics. Edison 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-Robotam 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR on Jesus-as-myth theme? Not a good addition to Wikipedia. Venicemenace 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for Similarities between Jesus and Dionysus. At least this article sites some sources for what it claims to be parallels. Delete for the rest. All bear strong flaws in that they are mostly (if not totally) comprised of original research. --Jackhorkheimer 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to examine the sources. Several are merely to ancient texts, which don't support the original research of the article; and one is from a famous hoaxer. One is from Tektonics, a "Apologetics Ministries" according to its own website. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research. The author is grasping at straws for these. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE pointless wastes of bytes.Jim62sch 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, there are academic comparisons between Christianity and the Mithras cult we could narrate - but this is not where we want to start from-Doc^g 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc. Pastordavid 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above ::mikm t 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of nonsense is given far too much space. NBeale 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living With April

Was previously deleted via prod, but the author contested. I vote delete- not notable. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit summary of the article's creation says it all: I am the writer of the musical, and the owner of the website www.somenewmusic.com! -- RHaworth 15:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI issues per RHaworth, no reviews cited to show notability. Edison 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. -Robotam 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Fails to establish WP:MUSIC. Ronbo76 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with single syllable titles

almost useless listcruft about movies delete Cornell Rockey 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely pointless list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Folantin 15:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-Robotam 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of any practical application for this list. Venicemenace 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such lists reflect badly on the many legitimate list articles on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dee, Leeet. WP:NOT x 1,000,000. Budgiekiller 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the listcruft popping up at AFD keeps on getting worse and worse. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really can't think of a use for this list, it is unsourced, nowhere near complete, and if it were it would be huge. The criteria for inclusion in the list is simply not encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list acomplishes nothing. The Placebo Effect 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Hybrid

Fails WP:BAND. Felt is claimed notability so is not eligibile for CSD#7. NMajdan•talk 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability. —Dylan Lake 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND, WP:V, and verging on nonsense - 1/2 of the sentences there just don't make much sense. SkierRMH 08:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Diabolical 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Issues Committee

Totally fails the proposed guidelines of WP:ORG. No verifiable, outside sources are given for this article (the only source is the organization's website). Articles on Student Government Associations are generally merged into the school's article, however, this is about one committee of a student government association, so I don't know if that merits a merge into the article. Metros232 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete university cruft Josh Parris#: 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge anything salvageable to English language learning and teaching. I've redirected; mergers can take place from the history. Sandstein 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English in Taiwan

This article does not appear to have any notable content and just appears to exist to hang a lot of web links to commercial organisations to it. I therefore propose it is deleted--BozMo talk 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just an excuse for advertisements and spammy links Nposs 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable to English language learning and teaching and delete the linkfarm. Otto4711 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, didn't we have something similar a month back? Alf photoman 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, similar versions for Hong Kong etc were put in and we didn't pick them all up --BozMo talk 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 10%, delete the rest per Otto4711 above. This is mostly just a linkfarm (englishintaiwan.com is in the lead with all those inline links). Going beyond that, I am concerned that we don't have enough editors watching the myriad of TEFL/TESOL/etc articles we have for spam and quality problems. See comments and list of articles and AfDs at WikiProject Spam, "Teaching English as a second language -- spambait articles". I'm not advcating mindless deletion, but I think consolidation would help quality issues. And yes, similar AfDs were held for articles about teaching in Italy and Hong Kong. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per A. B.'s suggestion, info on the English Language page would be more appropriate - across the board for these articles. SkierRMH 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G11. --Core desat 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XND Radio

Appears to be all original research, with no published sources, and lots of links to their website. An "importance" tag was added back in November, however it seems some IP user removed it without explanation. Article still doesn't state why it is important/significant.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show it is more notable than any other internet radio station. Anyone with a PC can create such a station. Edison 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G11: blatant advertising --Pak21 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Awards

No evidence that these are significant in any measurable way. The user's other "contributions" include adding Percy Nobby Norton vandalism so I don't trust his judgement. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Edison 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and remove from 'Australian Music Award Ceremonies' template.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable awards; have received significant media coverage for example The Age. Note that the bands mentioned in the article are all notable Australian bands. Raffles mk 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does receive fairly substantial media coverage in Australia - The Age above; The Sydney Morning Herald (Who's up for a Jack?, Powderfinger take gong for best live band, Live Aussie bands to vie for gongs; Channel V; Sunrise (Channel 7); ninemsn (Channel 9), . According to Undercover Magazine over 100,000 votes are cast, which is probably more votes than the Logies. The awards are presented by fairly major celebrities such as Tommy Lee, etc. I'll add these to the article soon. --Canley 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even discounting the WP:COI reference to channel V, there are plenty of entertainment organisations talking about them. Hopefully, they'll still be around in five years and still have the same sponsor.Ga rr ie 05:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley. JPD (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator says there is no evidence the Jack Awards are significant but doesn't bother to provide any explanation of how he arrived at that conclusion. He's essentially asking us to "trust his judgement", while explicitly denying that courtesy to other users. Canley has given extensive evidence that the Jack Awards have gained exposure in Australia. I'm going to trust Canley's judgement along with that of the other keep voters. --JJay 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the awards have achieved national exposure - there are only a few national australian music awards of note and this is one of them - I believe that the article should be retained Dan arndt 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Szental

Autobiography of a non-notable teenager. -- RHaworth 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Gidzs world. Fails WP:AUTO & WP:NPOV Caknuck 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy unless references demonstrating conformity with WP:BIO are included and parts violating WP:AUTO & WP:NPOV are removed Alf photoman 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious auto-biography/vanispam. Venicemenace 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Martin

Essentially the article is empty - a list of exhibitions does not make an article and does not even claim notability. -- RHaworth 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something of substance is added ... and exhibitions in a soccer club house, for the duration of the world championship in 1993 (huh? did I miss one?) that nobody ever heard of don't count. Alf photoman 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his own website only shows one prior exhibition - so where's the WP:V and 3rd party coverage? SkierRMH 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 01:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Herrero

Essentially the article is empty - a list of exhibitions does not make an article and does not even claim notability. -- RHaworth 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above: no content --BozMo talk 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some notable content is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESLUSA

since lacking in any content or notability: just a plug for a website BozMo talk 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no assertion of notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: non-notable advert. Going beyond that, I am concerned that we don't have enough editors watching the myriad of TEFL/TESOL/etc articles we have for spam and quality problems. See comments and list of articles at WikiProject Spam, "Teaching English as a second language -- spambait articles". I'm not advcating mindless deletion, but I think consolidation would help quality issues. If something turns up during the AfD to show this organization is notable, then I suggest merging the article into a larger article. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Nicholson

nonnotable. Fails both Wiki:BIO and wiki:notable User:Superkioo 16:09 UTC

Keep - The attorney General of Canada is non notable? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: does meet WP:BIO and then lots more for being the Attorney General of Canada. Clearly and obviously notable --Pak21 16:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith, block nom for AfD trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and stop the child from playing games Alf photoman 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Read those policies before citing them, why don't you? Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Flaherty

Nonnotable. Fails both WP:bio and WP:Notable

User:superkiooo 16:13 UTC

Speedy keep bad faith nom for the Minister of Finance of Canada due to his own article being speedy deleted as nn. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: clearly meets WP:BIO and a lot more. --Pak21 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: as above --BozMo talk 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith, block nom for AfD trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I wonder how some people get away with these nominations Alf photoman 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Come on, this nomination is a joke Venicemenace 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hey, a real use for WP:SNOW WilyD 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach English Abroad

Shallow pretext for some external links BozMo talk 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is very close to spam-level.-Robotam 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: article covers nothing not already covered elsewhere (see article list in the WikiProject Spam tlak page discussion, "Teaching English as a second language -- spambait articles"). There's not even anything here to merge. Going beyond this one article, I am concerned that we don't have enough editors watching the myriad of TEFL/TESOL/etc articles we have for spam and quality problems.I'm not advcating mindless deletion, but I think consolidation would help quality issues.--A. B. ^(talk) 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, w/ same mentatlity on the Teaching English in Taiwan discussions. SkierRMH 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: nothing that isn't covered in several other articles. Exists for spam linking only. Nposs 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\^talk 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 BCS National Championship Game

Violates WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is for a game that will take place in January 2009 and will have no significant developments until mid 2008. Like the AFD nomination for the 2010 BCS National Championship Game, this article should redirect to BCS National Championship Game until after the 2008 BCS National Championship Game. NMajdan•talk 16:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Remember WP:NOT. --Wizardman 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until more info available (for example, a vague idea of who might play). RedRollerskate 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Wizarman. Didn't technically need an AfD, though. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --Tlmclain | Talk 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOT, particularly when there is the (even remote) possibility that the BCS could be canned for a playoff system.-Robotam 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this with clear consensus both here and at the WikiProject to make this a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\^talk 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Multiple reliable sources (barely) achevied through USAToday and Epsom Guardian. Likely to get more coverage in Feb 07. If they do not, it can always be relisted. Note: Tour is not in and of itself a keep criterion, but one that makes it more likely that multiple reliable sources exist.. Avi 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks (band)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guideline, only one local news article, no albums, etc... Thanks/wangi 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, it appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Come back when the album makes number one. Budgiekiller 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a number one album isn't imperative to adhere to notability guidelines. In my opinion, that was not a helpful comment. Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:MUSIC – I've literally spent about 20 minutes looking for anything other than the BBC article and can't find anything (per WP:RS). Whilst the claim to have signed for Island is notable, it is neither verifiable nor a steadfast gauge of notability. Lots of bands sign for majors only to be dropped. And playing Loughborough Uni in November, but nothing until next month (in the UK again) doesn't even fulfill the criteria in WP:MUSIC concerning national touring. Sorry, if this was Pop Idol, they'd be going home. For now... Bubba HoTep 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Ambivalent bordering on Weak keep pending tour and album in Feb. Bubba hotep 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per item (3): "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources."
- Gibson Guitars Promo Gig [30] - This means Clocks have endorsements from Gibson, one of the biggest and most respected guitar companies in the world. "Epsom band Clocks are recieving high praise and critical acclaim and we were thoroughly honoured to have the join us as our headliners for the night. Hear excellent track 'That Much Better' and a snippet of our chat with the boys now!"
- Jan/Feb 2007 Co-Headline Tour with Grace [31][32] (Other ticketing sources readily available online). This has also been publicised in the NME for the past five or more weeks. (Granted this tour has not yet started, but this is in fact Clocks' second UK tour (the first was in November 2006 and was also well covered in the NME at the time)).
- Evidence of their first UK tour [33]: "Hailing from Epsom, they four piece have been ticking around since 2000, taking a further two years before making their live debut. Four years later, they hit the tour bus in company with their first single, That Much Better (Island), a chirpy little pop number that, along with the sunny English jaunt of In My Arms, bears witness to such influences as The Beatles, The LAs, Teenage Fan Club and The Kinks. Well worth giving them the time of day."
- The band are signed to a major record deal with Island Records and are currently recording with producer John Cornfield [34]]: "John has recently produced and mixed debut albums for MORNING RUNNER (Parlophone), THE MARSHALS (Mercury), BOY KILL BOY (Mercury), WIRE DAISIES (EMI) and is currently working with new Island signing CLOCKS."
- Biggest selling single of a record shop [35]: "Out now and our second biggest selling single of 2006 after Jamie T. Great first single from this young band putting Epsom on the map. Touches of The Coral and The Kinks on a hard to find 7" only release"
- Clocks played a support gig for The Feeling in November 2006 at Loughborough University though I can't find an online link for that at this moment in time - although you can see lots of reference to this on the band's MySpace page from fans' comments. Jdwhite 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons being:
- Band have already been on one national tour and are going on another major tour in January/February of this year.
- They are signed to Island Records, owned by Universal Music Group who are arguably the biggest record company in the world.
- They have already worked with top producer Liam Watson (The White Stripes, Supergrass, Madness) and are currently working with John Cornfield (Razorlight, Supergrass, Muse).
- Article on the BBC website [36]
- Their debut single was played frequently on national radio XFM and placed on the Music:Response tasters playlist.
- Listed on USAtoday.com in 'top songs' of one of their writers [37] Alexffc 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all of above links and points. As I have said before, they haven't actually released anything yet have they? Yes, they may be signed to Island. Yes, that producer may be working with them at the moment – but the point is, they haven't come out with anything tangible yet. All the links you provide are inconclusive or trivial (i.e. brief mentions, e.g. the BBC website mention). Do you have a link to the XFM playlist? As I say, if I could actually find anything that would equate to WP:V and WP:RS and they had released an album already, it would be a slightly different story. At present, they are an up-and-coming band. They will either attain the heights of notability or disappear without releasing a thing, such is the whim of the music industry. Bubba HoTep 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they have released something. If you would have read the article properly you would have seen that they released their debut single 'That Much Better' on 14th August 2006 and was available in major records shops [38] --Alexffc 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read it, thank you. And I read WP:MUSIC where it says two albums. I personally would have settled for one on island, but I don't make the rules. Bubba HoTep 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I accept that point. How about the point mentioned above per item (3): "Has gone on a...national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." The band have already gone on one of these reported in many gig listing websites, and plan to go on another major tour of the UK in January/Febuary of this year [39] [40]. Would that warrant the article to be kept?--Alexffc 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would dispute that the tour already undergone is a national one. And, again, Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, articles which attest to its future notability are not acceptable. Besides, all the criterion at WP:MUSIC are extra to the central criterion which it must fulfill first. (The bullet-pointed list before the numbered section starts). Bubba HoTep 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would you dispute the first tour was a national one? Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice to re-creation in a month or two. I would be minded to call to keep if there were reliable sources for some of the claims made. Anyone can put their gigs on a website; a review in a publication such as the NME or a local newspaper (and Birmingham101.com is not a newspaper) would be far more persuasive. Similarly for entry on the Xfm playlist (which may or may not pass muster as rotation on a national station per WP:MUSIC - this is arguably spot plays on a London station.) Complete the tour, get a couple of published reviews, release a major-label single, and come back. Eludium-q36 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have found an article [41] about Clocks published by the Epsom Guardian both in print and online which mentions the headline UK national tour last year (which was extremely similar to the UK national tour Clocks are about to embark on at the end of this month[42]) amongst other things. I do agree with your points but those things are extremely likely to happen in the near future with a tour coming up, songs being recorded and released, and the record company beginning a marketing campaign for the band which would probably include lots of published reviews and articles.--Alexffc 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I think people are falling into the trap of thinking that all possible information to verify a claim is available online. It isn't. If you were to go and read through the past few issues of the NME and those around October/November 2006, this debate would be settled immediately. Anyhow, I've found yet another reliable online source which is an interview with John Cornfield, which verifies both the signing to Island and the recording sessions with him [43] (look to the last paragraph of this interview) (as does the link to his profile on his management's website [44]). Jdwhite 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify my stance, however, I feel the notability claim is justified from clause (3) of the WP:MUSIC guidelines for touring and that the Island Records signing and John Cornfield sessions are supplimentary (although all-the-more reason to take the touring sources as credible and noteworthy). Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Jdwhite states that there has been non-trivial coverage in the NME. This is a reliable source, so is the Epsom Guardian. Adding details of these works to the article would be a significant help, as the onus of proof is on the person wishing to insert the information. That things are "extremely likely" to happen is insufficient to pass WP:CRYSTAL. Eludium-q36 11:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just come across this using Google; this is audio from Dermot O'Leary's BBC Radio 2 show from 19 August 2006, playing Clocks' debut single That Much Better in the company of Keane and The Crimea [45]. Jdwhite 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found audio from the Gibson Guitars Promo Gig which includes a brief profile, short interview with the band and a clip of the single [46] (near the end)--Alexffc 09:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have spent some time collating points from this page and organising the Clocks (band) article, and I have cited references for most. This includes (most relevant to this debate) verifiable sources on the first National UK tour (in November 2006), which is sufficient to fulfil the third criterion of notability for musical ensembles. Also included are verifiable references for the band's signing to Island Records on a major record deal, the second UK tour, the current recording sessions with John Cornfield, together with information on notable gigs and interesting trivia/external links. Jdwhite 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, national tour, major label contract, media reviews in USA Today... i'm utterly stunned this is on afd. Clearly the nominator has never actually read WP:MUSIC and didnt even bother to do a simple google before nominating. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the USA Today blog where it is mentioned in a list (as obscure)? It isn't a review, unless I'm being incredibly stupid, please correct me. :) Bubba hotep 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The debate over whether the USAToday.com reference is a review or not (which it isn't) is largely academic since the article must surely qualify for inclusion by virtue of national touring at the very least. In any case, I believe 'Obscure' in context on an American journalist's article shouldn't be taken literally; presumably the entries for Dirty Pretty Things and Graham Coxon are included in his definition of 'obscure', as they are not widely known in the US. They are big players in the UK music scene. Jdwhite 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I'm from the UK, first of all. Second of all, you have done some great work to this article, I must admit. Thirdly, I'm still not convinced, but February, when the real tour (alledgedly) starts is not far away by which time the band will be notable beyond a doubt. Fourthly, I am becoming more and more ambivalent towards this article. I wish you luck. :) Bubba hotep 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your comments, Bubba hotep =D Jdwhite 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Match Inferno

prod tag removed twice without an attempt to clarify notability per WP:MUSIC. ccwaters 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: principal claim to fame seems to be that they've opened for other, semi-notable groups. Oh, and, for what it's worth, 35 unique ghits doesn't seem very much for an indie rock group (and only some of the hits actually refer to them). But I'll gladly change my view if shown some published sources. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the album and single, keep Nikki Flores. Majorly 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Flores

One album, not released yet. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

This Girl (unreleased album)
I Wanna Know You Like That (single)

Delete two of three: speculative album article and non-notable single, but I'd keep Nikki Flores-- I'm seeing many Google hits like this. Dar-Ape 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nikki Flores, per Dar-Ape - Phoenix2 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album and single; abstain on performer, as there are no sources cited in the article. Eludium-q36 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the unreleased album as it has not been released yet and also delete the single as there is little information on the page. (It can be re-created if there is more information) Keep Nikki Flores as this artist may fill the WP:MUSIC criteria in the near future. LiL mIsS pRiNc3sS 11:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Under Fire

Non-notable bookcruft. Author is notable, but that alone doesn't mean that any particular book he wrote is notable. It seems this one is not. Delete. — coelacan talk — 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kioti

This article fails WP:CORP. No notability, no verification, and almost no information. Diez2 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the parent company DaeDong does not have an article yet. Kioti is simply a brand of tractors made by them. The only news I can find ( that is not a press release ) is that Kubota sued them for actions in the US market and the case was settled in 2004. May be useful sources in Korean but Nothing i can find in english. Seems to fail WP:CORP - Peripitus (Talk) 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LudumDare (2nd nomination)

A pior deletion was overturned on review and is now here for further discussion. Note the article is about the contest, not the accompanying website. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete major author is User:Allefant, a past contestant (WP:COI). Where's the evidence of significance form neutral sources? Guy (Help!) 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless assertion of notability is made and sourced. Although this programming competition is somewhat well-known within indie-development circles, there is no explanation about why it warrants an encyclopedia article. --Alan Au 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V] Joel Jimenez 04:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable and insignificant contest. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least two, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other to ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. I searched and could not find even one work. Thus, the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. (2) The article itself states that the event has had only eight hundred contestants since 2002. Eight hundred people being interested in a Wikipedia topic is a relatively small number. In addition to the event not drawing media attention, none of the contestants have been prominent enough to draw media attention. The contest event website http://www.ludumdare.com/ itself is not operating, and there is no indication as to how the event will continue to be an ongoing happening. No other Wikipedia articles link to LudumDare. The only Wikipedia article that mentions Ludum Dare is Hamumu Software. With such little interest in the topic, I do not believe that there will be any published works about the topic coming forth in the near future. (3) The first AfD (15 May 2006) mentioned a slashdot article. Seven months have passed in which this reference could have been added to the Ludum Dare article but it has not been added. Also, the Wikipedia:Notability issues brought up in the May 15th AfD #1 have not been addressed in the article. Further, Deletion Review (January 3, 2007) mentioned Slashdot and other tech news sites, none of which have been added to the Ludum Dare article as references. Moreover, in the past twelve days of the present AFD#2, none of the concerns listed in this AfD#2 have been addressed through editing the Ludum Dare article. Thus, it appears that there is no interest in bringing this article into compliance with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. and that lack of interest has existed for at least seven months. (4) The article was relisted at AfD to give more time to discuss the article. AfDs may close after five days. This article has been listed at AfD since January 4th - almost twelve days. Thus, this article may have received all the discussion that the Wikipedia community believes it needs. (5) In view of the above, this article should be deleted because it does not comply with Wikipedia policy, there is no foreseeable media interest in this topic, Wikipedians do not have enough interest in this article to address the concerns brought up in the AfD#1, Deletion Review, and AfD#2, and it appears all those interested in discussing the article at AfD have discussed the article. -- Jreferee 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was just notified by user Jreferee on my talk page about this discussion, and I think it 1) should be given more time and 2) actually might have a bit of notability. LudumDare to me seems quite well known in the indy gaming scene (not that I really know much about that either) - the reason there was no interest in the article and that there are no links from other articles and that the Slashdot reference could not have been added sooner was that for the past 7 months the article had been deleted (and in the past two weeks I had no idea about the relisting). Up to 800 participants (many joined multiple times of course, but still) means there are many more players of those games. There also are several commercial games (non of WP notability as far as I know) which are spin-offs of initial LD entries. As is mentioned in the relisting discussion, e.g. Seven day roguelike is a very similar competition, and also has its WP article, but it only runs since 2005 and only had 35 contestants.

Therefore, I would like to keep this article around for some time, so I can look for references about notability. I know from some participants that their LD games (or spinoffs thereof) also were featured at other places, might add some info in the next days now that I know about the relisting. There are also websites about most of the competitions (except the ones on ludumdare.com which is down) which I will try to add. (Oh, and the next LD will be held in April according to people in their IRC channel, but has not been announced yet officially (as the site is down..)). I can't say how well known it really is in a global sense or how big/noteworthy the indy game developers scene as a whole is, but I guess for a lot if indy game developers LD indeed is a known term, and among all those similar competitions (pygame, speedhack, 72 hour contest, rpgdx, ...) LD probably is the biggest and most well known. Allefant 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Naturman

nn comedian and non-winner of a variety/reality show. User:Zoe

Keep, multiple appearances on TV outside of one particular show, several sources of info on Google (incl here and [47]). hateless 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to above, there is this Cringe Humor interview with him. Naturman has also appeared on David Letterman and Conan O'Brien, according to, for example, his Comedy Central page, as well as the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and Jimmy Kimmel Live (according to TV.com. schi ^talk 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, despite the confusing nature of this AFD, there is consensus to delete. --Core desat 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiaholic

At best, this is a dicdef and should be sent to Witionary. At worst, it's a neologism and shouldn't be included anywhere. I tend to lean toward the latter, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Kafziel ^Talk 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Indophobia to this AfD per Dev920's suggestion. Once deleted, that can be turned into a redirect to -phob- along with the tons of other made-up phobias. Kafziel ^Talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Second nomination withdrawn to avoid a trainwreck. Can be nominated separately if anyone so wishes. Kafziel ^Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very neologistic. Suggest you AfD Indophobia as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Mytildebang 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Extremely strong keep for indophobia (delete Indiaholic, non notable term). Not a neologism. Please see the following academic sources for the word: ~~#http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23~~ ~~#http://www.nd.edu/~milind/posts/tr_chap4 by scholar Trautmann (old scholar, so not a neologism)~~ ~~#See Idi Amin for an example of an indophobe~~ ~~#Why is there an article on Sinophobia?~~ ~~#More refs for indophobia:~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520066510&id=Fu5h2T7dZFEC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&ots=lNVuqLlkux&dq=Indophobia&sig=LtUrLzQaI9fFyDLEd2OC5epXsK8~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00623933&id=MpOJ6Rt9q1IC&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00489344&id=-cQrsUX03-0C&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00897826&id=R4AeAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03980670&id=CgMEAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586840614&id=IzRr1_iPKVcC&pg=RA6-PA237&lpg=RA6-PA237&dq=Indophobia&sig=e_TO6kSNydRKRdSSKgwoiNE1nuU~~ ~~#http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN817027088X&id=BRMNAAAAIAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1~~ ~~#Idi amin & indophobia: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23~~ ~~#http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/ReligiousRadicalism/PagesfromReligiousRadicalismandSecurityinSouthAsiach3.pdf~~ ~~#http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Saikia/SaikiaOP.pdf~~ ~~These are all academic refs. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Indophobia debate removed so changing my vote to delete indoholic article. It is a non notable term. Indophiles are already mentioned in Indomania.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophobia has six times more hits at Google books than Indophobia does, but it's still a redirect to -phob-. Contrary to popular belief, wide use of a word does not mean it's not a neologism. We don't need an article on every "phobia" people can come up with. Still, I know the India cabal is one of the strongest on Wikipedia and tons of people will therefore show up to "vote" to keep this without reason (as Bondego did below). So I'm removing Indophobia, as it was not part of the original nomination and I don't want to sink the Indiaholic nomination by association. Kafziel ^Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India cabal? Please do tell us about unicorns, East Dakota, and the Canadian Army while you're at it.Baka man 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my third rule and I'll tell you all about it. But judging from your userboxes, you have nothing whatsoever to do with India so you are clearly neutral and therefore an exception. Humble apologies. Kafziel ^Talk 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hope the words of Babur show the despise associated with India and its people. More will be added soon.nids (♂) 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)the afd for indophobic has been withdrawn. nids (♂) 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i voted to keep indophobic. Not indoholic, which can be speedily deleted for being an non-notable term.nids (♂) 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indophobia and Indiaholic. --Bondego 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. Kafziel ^Talk 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this wasn't an AFD. I got confused because two distinct articles were put up in the same AFD. I change to delete for the Indiaholic article.--Bondego 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean, "this wasn't an AFD"? What else would it be? AFDs can have more than one article per nomination. Indophobia was added because another editor suggested it, and it's by the same author. Even now, the fact remains that you need to say why you feel one way or the other. Kafziel ^Talk 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - indophobia seems to be a term that's thrown around frequently. Indophobia also has connotations pertaining to International Relations. Its can hardly be compared to pyrophobia, which is merely a person's irrational fear of fire. Indophobia is more along the lines of Islamophobia.Baka man 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as the intoductory sentence states, is also a neologism. But in any case, Indophobia is no longer up for deletion. Please see the rest of the discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete - Indiaholic is a rarely used neologism.Baka man 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Is a stupid word, never heard of it before Dictionary.com doesn't even recognize it as a word, article has no content, and overall is just unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --D-Boy 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiamike

Web forum that does not meet standards for notability at WP:WEB. It asserts notability, so it's not a candidate for speedy deletion, but it falls short of actual notability. The articles cited are not about the site (they just mention the site, which is not enough) and the article largely reads like an advertisement. Kafziel ^Talk 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:WEB. Mytildebang 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paxton Movie: A Baby Story (Not!...And Other Footage)

I'm nominating three articles, The Paxton Movie: A Baby Story (Not!...And Other Footage), The Paxton Movie 2: Paxton Returns, and The Paxton Movie 3: The Quest for Pax. All were created, and (other than administrative edits) only edited by, user James Preston, and James Preston is mentioned on the pages as part of the crew for the movies. None of the pages have any real information or sources that would lead me to believe this is anything more than something someone made up one day, and Googling "The Paxton Movie", "James Preston" Paxton, "Lawrence Paxton P", etc., comes up with nothing to indicate that any of these are actual films. I've brought this to AfD in case there's something out there I'm missing that would indicate these pages are worth keeping. Pinball22 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious instance of WP:NFP and of WP:VSCA. Venicemenace 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy

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

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

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

Delete much of the factual content on the article is disputed and seriously looks like use of article space to support a point-of-view. Jersey Devil 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Devil, how familar are you with this subject? Have you read any of the 18 sources listed on this page? If so, how many. How much have you contributed to this article before the deletion? I don't see your name in any of the 500 edits on this page. You state: "much of the factual content on the article is disputed" What factual content is disputed? You don't say. Have you attempted to discuss this content on talk? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see your name anywhere on the talk page either.
As per WP:Afd#Before_nominating_an_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.
Jersey Devil, have you or any of the editors who want to delete this article edited the article before? Have you:
1. consider sharing your reservations with the article creator,
2, mention[ed] your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or
3. add[ed] a "cleanup" template?
Now these three points are not policy, but it is something that should be considered by every person who wants to delete this article, and by the person deciding this case.
a hopeless case links to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions does this page meet any of the policy reasons under Speedy deletion? Editors have to guess if this page violates Wikipedia:Speedy deletions because your nomination explains no reason behind this WP:AFD. Since you have not edited the article ever before you put it up for deletion, editors can't depend on these reasons on the article talk page either.
User:Khodavand the only person who I see who has contributed one word to this article wrote, "IMHO this is a bad faith nomination", based on the three points at WP:Afd#Before_nominating_an_AfD I have to reluctantly agree. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Excuse me Devil, but are you trying to say that just because some people with a strong opposite POV (hence NOT NPOV), we should delete this article??? There is nothing in WP policy or guidelines to back that up. If everyone thought like you, we'd have to delete 90% of WP! :) Khodavand 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JD, sources either have nothing to do with the article, or are to Conservative web-sites. Article appears to be a NPOV violation Citicat 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOR: "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." NOR:NPOV: No prominent adherents are named in the article. ~~The main "controversial" person currently does not have an article in the Wiki~~ (article created 3 hours after I posted this). With NPOV the fringest of fringe theories shouldn't be represented as though they represent a significant minority of the population. Settler 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Sources were used to support POV and their selection is at least in part unencyclopedic and may be sign of bias of original editor. I don't think it is possible to base good article on this and as it seems there are no reliable sources for potential rewrite. Therefore I think it should be deleted.--Pethr 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment For some reason people started to accuse one another of being "leftish" or "conservative" here. Just for the record, my edit history is bipartisan and I'm not related to U.S. in any way. I edited the article even before it was nominated. This article has 11 sources:

First linking for whatever reason (???) to the homepage of The Iranian-American Bar Association.
Second one after sentence "Nemazee was also national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee until late 2006." cites Marketplace commentary on democratic financing, but sentence needs rather official source saying that Nemazee was indeed chairman from xxxx until late (?) 2006.
Third source is for Nemazee being "top fundraiser and donor to the Democratic National Committee for the past 10 years." But doesn't state that this title was given to him by activist blog...
Paragraph "During his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to name Nemazee U.S. Ambassador to Argentina but was rejected by the US Senate after Forbes magazine published in May 1999 an expose of his financial dealings and involvement with the Islamic Republic. According to the New York Times he withdrew." Doesn't cite source for his rejection but than states that NYT said he witdrew - so what's the true?
Another source (Cybercast News Service) really sources what's written in the article but why quote conservative news website?? No other outlet ran this story? What about some major daily?
Anoher sources is for what Nemazee testified - WorldNetDaily - and again, why source from conservative website?
The same as the one before...
Another two are Chinese People's daily and Iranian farsi.net stating that Clinton's "missive" was ignored. Farsi cites American State dep. spokesman, etc. Again: No other source?
NYT is about other unrelated letter and should support that there was only one previous letter sent to Iran ("This was Clinton's second letter to Mohammad Khatami.") Could there be other letters as well? Does this source guarantee what it should? (Well, this is really not so terribly important to the article.)
In the last one People's daily says that Teheran Times said...

This is just about the sources... there are lots of unsourced statements/weasel words and I removed the most POV statements before this article was nominated. There is no substance in this artcile, is unencyclopedic, is indeed badly sourced and I still do think it should be deleted.--Pethr 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is sourced and meets all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. See WP:BIAS - these allegations are common enough in the media and again, sources have been provided (see WP:V), so accusations of OR are silly. The above users appear to have a leftist, pro-Democratic POV. Wikipedia is not here to pander to partisans, but to represent all POVs. See WP:NPOV. Khodavand 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette Settler 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to hear your sarcasm and you should take your own advice. You guys have a definite WP:BIAS and can't even come up with a good argument on the talk page of the article. IMHO this is a bad faith nomination because it is one thing to be honest about why to delete, it is another to delete because of their own POV and attacking me for it! Khodavand 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the info in the article is also in the entry for Hassan Nemazee, the title is not NPOV and mischief making as there is nothing to justify the main thrust of the article's title in that the DP has a covert relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Maybe Nemazee is acting to subvert the Democratic party through his influence and financial assistance but that is clearly not the same thing as being suggested here. Unless you can come up with something more than innuendo it should go. Yorkshiresky 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately it's going to happen again. Hessam 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep your bad faith accusations to yourself or you will find yourself blocked. Khodavand 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm familliar with every single guideline and policy on English Wikpedia. I've translated most of them into persian. So I know when blocking is possible! For keeping balance I linked to this page from Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board. Hessam 12:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge whatever salvageable there is in this article to a controversy section in the main article --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic covered by Hassan Nemazee, remainder soapboxing, original research, and innuendo supported by weasel words. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, POV, and too OR.-- danntm ^T _C 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is POV Per title, and I find it very offensive that someone would even create an article on this topic. I am also aware that offensive is no reason to delete an article, but this is redundent and stupid, and certianly does not belong on wikipedia.--Sefringle 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1) Wikipedia is not censored, so if you people are saying to delete because its offensive (and you're a Democrat) then thats a damn shame. 2) The article subject matter is legitimate, as legitimate as the allegations that US and UK developed the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh - and yet that article states it as fact (in reality they only provided support for the plot, which was entirely of Iranian conception and operation)! 3) If this article is deleted, then by God delete Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and all other such allegations articles so that there is NO hypocrisy or WP:BIAS here. Otherwise this article must be kept. Khodavand 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs less OR/pov issues. Remake later if handled better F.F.McGurk 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy WP:NOR Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Seeing the emerging disinformation campaign - for reference: subject of article does not exist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep has the nominator worked on this article to improve it, have any of these editors wanting to delete the article worked on this article? I haven't worked on this article, but I am not advocating the deletion of someone else's contributions to an encyclopedia. It is easy to nominate an article for deletion, to easy in my opinion, it is much harder to work toward a consensus.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but WP:OR creating a controversy that is not mentioned in the reliable sources provided to support the claims and drawing ties between the Democratic Party as a whole, a major political contributor, and the government of Iran which also are not supported by the reliable sources provided. --Bobblehead 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Citicat, Settler, Bobblehead. The reliable sources in this article do not mention any controversy, nor any related allegations. Their use here represents a synthesis and thus a violation of WP:NOR. With the removal of those sources as a NOR violation, we are left only with far-right websites which cannot be considered reliable sources for these claims, per WP:RS#Extremist sources. So this article fails WP:V as well. — coelacan talk — 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources fail WP:RS and the article as written is Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and will never be anything than pure conjecture, as NO RELIABLE SOURCE has ever made this connection. So there. Chew on it. Spoken in my best Executive Branch voice. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go chew on your own personal attacks and POV. Khodavand 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't be fooled, all four of the sources provided are for pieces of information that are tangential to the title and content of this article. Savidan 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Instead of deleting, I propose that the article be expanded to encompass other party support and fund raising controversies relevant to US-Iran relations. That is a highly informative topic.--Zereshk 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If articles like Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (which was speedy kept) are fine and accordance with WP policy, then this article stays. Calling the sources like WorldNetDaily or FrontPage magazine as far-right, unreliable, or extreme is nonsense and severely POV. Wikipedia is NOT censored - if you have counter sources to add, please feel free to do so. But to censor this article, to attack me and the sources is inexcusable. So far none of the people here calling for deletion (especially the most vocal ones) have been able to properly respond to my points. That speaks volumes! Khodavand 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I reviewed all your sources what about commenting there? Nobody responded to your points because you don't have any - 1) yes, Wikipedia isn't censored; 2) subject isn't legitimate because it doesn't have single academic or at least major news article supporting it's main topic; and 3) we are not talking about other articles here but about this one. And if you don't want to be attacted don't write things like The above users appear to have a leftist, pro-Democratic POV. next time, may be others won't say the opposite about you and this discussion will be a little more normal. Thank you.--Pethr 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much a conspiracy theory with no mainstream media coverage. I having serious doubts about the truthfulness of the article even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and merge anything verfiable into Nemazee. Lack of RS V sources (WND and Front Page are not). Title itself is OR and a synthesis of material to advance a POV. (hmmmm....might be time to start writing that Bush Ties to Islamist Terrorism Controversy article with the 2001 Sami al-Arian WH meeting, photo with Bush and Sami in Fl in 2000 and those Frank Gaffney claims, [48] Carlyle Group ties, Bush kissing Saudi Princes, and of course the infamous 28 pages implicating Bush's 'Saudi Masters' that Bush withheld from the 9/11 report ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 12:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has little scholarly weight, and is an attempt at pushing a POV. Requests for more verifiable sources have gone ignored, and indeed, attacked.--Primal Chaos 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If there is a problem with POV pushing or RS-V sources, then it should be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it. This is a significant controversy within the Democratic Party. - ClemsonTiger 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet of blocked user User:BryanFromPalatine Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Travb and Khodavand. Article is sourced and sources meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:V. As Khodavand writes, calling the sources listed as "far-right" or "extremist" is itself POV. We're not talking about white supremacist sources or the John Birch Society or anything like that which would obviously not such criteria. Whether or not anyone agrees with the sources is moot - the fact remains that such allegations against the Democratic Party do exist and go back to the JFK administration (when there were accusations of Democrats being "soft on Communism".) Similar accusations (though in a slightly different vein) have been leveled at the Republican Party, such as the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. These are actual allegations - they exist. You cannot ignore them due to your ideological or partisan bent and to delete this material would be stripping Wikipedia readers of valuable information that is difficult to find elsewhere. Khodavand makes a wonderful point in suggesting that all relevant POVs be included in the article. This proves to me that the article was started in a good faith move. Again, deleting or ignoring sources is not the answer. Rather, the answer is to include opposing viewpoints to balance such articles. This is the way it's always been done on Wikipedia, and when adhered to, things always remain neat and copacetic. Capesh? metaspheres 13:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"We're not talking about ... the John Birch Society or anything like that". Actually, we are. WorldNetDaily: "Indeed, for years the JBS has been scoffed at by many as a paranoid, conspiratorial, "sky-is-falling" hard-right organization. Except that, very often, the John Birch Society has proven to be right on target. In "The 40-year gun grab," for instance, WorldNetDaily documented conclusively that the Birch Society's decades-old claims -- long ridiculed as ludicrous -- that the U.S. government's infamous "Document 7277" represented a "blueprint" for disarming Americans were actually true."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19631] — coelacan talk — 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is unbalanced but shouldn't be deleted. for example see this article : 1996 United States campaign finance controversy--Pejman47 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The one from 1996 has actual articles pertaining to the premise. It uses mostly mainstream sources from publicly-traded companies. It cites Government investigations. This one up for deletion, however, does not. No prominent adherents are named. It's currently not possible to "balance" such an article when the very premise is not currently acknowledged by a combination of professional journalists, politicians, the FEC, law enforcement, etc. Settler 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, conspiracy theory, no mainstream media coverage, sources are a joke, article is an attempt to push a POV Pfalstad 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futanari

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

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

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

This article is unreferenced, and has been so since references were requested seven months ago. I have not been able to find reliable references (following an admittedly cursory look, as I wasn't enjoying going through the material), and seems to be comprised almost exclusively of original research. The topic may also be a neologism. Please do not make accusations of cultural bias. Futanari is a portmanteau neologism based upon the Japanese words for 'double' and 'form'. If we had an article entitled an English cultural phenomenon 'doubleform' about pictures of nude women with penises, were utterly unable to provide any references for any of the claims, and the article's sole link was to www.doubleform.com, this would have been deleted within a week of creation. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Delete. Proto::► 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, and no sources. Fails WP:V, WP:N, etc. Anomo 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article I found a reference from a well known futanari artist that defines the concept. I hope it helps preventing the deletion of the article. It's very difficult to get references and sources from a concept created by the hentai artists themselves. Trump's definition of Futanari — Comment added by 217.129.218.198 (talk • contribs).

I found some sites with book references and partial citations (they should be enough to define the concept): The Politics of Androgyny in Japan: Sexuality and Subversion in the Theater and Beyond and The Gender of Onnagata As the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity, Performativity, and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity. At least, now we know that reliable sources exist. — Comment added by 217.129.218.198 (talk • contribs).

Keep. 236,000 Google hits for the Roman spelling alone. Article exists on the Japanese and German and Spanish Wikipedias. What constitutes a "reliable source" is going to vary with context, and for cartoon pornography, examples may have to serve. Some are obviously out there, and some apparently were found; there is no blame for not wanting to look further, but don't then come and claim that the word has no established meaning or that source material identified by this label does not exist. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because it's a fairly unusual pastime, we don't have to have reliable sources? The only link is to a blog that collates (as far as I can tell) a single picture from multiple hentai paysites (and to see more, you must, of course, give your credit card details). If the word has an established meaning, great - write a wiktionary article on it. Find reliable sources about the topic. I was not able to (I have tried again with images turned off, it's bloody horrible I tells ya). Proto::► 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not the only link, and not the focus of futanari.org, it is just for news management. The true link(s) are from the now... 160 or so sources of illustrators and doujinshi circles within this genre. (http://futanari.org/links/) 3pyon 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fairly common in anime, common enough to warrant an article. I'd say this is a lack of sourcing and not a lack of available sourcing. Also, Futanari.org has put up a plea for people to flock to this article, hence the Not a Vote tag. Cheers, Lankybugger 23:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just speaking for the subject itself, it certainly does deserve an article. Numerous H manga and eroge and even Japanese porn videos (oh god, my eyes) have used this concept, and the Japanese word ふたなり has 666,000 GHits. The existence of the phenomenon is clear, and what the article needs is sources, not deletion. _dk 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have about 30 gigs of futanari related doujins. This is a very real phenomenon even if people don't speak of it much. I guess it's just not as controversial as lolicon. But Shonen-ai and shotacon are also unreferenced and no one's suggesting those be deleted. Commercial examples Futanari on Jlist, Futanari on DLSite (526 titles!) (You may have to age verify to get to those links.) The only scholarly article I could find on this is The Gender of Onnagata As the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity, Performativity, and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity, east asia cultures critique - Volume 10, Number 2, Fall 2002, pp. 245-284. Sample quote: "It is in this context that futanari were included in Yamai no Soshi [Book of the disease],36 and futanarihira, androgynous stunners, were considered beautiful wakashu. Differently put, in this paradigm futanari falls into the category of disease, along with anal fistulas, pyorrhea, lice, and so forth, whereas futanarihira amounts to a certain aesthetic." 69.174.66.47 04:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one good reliable reference. Well done. If you (or someone else) is able to find another, to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS ('multiple reliable sources'), and include them in the article, I will happily withdraw this AFD. Proto::► 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Fates. Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in Torikaebaya Monogatari, Gregory M. Pflugfelder, Monumenta Nipponica Vol. 47, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 347-368. On page 359: "Ambiguous bodies surface in the native literature at least as early as the twelfth certury. Yamai no Soshi, an illustrated catalogue of rare afflictions dating from that ero, provides an interesting example. 'Recently there was a man [otoko] who walked the streets of the capital with a drum hung round his neck. He had the face of a male [otoko], but there were things about his form that resembled a female [onna] as well. A certain person was confused [obotsukanagarite] by this. One night when the drummer was asleep, he secretly lifted his robes to have a look. Underneath, he saw both male and female genitals [literally, roots]. This was a hermaphrodite [futanari].'" Futanari seems to have meant "hermaphrodite" then as early as the 12th century. I found more examples for androgyny in Japanese culture as someone pointed out above but I couldn't nail down the word "futanari" to these references. 69.174.66.47 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reference, though this one's just in passing:

Jennifer Robertson. "The Politics of Androgyny in Japan: Sexuality and Subversion in the Theater and Beyond." American Ethnologist, 19(3): 1992. On page 424: "Ayame eschewed what he called the prevaling "androgynous" figure of the onnagata, describing it as futanarihira - literally, "double-bodied". BookishAcolyte 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's not perfect, doesn't mean this article needs to be deleted. Stop being such a nazi about it all. It may not be perfect, but it's here, its informative, and it's not hurting you one little bit. -AnimaRytak
That's not helpful. Proto::► 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This really, really needs to be rewritten and cited, but its honestly a real genre (including at least one Japanses porn studio using trick camera work and digital editing to make "live-action" futanari videos) and so references ought to be out there. I'd help find them, but I'm too busy scrubbing out my brain from forming this !vote. Serpent's Choice 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the studio called? I honestly have been unable to find reliable references, this is the prime concern. Proto::► 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its called Oisinbo-soft[49]. The fact that I don't speak so much as a word of Japanese is conspiring with the reality that there really are topics I've enjoyed sourcing more than this one to make it a challenge for me, too. I'll fully admit that the places I found this discussed aren't ... erm, reliable, so I've got no way to navigate that all-Japanese site to get information (if its the right one...). Back into the fray I go, I suppose. Still no idea where on their site to find detailed material (if that's the production studio and not the distributor, even!), but the series is evidently marketed in English as "Futanari Lesbians" ... 1, 2, and 3 (because porn studios have creative naming conventions). (updated again Serpent's Choice 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As far as anime, rather than live-action goes, Pink Pineapple[50] seems to be the dominant production studio, although I'm informed that there are others. And again, I haven't got the foggiest how to navigate their site to get to a sourceable page. You'd be looking for Parade Parade or Stainless Night, that I know of. Serpent's Choice 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Adult Video studios producing futanari genre specific media, most major studios have jumped on board. TMA, SOD, Aroma-P, Moodyz, Waap. You even have multiple series of AV movies which have multiple volumes, e.g. ふたなりレズ (1-6) and ふたなりズム (1-4). I would link to the complete list, but just google "Live Action Futanari Movies" instead.3pyon 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term gives a couple hundred thousand Google hits and is reported on in six other Wikipedias, so its existence is beyond doubt. The article's current lack of reliable sources is deplorable; it is a reason to improve, not a reason to delete. The AfD process should not be used as a substitute for an article-improvement-drive.AxelBoldt 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spend 15 minutes at /b/ and you'll know for damn sure that this exists. Klosterdev 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know if this is what you need, but if you are looking for proof of the existence of the 'futanari' genre, the following link is to a commercial website selling all sorts of Japanese products. The link will take you to 3 pages of products found by searching for the word 'futanari'... Here's the link http://www.jlist.com/SEARCHES/futanari/ If this is not appropriate or useful, please feel free to delete. 89.242.93.69 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this sort of hentai art isn't my fetish, this concept is prevelant in h-art. Kyaa the Catlord 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankybugger and dk. -- 9muses 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because some people either don't like material or fail at google does not mean it doesn't exist. The fastest way would be to go to live journal or go to one of the 'chan's alternative page(4chan, ko-chan, etc). If you have average IQ there are tons of Japanese sites you can browse(just need to press enter and find the relevant sub-page, not hard). For the sake of it all I'll list some of the artists: Behind Moon, Rebis, Agent Orange R, Dusty Heaven, Tiberius - the list goes on. Destorss
Keep How can one even think about deleting this page, everything said is valid and true. Any number of comic websites such as Jlist and DLsite has direct links to it. Google has over 210,000 hits on the subject. It's true so why delet it??

Big 11:01 (GMT), 14 January 2007

Keep Article is of extremely poor quality, but doesn't meet criteria for deletion. Fifelfoo 12:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in definite need of cleanup, and maybe even a rewrite, but by no means should it be deleted. If numerous artists and/or author can make a living off of it, animated adult video can be made of it, and multiple imageboards can exist of it, that's definitely worth keeping. I would like to see the article fixed up after this discussion is over, however. MalikCarr 11:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see that it's not well cited, but that's just a cry for people to help advance it, really. It's hard to site anything in this genre, though, as the content is very adult and in a sense animalistic, meaning that it's not normally something to have any structured sentences or thoughts or rationale behind it. I personally believe that the commercialism surrounding the word provided in this discussion is definitely enough to substantiate the fact that it's a legitamate term, as for the content of the article itself, the most plausable way to back them up is with imagery. That being said, you can really see that every word is true just by looking through the pictures yourself. If you have an inability to do that (ex. being grossed out) you do not have the right to call deletion on this article, as you do not have the means to judge it. Wa 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some artists include Agent Orange, Purple Bonus, DTiberius. Agent Orange, and Purple Bonus can be found using the "Return results only in japanese" after searching on google. DTiberius can be found at WWOEC. www.affairanime.com has an entire gallery devoted to Futanari. I'm not sure if these count as sources, but they are *definite* proof that this article just needs to be rewritten and not deleted. Maybe these websites can be used in a rewrite? Mattz1010 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a specialised book on amazon about homosexuality in japan which refers to futanari [51], You can use the "Search Inside" function. --Simon ---80.143.231.60 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is lots of evidence of this paraphilia and is very common. I see no reason for it to be deleted just because there is no referncing to it. Instead of being lazy, why didn't you just refernce it yourself instead? Should have taken an equal amount of time for filing a deletion! Lord Metroid 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple 100,000s of Google hits, articles in other language Wikipedias, companies and artists specifically devoted to the subject, mention in scholarly sources... Improve the article. - CNichols 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it remarkable that the OP recommending deletion cites a lack of research, then proceeds to call the term both a "portmanteau" and "neologism." I'm not about to attack the OP for not checking Japanese sources, or for a lack of knowledge of Japanese grammar or etymology, but I believe this article shouldn't even have been recommended for deletion for the OP's complaints without first checking with a person who actually has passing literacy in Japanese.
keep. along with stern rebuke and disappointment for OP. come on. you don't have to enjoy something for it to be included in wikipedia. I don't enjoy finding original sources for power rangers articles, but we don't expunge them on that reason alone. if you want a public source on futanari, i've written a book on it. ... aa:talk 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Article was unsourced, article is now sourced. Threatening to delete it was, unfortunately, the only way to get this to happen, as the standard request had been ignored for over six months. Proto::► 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discusting as this subject is, this is an adapitve encyclopedia, and as such must have as much information as possible on it dispite potential moral objections, if anything put a disclaimer on it. but keep it because people need to know it exists so they can make up their own minds about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.23.55 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Just because 3 OPs haven't heard of it/don't like it/don't believe it exists when it most certainly does, does not mean an article should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portside (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice if confirmed at a later date. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Dos

An article about a proposed movie that the stars of the supposed movie have said they will not do. Seems to be just fan speculation. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old School 2 for similar previous nom. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL as it can't be said event will "almost certainly take place" Citicat 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Citicat, if the actors aren't interested in it, why are we? Budgiekiller 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ::mikm t 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:CRYSTAL, come back after it's actually made. Now off to write a screenplay for Groucho Marx, hope he accepts ;) SkierRMH 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there's a confirmed sequel to this later on, it's very highly doubtful they'd use dos as a substitute for two in the title. Nate 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable: we don't need to know about all the would-be notable movies that were never made. —ShadowHalo 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NEO. I look at the google searches and would not be surprised if in a few years with sourcing that meets that standard, but the opinions below are unanimous. GRBerry 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diobesity

Few Google results, no apparent references in reliable sources. ::mikm t 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Budgiekiller 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems primarily linked to a single researcher (per Google Scholar), only scattered usage otherwise. e.g. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More important than Google hits are a total absence of any hits with PubMed - i.e. it appears in no reliable biomedical journal source. Of the various external links recently given: The American Diabetes Association website had no mention of the term, DiabetesAndMore.com "A 21st century crisis" used the term once in quotes. Current external links includes http://www.diobesity.org/ which has only its homepage describing type 1 & 2 diabetes functioning (subpages missing) and http://www.getunderground.com/underground/columns/article.cfm?Article_ID=1816 link is to a blog currently with page title "The Auto-Industrial Complex" !
In general most type 2 have weight either as an issue contributing to the onset of their diabetes or aggrevating their insulin sensitivity. As such weight and type 2 diabetes have always been interlinked and this is already covered in obesity and Type 2 diabetes articles. This term "diobesity" is a made-up term having no weight in scientific literature, Budgiekiller correctly points out WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) - this is a Protologism (neologism that has not yet caught on widely). David Ruben ^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David Ruben's comments and my similar comments in Talk:medicine. Jellytussle 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cats

This list is a complete mess. First of all, the topic is so broad as to be rendered useless, as I shudder to think how many thousands upon thousands of cats have appeared in fiction over hundreds of years. Second of all, the list has no definite criteria, with house cats standing side by side with lions and others with no distinction made between family Felidae and the domestic cat subspecies and including anthropomorphic and robotic variants that would not actually fit into either definition. Third, the list does not even follow its own criteria entirely, with some entires describing the fictional cats themselves and others merely describing works of fiction that include cats. Fails the guidelines at WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Indrian 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-maintained, annotated, sectioned and structured as recommended by Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). WP:LIST is a Manual of Style, how does this list fail this exactly? The fact that the nominator can identify entries that they disagree with (anthropomorphic, robotic, etc.) demonstrates that this list is one of the better ones and can easily be useful and encyclopedic. --Canley 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic is somewhat unusual. Because I can notice an entry on the list that fails to meet the criteria for the list it shows the list is well maintained? Also, WP:LIST is a guideline, not a manual of style. That guideline cautions against overbroad list criteria. This list has virtually no criteria or consistent organization pursuant to what little criteria exists. Also, you have convienently failed to provide an explanation for what makes this list "useful and encyclopedic" when it has no coherent criteria and is both an indescriminate collection of information and a list of loosely associated topics in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this article is enormous, including characters who have associations with anything cat-like. The amount of invalid or inappropriate links boggles my mind. I fail to see how it can be well-maintained when there's a incorrect wikilinks all over the place, like the entry and link for Solange (the cat from 9 Chickweed Lane) which leads to a Frankish saint from 880. It can't be actively maintained with this kind of nonsense, especially when it's been updated less than fifty times in the last month. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the scope is just arbitrary, unduly broad, and indiscriminate.-- danntm ^T _C 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or delete all other similar lists of fictional animals in Category:Lists of fictional animals. It doesn't make sense to delete this without deleting List of fictional dogs, List of fictional bears, List of fictional ducks, List of fictional birds, etc. I would suggest making a group nomination. VegaDark 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguing that this article should be kept simply because other similar articles haven't (yet?) been nominated for deletion is complete BS. Today we're talking about "List of fictional cats". Maybe tomorrow we'll talk about "List of fictional ducks". The article is an inane dumping-ground and it's hard to conceive of someone needing such a list. Zaku kai 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, deleting this would be like deleting Chicago Bears but not the New York Jets. Either We should allow all fictional lists of animals, or we should delete them all- it wouldn't make sense to only keep some, which nominating these individually opens the door for. These should definitely be in a group nomination, since if some are kept and some are deleted that would be a double standard and there would likely be many DRV's for all the deleted ones. However, I would support deletion of all these categories as a group, as I agree with the reasons for deletion. VegaDark 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable, so broad as to be useless. Serves no practical purpose: Zaku kai does have a point. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. chocolateboy 01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and I am puzzled at the nomination. That it is not well maintained does not mean it could not be well maintained. its a defined group; not every fiction book in WP has a named cat.DGG 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is broad, but that is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. If the article in question needs improving is also not a reason for deletion. Zahir13 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to follow the guidelines at WP:LIST. --- RockMFR 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not it meets a styleguide does not go to whether or not this is encyclopedic. To me it is not - it is more of a directory or trivia or indiscriminate collection naming any cat in any book or movie or tv show that ever was. It might be shorter to make a list of books, films, etc. that don't have cats. Agent 86 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to delete the article unless you are also deleting every other 'list of fictional X' list on Wikipedia. In addition, for a more substantial argument, take a look at WP:LIST, namely, 'Information'. A list of fictional cats is a valuable reference for anyone who is drawing on it for cross references ("Cats in literature and film"). Sure, the article could use some cleanup, but it is a valid list by Wikipedia's own guidelines. Lithorien
- WP:LIST is a style guideline, not an inclusion/deletion policy. Saying something is useful information, or that there are lots of other similar articles, or I like it do not make something encyclopedic. Many of the other lists of fictional things are up for deletion; for those that aren't, I'd welcome a discussion on them, too. Agent 86 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When the person who started the nomination for deletion uses WP:LIST for justification to delete, then it's fair to use it for justification to keep. If you'd like to throw out that part of the argument, you still have to address the fact that the list does contain useful information. Lithorien 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Turback

Having investigated all contributions made by this article's creator, I can see that it was created by Michael Turback himself. He has also inserted himself into lists of notable people [52] and sprinkled spam links to his online department store (for which he was warned several times). Clearly self-promotion and violates Wikipedia:Autobiography. Icemuon 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ::mikm t 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't really see any assertion of notability, and there's a distinct lack of citation. Plus, failing WP:AUTO guidelines. Budgiekiller 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to Toledo Metropolitan Area. --Core desat 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities near Toledo, Ohio

A good example of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a gazeteer and articles of the form 'places near other places' just isn't encyclopedic Nuttah68 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a prime example of what WP isn't about, as per Nuttah68. Budgiekiller 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a sixteen-county two-state area with no obvious formal scope. Compare with the CSA, in this case Toledo Metropolitan Area. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deciding whether somewhere is "near" somewhere else is inherently POV. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Near" is a poor term for a list, and information on Toledo's suburbs are already covered in other articles as Dhartung points out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toledo Metropolitan Area per all of the comments above. Dekimasu 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. --Core desat 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (song)

There have been suggestions for Invincible, Map of the Problematique and (sort of) Take a Bow as the next single within the last few weeks. As a result, NOBODY knows which (if any) will be released. This article should be laid to rest until we know what the next single will be for definite. Look at the Muse forum to see for yourself the confusion surrounding the next single. U-Mos 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Remains to be seen whether it will even be released, let alone whether or not it will turn out to be a notable single. Kafziel ^Talk 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, despite my edits on the page. Provided citations for this song as a single link to fan message boards only. Cbing01 ^Talk21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it until we find out what the next single will be. Andyroost 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Kafziel ^Talk 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Maybe there should be a note on the Black Holes and Revelations page stating the confusion over the next single. It certainly is mighty odd that three seemingly legitimate sources would announce four different singles as the next release. U-Mos 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal balling without a reliable source. —ShadowHalo 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle Sports

Non-notable pseudo-company. Does not meet WP:CORP. Mike Peel 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No assertion of notability and fails WP:CORP with no WP:RS. Budgiekiller 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unverified, mostly a staff directory of a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Agent 86 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only 'keep' is a conflict of interest, all 'references' on the page are to sqlmaestro.com, if it wasn't deleted via AFD it could have easily been deleted via WP:CSD#G11. Proto::► 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Maestro

This article is clearly advertising and not notable. Futurix 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources provided, no notability asserted, can this meet WP:CORP? Not at the moment. Budgiekiller 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. We are working on the content and improve it in several days. Fionik 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've improved the article according the Wikipedia Official Policy. Sqlmaestro 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still advertising (even more then before), shameless self-promotion, still non-notable... Futurix 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Futurix, what is the differ between your page FuturixImager and ours? I did utmost to write the article from the neutral point of view. May be you can advise me to do it better? Best Regards, Sqlmaestro. 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FuturixImager is not my page - I did not create it, I did not write it, and except two minimal changes I haven't edited it. Writing page about your product is promotion and forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Futurix 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i have examined all pages in the Database administration tools category and found that this article not more advertising than any other article in this category. Fionik 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote here? You have created that page! You are biased. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page changed significantly from initial state. Don't bite newbies. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record - none of the other pages in the Database administration tools category are as blatant advertising as yours. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Completely not true. Let's take an example Advanced Query Tool. Can you show difference betwen AQT page and SQL Maestro? What makes AQT not advertising article comparing with SQL Maestro? What makes SQL Maestro blatant advertizing? Can you give clear answer? Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters though - even if they were advertising, this is not an excuse for yours (this is a hint to admins to remove that advertising as well). Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they all advertising or not? If they advertising they all should be deleted, if they not advertising then your assertions about this page are biased because it has no differences from the other pages in this category. I just noticed that the article about viewer you created was added to the list of articles for deletion (hint, it was not me). Now i understand why you see so called "advertising" on SQL Maestro page. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday everning I asked an absolutely neutral man, a very respected person, a university professor (I can give the contact information if it's necessary) to remake the article. Three Wikipedia policies of Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View are observed.

In fact, before blaming in an advertisement let's understand the difference between an information article and an advertisement. If a mention about a thing with its short performance attributes is an advertisement, so this article and the main part of Wikipedia articles are advertisements. So, Parmalat is an advertisement of yoghurts, cheeses, butters, ice creams. Bolshoi Theatre is undoubtedly an advertisement of the theatre. Nero Burning ROM and Nero Digital are naturally avertisements of the appropriate shareware. Aside from, I guess the author of a product and the author of an article about the product may be the same person. All the more, such an accordance is nondescript.

2 Futurix: Sasha, ne volnuites. Krugom svoi i vsem kushat hochetsya :) Sqlmaestro 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me!

It is not verifiable anywhere except your own page (~~Verifiability~~), it is written by author(s) of the software (~~No Original Research~~, ~~NPOV~~) - the article violates every relevant Wikipedia rule.

Articles of Parmalat, Bolshoi Theatre, Nero Burning ROM, etc - are informational texts written by third-party people, who do not profit from the article: that's the main difference here. In your case we have article about a new (virtually unknown) commercial product, written by authors of the software - do I really need to spell out what's wrong here?

And, finally, you clearly know all that - the translation of your message in Russian ("Sasha, don't worry. There are friends around, and everyone wants to eat.") implies that.

Futurix 11:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7)+(G11).--Hús ö nd 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NESguide

Random website that doesn't assert it's notability, mostly because it's not notable Clyde (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 ::mikm t 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - spam. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Alvarez

Seems entirely unremarkable, therefore non-notable - DeleteAsstBot (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) DeleteAsstBot

Keep - Unless mistaken, the president of McDonald's is notable. Article needs formatting and fleshing out. -Seinfreak37 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article should be stubified and, as Seinfreak37, needs supersizing. Budgiekiller 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Seinfreak37 ::mikm t 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The second external link is for the Forbes profile on this corporate president which meets the WP:BIO first criterion of this person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Also meets WP:SNOW. Ronbo76 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. COO of a major US corporation. ^Blank ^Verse 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and protect from re-creation. It was a valid G4, as these sentences are the same as the first two sentences in the deleted version. --Core desat 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients

Note: This page was listed on AfD before and recreated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients.

This is a hoax, the only source appears to be this page, and as the site's index page states for that article 'In our neck of the woods "rare"="make-believe.'. FredOrAlive 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given in the previous AFD, namely hoax. Also WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a repost if the small amount of content is the same as the content deleted in the AfD a year ago; delete as unverifiable otherwise. -- Kicking222 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete there are no reliable sources confirming that this exists. --65.95.18.81 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a repost, but still a total and utter non-notable hoax unless proven otherwise. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bio info moved to Rahm Emanuel, this article will be deleted.. Avi 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel

Twice tagged as speedy (not by me), once as attack, once as nonnotable. Moving here for fuller discussion. I'm neutral. NawlinWiki 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Update Given the two Keep votes below, this is not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. The result of this AFD may still be to delete, but please don't re-add the speedy tag. It will just get removed again. Let's let the discussion play out here. NawlinWiki 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update If the slanderous material is dropped as has been done as per the history page

06:21, 11 January 2007 Chick Bowen (stubbify per WP:BLP, used sources that were not reliable)

Then I do not object to using regular AfD instead of speedy delete, if the slanderous material is reverted back in then I will follow wiki-guidelines and call for its Speedy Deletion.--Wowaconia 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion as non-notable. I did so because the sources given in the article are not about this man. This first is mainly about his son, Rahm. The second is not a reliable source and is highly anti-semitic "He has been the Acting Deputy Chief, for North America, of The Mossad, Israeli Intelligence." and the 3rd mentions Benjamin, but the focus is again on his son, Rahm. As such, he fails WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person".--Thomas.macmillan 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:BIO. Budgiekiller 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficiently notable. Jonathunder 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable. Wowaconia (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has some sort of problem with the articles on members of this family, which seem to involve protecting a politician against what he sees as negative facts. he shouldn't be allowed to get his way on this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attack page devoted to a non-notable father of a U.S. politician. Relies on unreliable and POV sources and speculation for defamatory allegations, in violation of WP:BLP. Edison 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the "attack page" aspect; certain claims are mentioned, attributed, and questioned. That seems to be pretty much what an article should do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only noticable for offspring, content should be taken up in their article rather than the creation of new article Arnoutf 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response is conditional on whether the page is reverted to eliminate the changes made by Chick Bowen on 06:21, 11 January 2007.

If not reverted I vote merge. The one new sentence found in a reliable source by Chick Bowen should be moved to the Rahm Emanuel page where the rest of the reliably sourced info on this page was cut and pasted from.

If reverted SPEEDILY DELETED I have argued and will continue to argue that this page metirts speedy deletion as an attack page against Benjamin M. Emanuel's son Rep. Rahm Emanuel if the claims from blogs it cited are included.

Comment To clarify any uncertainty about whether the inclusion of the claims made by these blogs would render this article an attack page look at the blogs cited http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/S_284_S/Overthrow%20series/Rahm%20Emanuel.htm

it asserts that “[Rahm] Emanuel is no stranger to political assassination. His father was reputedly part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count Bernadotte, part of a U.N. team in Palestine in 1948.”--Wowaconia 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other blog mentioned

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Emanuel.html makes similar claims:

"American congressman Rahm Emanuel, is the son of a terrorist.… Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm's father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s. …Irgun, the army of his father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi, which supposedly means something like "National Military Organization" in Hebrew. As a matter of fact, the Irgun was simply a terrorist Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. They killed innocent Palestinians and British soldiers and blew up buildings."

This source also asserts that the events of 9/11 where caused by this organization they claim Emanuel was part of saying, “The Irgun even has a website with pictures of the buildings they blew up before they demolished the World Trade Center with Thermite and high explosives”

It should be obvious that these unsubstantiated claims are not up to wikistandards and if they are included this page should be Speedily Deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Biographies_of_living_persons .--Wowaconia 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of quoting material that isn't in the article in order to argue against the article itself — unless you're tring to smear it by association. Note also that deletion of anarticle shouldn't be based upon its curent contents (that's a matter for improvement and rewriting). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above question of relevance: The material from the blogs isn't in the article anymore because it was removed, in the past I had removed this material citing the same standards that were used to create this current version. I did this on 19:31, 10 January 2007 but in little over an hour they were reverted back in by User:Mel Etitis at 20:38, 10 January 2007. Mel Etitis also took me to task on my user-talk page for "deleting large swathes of text". As I had posted my objections to the article before the edit removing the blogged material was allowed to stand, that is why it is mentioned. As the previous revision by User:Mel Etitis cited the bloggers belief that Benjamin M. Emanuel “participated in the assasination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte in 1948” I included the above points. I also included quotes from the blog about 9/11 being done by Irgun (of whom the blog claimed that "After 1948 they became part of the new Israeli government") to show that this source was not only unreliable but also anti-Semitic and a promoter of the generally discounted conspiracy theory that it was the Jews who were behind 9/11. I was astonished that it was being argued continually that these are reliable sources and that quoting them in any manner was acceptable according to wiki-standards. As Mel Etitis was an early contributor to the article that included the blog statements (see page history at 10:33, 7 January 2007 and 10:29, 7 January 2007) I was worried that he would simply revert User:Chick Bowen's edits away to restore the blogged material and accuse him as he has me on my talk page of having "some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family". (See also his accusation above that I'm "protecting a politician against what he sees as negative facts. he shouldn't be allowed to get his way on this.") These comments were made because I removed the same blogged statement that Benjamin M. Emanuel "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" on the page Ari Emanuel that he allowed in his edit of that page on 10:35, 7 January 2007 and his edit on 19:47, 9 January 2007 where he himself inserted onto the Rahm Emanuel page the claim that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization". I find it troubling that he failed to disclose any of this when he posted his response on this page.--Wowaconia 10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rahm Emanuel. This is an attack page using unreliable sources for a non-notable person. This can be dealt with by a sentence or two in the article for his US politician son. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't qualify for any speedy deletion, but ultimately article amounts to a claim of notablity based on subject's notable child and then discussing sometimes contradictory claims by internet sources (of questionable reliability) that subject perform certain actions nearly sixty years ago. First, notability is generally non-transferable. Second, the questionable sources would not constitute multiple independent published works necessary to establish notability under WP:BIO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danntm (talk • contribs) 05:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Dang, I go on a thorough analysis only to forget to sign the thing. I have to stop !voting after Midnight. Anyway, although independent notability has not been established for an independent article, Merge and Redirect to his of properly sourced information is an acceptable outcome.-- danntm ^T _C 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have stubbified it and removed the material that was sourced only to unreliable websites. This AfD can proceed--no need for any more speedy tags. Chick Bowen 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided another source as well. Chick Bowen 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bowen as long as his edits that removed the slanderous material are not reverted.--Wowaconia 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there was a posting made about this article to WP:V [Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Can_one_create_an_article_that_centers_around_the_fact_that_blogs_accuse_the_person_of_being_a_murderer.3F]. - Johntex\^talk 08:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rahm Emanuel. Article seems to center around the subject being the father of someone who is themselves borderline notable. No need for a separate article. Johntex\^talk 08:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Although there are now reliable source citations for the subject, IMHO they are still too "trivial" as to Benjamin Emmanual to qualify him under WP:BIO, so not independently notable. TheronJ 12:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per TheronJ and others. Current sources only establish indirect notability via Rahm Emanuel. Crum375 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I tried to speedy it before, but this seems likea better option now.--Thomas.macmillan 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, if being discussed on the Internet makes one notable all of us should have an article! Seraphimblade 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect Family can be reason for being notable, but only in a truly exceptional case, such as a head of state or a similarly exceptionally well known figure. That is not the case here. (None the less it was not a speedy, & this has been the proper place to discuss it).DGG 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Pence

nn neologism game. Contested prod. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS. Fails the lot. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think Moreschi has it covered! Budgiekiller 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of policies listed by Moreschi, except WP:BOLLOCKS which it passes – because it is bollocks. Or could be, if only we could verify it. Anyway, borderline speedy in my books. Bubba HoTep 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you look at this diff and compare the names on the left to the username who created it, it could have been {{db-nonsense}} at that point, if it wasn't for the removal of this information and the claim to have migrated across state borders! Bubba HoTep 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS. SetofFive 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA-04X Zakrello

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they should be deleted because they are fictional weapons? Do you feel the same about Lightsaber and Death Star? Edward321 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: WP:INN. Longer answer: apples and oranges comparison, since those fictional weapons play important roles in the movies, with the attempted destruction of the latter being essentially the main plot of TWO movies. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*How does WP:INN apply? The poster made a blanket statement about fictional weapons, which if taken at face value means they should also be suggesting Lightsaber and Death Star as well. If that isn't what they meant, why did they even bring the issue up? Notability is a separate issue altogether. Edward321 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Folantin 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. It's just another piece of fictional equipment playing no really important part. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner is just in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per WP:FICT. There is no point in deleting this when it can be merged and cleaned up under WP:FICT's guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are to improve articles first over deleting them. Deleting articles should only be reserved for when there is no possibility to verify the contents of the article, it is entirely original research, or violates one of the specific points in WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. Minor characters should be merged (as per WP:FICT) but trivial things are best just not being mentioned at all. --Pak21 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pak21. Afd process is fine here. Articles are being considered on a case by case basis Bwithh 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup per WP:FICT. In the case of Fictional items, WP:FICT would supercede the cited policies, as it makes no sense otherwise (why have a seperate specific policy for a fictional items if it's outranked by a more general policy?) If there's a problem with having fictional material on Wikipedia, nominator should propose changes to policy instead of trying to backdoor his way through.. Xenon Zaleo 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. "I'm not a fan" is not grounds for deleting fictional subjects, and that's what these Gundam AfDs really ammount to. Redxiv 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reason other than WP:ILIKEIT? Because I have cited policy, you have not. IMO closing admins should ignore these ILIKEIT votes. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commet - You cited policy that's completely irrelevent as it should be superceded by WP:FICT. And while you also cited WP:FICT, supposed violation of WP:FICT is minor and should be corrected by rewrites, not deletion.Xenon Zaleo 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Pak21. The entire {{Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}} needs to be brought in line with WP:FICTION and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or deleted. --maclean 06:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Racing

The article in question fails to meet notability criteria with regard to available reference sources. It refers to an obscure racing team that completed barely half a season in a sub-class of British F3. I have contacted the original contributor via his talk page, but have received no response. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, as per Adrian M. H. Budgiekiller 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: non-notable, sub-stub. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This team is about to enter it's first year of racing in the British F3 series with no track record —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granger Tovets (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Actually, it started a few races in 2004, with no real achievement. I wasn't aware that it may return, but even if it does, the article can be created if/when there is something worthwhile to say about it. Adrian M. H. 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Protect

This is a non-notable political group that sits in a walled-off topic with few web or media mentions Rkevins82 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to assert notability. Problems with WP:V and WP:RS: also WP:CORP. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi. If kept, it certainly needs to be written more neutrally. Agent 86 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G7 [53]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League pitchers by pitches thrown

List will be too unwieldy, AFD request comes from article creator. Will think about using Categories for notable pitchers known for specific pitches in the future. Seinfreak37 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as creator says delete. Budgiekiller 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7 ::mikm t 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdingers

Appears to be an unverifiable locally-produced food product. Google search reveals lots of wikipedia mirrors and trivial web forums that are unrelated to the product itself (mostly related to a couple of references on Mystery Science Theater 3000); article itself mentions that the product's existence is disputed. I suspect at least one person from Wisconsin or Minnesota might see this AfD and insist s/he has seen or eaten one of these things, but it can't really stay on wikipedia without some kind of proof of existence or definitive evidence that it's not just a local variant name for spam, or one town's nickname for a ham sandwich. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No evidence of notability. Kafziel ^Talk 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this spam (while not spam) isn't notable. Budgiekiller 20:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no reliable sources. I'm from Minnesota, but I've never seen these for sale at Cub Foods or Rainbow Foods, and I doubt Lunds or Byerly's sell them either. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wisconsinite here for the last 14 years and never seen nor heard of them outside of MST3K. But I am a vegetarian... Otto4711 05:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can find references that are not MST3K related. Advertisement reference. Obscure? Yes. I'm not even sure it qualifies as notable. But it did exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Vernon (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We need evidence that Hamdingers are notable, not just evidence that they exist. I exist, but I don't get to have an article because I'm not notable. If we delete articles about elementary schools and politicians, we can certainly delete an article about a spam sandwich. :) Kafziel ^Talk 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would further suggest that someone's reminiscence, several times removed, posted on a webforum is not really "evidence" per se. It still doesn't establish what a hamdinger is, where they come from, etc etc, and is not firm proof that they even exist.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per insufficient reasons for deletion. Nishkid 64 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution of children

I wish to have this article deleted for the following reason: It is completely in need of a cleanup, it needs a complete rewrite, as the form it is written in is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.--Rasillon 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completing malformed nomination Mart inp23 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure that a subjective decision for a complete rewrite should result an AFD. It's been tagged so no need to delete, an encyclopaedic subject with plenty of sources. Budgiekiller 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if an article needs a re-write, that's not a reason to delete. As Budgiekiller states, it is an encylopedic article, and there is no reason in policy to delete. Would suggest a speedy close (and am slighty confused as to why Rasillon nommed this after I explained the "rules" to him on MSN - meh) Mart inp23 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep invalid rationale for deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above ::mikm t 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since the nomination states an invalid reason for deletion "It needs rewrite". So Fix It. Edison 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above, try to find help for rewrite instead of AfD nomination. Arnoutf 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So the article's crap. No different from great swathes of Wikipedia... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Child prostitution which currently redirects to the article. Otto4711 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Bigg-Wither

Nom and vote...
Del on this exquisite model of WP-Bio style, which nevertheless is technically eligible for speedy-deletion under provision A7, no claim of notability, and appears to address a n-n topic and person.

_ _ (IMO speedy deletion of such a long-standing and thoroughly collaborated-upon article would abuse both the process and the concept of "speedy".)

_ _ I will joyfully change my vote to Keep if it can be shown that seriously regarded academic Austen scholarship has kept alive any theory of how the night of the 2nd and morning of the 3rd of December 1802 had an impact in her writings -- perhaps mediated by later thots and discussions of them. But the absence of such information in such a polished bio makes me believe no such scholarship exists, despite its eminently plausibility but for the article's history. (I would add that evidence to its talk page, confident that others will eventually reflect it in the article, as would be necessary in the long run.)

_ _ I note that instances of notability are far, far fewer than instances of notability being avoided by at least one factor amounting to a hair's breadth, so that each of many such hair's-breadths are always what has made all the difference in achieving notability rather than utter non-notablity. And being one of the hair's breadths that didn't prevent someones else's notablity is not in itself notable.

_ _ I also would hope that it is obvious that good men, fine manor houses, and English country squires are about a dime a dozen, and thus non-notable, and i trust that the closer will require those asserting notability based on those elements to meet a high evidentiary standard.
-Jerzy•t 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be no true assertion of notability other than having failed to marry Jane Austen. His place in WP is secured by his inclusion in the Jane Austen article. Sad though, this is by far the most eloquent AFDs I've ever read, and the article is one of the most elegant biographies I've seen that should be deleted. Budgiekiller 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, even fails to make the 'relatives of notable people are not inherently notable' level. Nuttah68 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Budgiekiller: little assertion of notability, and having failed to marry Jane Austen is a pretty weak reason why we should have an article on him, when you think about it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not Wales's Peerage and we do not compile biographies merely to fill in genealogical trees. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afterall if Jane Austen gave him the the flick, Wikipedia might as well too. He's still my 4th Gt Granddaddy and he will always be notable to my family - with or without Wikipedia. :-) --BMR789 01:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE although the two who indicated "delete and maybe merge" should know that their opinions have to be discounted. We can't delete and merge. -Doc^g 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay cruising in Canada

Was prodded, but removed on grounds of "censorship". Basically, this article is not notable and currently consists of a list of places gay men can go for sex. Not something we need on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT #2, this isn't a travel guide, take it to Wikitravel. Budgiekiller 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Budgiekiller ::mikm t 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic, fails WP:V and WP:RS: also WP:OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minus the list of cruising spots. The top part of the article seems reasonably sourced and gay cruising is certainly a sociological phenomenon worthy of encyclopedic attention. Otto4711 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and then Merge relevant bits to Cruising for sex (which itself I'm wary of). Once you remove the list of popular spots (which is patently unencyclopedic and almost impossible to verify) you're left with a stub which can't really be improved. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, although perhaps a bit of the article could improve Cruising for sex.-- danntm ^T _C 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a place on Wikipedia for an encyclopedic treatment of cruising as a sociological phenomenon, but a list of cruising spots doesn't really fulfill that. For comparison, the article gay bathhouse — which is certainly the model for how an article on gay cruising grounds should be structured — talks about the sociological aspects of bathhouse culture, but apart from noting a few specific bathhouses with special political or cultural significance, it does not provide an extensive list of specific individual bathhouses. And since I'm a gay man, my misgivings about this article are not coming from a homophobic or censorious place; it's genuinely coming from "does this really need to be in an encyclopedia?" The top blurb can be legitimately added to other articles and the list of cruising grounds is just unencyclopedic, so delete. Bearcat 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe merge some of the useful material to Cruising for sex, but completely fails WP:V and even WP:OR. Arjun 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete for now, recreate when it becomes reality if you wish.. Avi 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ATP Masters Series

The article is superfluous in MPOV. The great original ATP Masters Series article contains all the relevant information on the subject, the detailed score of AMS finals. The semifinals and below results interests only few people, I think, mostly fans, who can find that info on the official pages that can be reached via the links in the main article. Moreover there are no such articles for 2006, 2005 etc and it does not seem that there is a need for them. Scineram 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above, and it also concerns a future event for which little valuable information is yet available. Dar-Ape 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The main article at ATP Masters Series has indeed all the finals of the tournaments through the years mentioned, although from the earlier years only the winners. The information is not superfluous, it's just expanded, just like what happens all over Wikipedia as more people get involved and current events are more in the picture. What makes you think only fans are interested in that information? The fact that there are no such articles in previous years is no reason to delete these, after all, they can and maybe should be created to prevent the main article to become too big in the future, just like what's done in other sports and other happenings all over Wikipedia. Also the fact that this is still a future event does not mean anything to me, this is happening in March already and there are many articles on events available already which start later than these events. SportsAddicted | discuss 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If listed on the main page, the year-by-year history would soon overwhelm the rest of the article. Keep individual seasons in their own articles. Neier 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, a link from the main article should indeed be included. SportsAddicted | discuss 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a link from the main article should indeed be included.alsookayy

Keep - that previous year's articles do not exist is no reason to delete this one. A notable series of events, with easily-verified information, and certain to take place. Eludium-q36 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the article contains information that would be included in the same format in 2007 ATP Tour. Unless expanded any further, I move to Delete.--Nitsansh 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the idea to also add a summary on every tournament to mention news in the earlier stages as well as other notibilities, which is unlikely to happen at the 2007 ATP Tour article. SportsAddicted | discuss 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time being, the article has no use, because the first Masters Series tournaments isn't until March. I suggest that this discussion should be halted until we can see what "beef" is going to be filled in.--Nitsansh 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nitsansh, delete, protect and then recreate in March. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Protect? For what? If the result is temporary deletion, I'm not going to recreate it before March. SportsAddicted | discuss 13:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as no verification provided. Please do bring any additional evidence to my talk page, or questions about how things work, appeals, what it takes to stay, etc, to my talk page. I'm always happy to talk about it. - brenneman 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionSwap

Fails WP:WEB Rightfully in First Place 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for 2007-01-10 19:31 GMT Apologies for editing (possibly incorrectly) but could someone enlighten me regarding the reasons for the QS wiki entry being considered for deletion?

It said the reasons could be traced/checked on this page, but I see no reason apart from an expansive list of potential reasons.

This page has just been noticed by the main users of QS, and as such has been subject to a sudden storm of changes: mostly minor.

Thanks to any Editor who is willing to spend time explaing this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.96.84 (talk • contribs) 19:35, January 10, 2007.

Hi. The article QuestionSwap was nominated for deletion because an editor thinks it does not meet the qualifications laid out in WP:WEB, our notability guidelines for web sites. If you think that the subject is notable and should be kept, your best bet is to find evidence that QuestionSwap does meet those qualifications and lay them out here. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for information on how to participate in an AFD discussion. - Vary | Talk 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The site has a respectable page rank, and apparently a decent number of members as internet forums go, but bbc article provided as a reference is, unfortunately, a 404. Can the members who have recently taken notice of this article perhaps provide some more (as in, multiple, non-trivial ones?) If kept, though, there's a lot of cruft (like the list of high profile members) that will have to go. -- Vary | Talk 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This wiki entry covers a web phenomenon which has become popular for many reasons. One notable surge of users followed it being featured as one of the "year's 10 best time-killer websites" by the Times Newspaper (UK) I'm unable to provide proof: I didn't keep the paper. Personally, (If the site were my creation) I'd be pretty chuffed with that, and count it as a notable award.. Featured Questions have also been broadcast on Radio 1. (UK) though I'm unsure if they were correctly attributed :( I speak for many on the board: Not all are net-savy enough to edit these pages. Thanks for your time. EDIT: and sure.. we can happily ditch the "members" area. :o)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensiblenick (talk • contribs) 21:38, January 10, 2007

Most newspapers keep their archives online. If you could get someone to dig up a link, that would help, but there would need to be more than one to qualify under item one of WP:WEB. If you can prove that the site's content is re-used by Radio 1, that might qualilfy under item three. If there's anything out there that will help the site pass wp:web, I'm sure one of your members will be able to turn it up pretty quickly. I've found a valid link to the click column, and I'm adding it to external links now; you'll still need more than one non-trivial mention in a book/newspaper/magazine to qualify under item one. It will be up to the participants in the discusion to determine if this or other media references are 'non-trivial.' -- Vary | Talk 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I'm Adam Marmaras and I run QuestionsSwap. It is a non-profit exercise. I know there are adverts on the page but most days they net me $0.00 in revenue. It doesn't cover the hosting. The site has over 1.2 million questions in the database and is a valuable reference for many people, just like Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.90.218 (talk • contribs) 08:38, January 11, 2007.

Comment A "tidyup" has now occurred in a sincere attempt to bring this Wikipedia Entry in-line with earlier comments regarding the "Members" section. The QS Forums Section has also been edited to distance the reader from any of the specific personalities on the site; hopefully making the entry more useful as a reference. 62.119.149.235 09:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the members section was soemething that would need to be fixed if the page is kept, not in order for the page to be kept. AFD is not a vote, and if proof is not provided that the site passes WP:WEB, as I've requested above, the page will probably be deleted no matter how many of the site's users post Keeps here. -- Vary | Talk 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete in absence of any references or proof of notability. -- Vary | Talk 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Ragab

I was trying to source this article, but both Emad Ragab and Ahmad Ragab don't seem to bring anything significative... I can't assert any notability so I bring this article to AfD. This article was tagged as being of low notability since last June. weak delete -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability and a good deal of Arabic which should be translated. The sources seem to hang my machine, so I can't comment on the WP:RS, should they exist. Not a great deal on Google either. Budgiekiller 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we can't get at the sources, we can't judge their content, so they're worthless. Does not assert notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also searched in Arabic and couldn't find any reliable sources that assert his notability. Most results in Arabic were either of his home page or his poems and articles published in other sites. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Tango. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field

Can you say, POV fork? And not even one that could be developed. This information, if sources are available, should be incorporated into the CNBC article, but nothing more. -- Merope 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is asking for POV forks Arnoutf 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comment copied from article) This article should not be deleted, as it is not a debate. The fact that these people have not had jobs on Wall Street is fact, not opinion. Anyone who suggests this article be deleted is clearly working for CNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiondeion (talk • contribs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merope (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool title though, I think it could be longer though. Budgiekiller 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the author's very persuasive arguments. Original research and pov. Hey, does this mean I work for CNBC now? $weet! Kafziel ^Talk 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is completely pointless.--C J King 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nuttier than all get out. Mr Christopher 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete attack page with no good version to revert to. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the anchors concerned have never even held a moderately high position in the financial field, then those issues should be confirmed by a reliable source and mentioned in the individual articles on those anchors. Even at that, mentions of the anchors' job history should only be added if relevant -- i.e. a well-placed critic determines a bias or errors in reporting by an anchor who isn't experienced. What's next? CNBC anchors who have used a moderately powerful tractor to plow a soybean field? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baleete. The fact that this survived for more than 2 minutes shocks me. ~ Flame vip e r 21:31, 10 January 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 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lady Records

A tiny record label that went defunct in 2003? Non-notable, surely. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think Proto has done a marvellous job of improving this article and it is only for the sake of process that I am leaving this AfD open. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - does not assert notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - striking vote after excellent cleanup job. Bravo! Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure how this can meet WP:CORP and, as per Moreschi, zip on WP:RS. Budgiekiller 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Proto's excellent work. The Rambling Man 08:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the artist formally known as BK).[reply]
Very strong keep. The record label is (or rather, was, sadly) notable, being one of the first feminist / lesbian record labels in the souther states of the U.S.A., and being recognised for this. The label distributed records by numerous notable feminist bands, including Team Dresch, Le Tigre and The Butchies. It is tricky finding multiple reliable non-affiliated sources over the net for a indie label that went defunct in 2004, but I have done so, I believe:
- First reliable source - a July 2004 farewell to the label from Discorder, the online magazine of CITR-FM ([54]).
- Second reliable source - [55], a flyer and background biog of the label (from an independant source) preceding a show on their video art work at the Weisman Art Museum in 2001.
- Third reliable source - article on the Independent Weekly about the label - [56]
I have also found another 5 or 6, all of which have also now gone into the article, but the three above are particularly solid. Article already asserted notability, but definitely does so now, and is now reliably sourced. Article passes WP:CORP easily, with the subject meeting criteria 1 (The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself). Please review the article again in its updated state. Proto::► 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Proto's overhaul. Note: It is sometimes considered courteous to let the original author know that the article they created is up for AfD. – Bubba HoTep 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after protos excellent cleanup job. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will not do so myself, but could another admin close this, perhaps, given the nominator has effectively withdrawn their nomination? Proto::► 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, particularly with reference to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival debate ( which is a notable debate for trans people, and which we should certainly be documenting ). WMMartin 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scene kids

AfD nominated by Tamajared with reason: "This is a page for Urban Dictionary. My own Chonga article was deleted because it was not notable enough, so why have this one stay?" This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unless someone is going to take this article under their wing, and do some serious research, in order to find sources (and thus bring this article up to standards) I lament of it ever being of encyclopedic quality. --Haemo 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete god i find these endless sub-sub-sub-cultures boring. Non notable. - PocklingtonDan 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - The only subcultures (besides obviously real ones such as "nerd" or "jock") that exist are ones that have actual roots in something, such as music; not ones that are "spinoffs" of existing ones. There could be an unlimited amount of these. Tamajared 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Time NHL Transactions

I am not even sure what to make of it, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best case scenario: filter it to just trades (no waivers) and merge the data into the individual season articles (ie: 2006-07 NHL Season). ccwaters 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. A list of every trade in the history of the NHL? That information isn't even encyclopedic enough to split off to the various season articles. Kafziel ^Talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, it is already a huge article, and has barely done 2% of the total seasons of the NHL. Remove it. Kaiser matias 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Absolutely unmaintainable. Fan-1967 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author is attempting to game the system by creating a copy under a different title, NHL transactions. I've added it above.Fan-1967 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yeah. I made it a speedy citing that it's a dupe. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I changed it to a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintable, unencyclopedic, and contains stuff that is not even trades (free agent signings) --Deenoe 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list changes too rapidly to be able to update it constantly. Second, per Kaiser matias, only a fraction of the NHL's seasons are listed in this article, making it not anywhere close to a complete encyclopedic article (if you can consider this encyclopedic in the first place.) Third, most people are probably more interested in knowing the trades that a particular team has made, instead of the trades made league-wide. This information can be found in the individual team's season articles. Ksy92003 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are just a copy of 2005-06 NHL transactions and 2006-07 NHL transactions. Resolute 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a collection of lists, and anyway there are no adequate references provided. WMMartin 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennesaw Mountain High School

School with no assertion of notability and no encyclopedic content. Hús ö nd 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Accredited high schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No such policy.--Hús ö nd 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia has information on plenty of high schools. Jason Smith 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not notability.--Hús ö nd 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And does not even seem to meet the proposed notability criteria for schools. Bubba HoTep 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is does for WP:SCHOOLS3 Pbroks13 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Why delete it, it'll get better. Articles take time, besides, it is a nationally recognized school. Pbroks13 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't even need to read the article. From my own knowledge, I know this high school's marching band has won numerous regional competitions and has placed extremely highly in many national competitions. This gets it past the notability requirements for just about every WP:SCHOOLS proposal, right? --- RockMFR 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – yes, it's true, the marching band asserts notability on behalf of the school in the last section, but I'm not sure how this affects the school's overall notability. I see some people have been working on the article and will revisit it in due course to reassess my !vote. Bubba HoTep 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bubba's right. If the band is notable then it should have an article on itself, not an article about the school where it comes from. If Mr. Smith has a dog that is notable, would you write an article about the dog or Mr. Smith?--Hús ö nd 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. We don't usually make separate articles for notable high school sports teams and bands. If a school has a notable organization within it, that is reason to have an article about the school itself. WP:SCHOOL has been very clear about this. --- RockMFR 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense. If a high school would be notable simply and only for the fact that it has a notable band within its premises, then apart from the band there's nothing worthwhile to say about the school and therefore an article about the band would suffice. WP:SCHOOL is not a policy.--Hús ö nd 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, we should split some schools up into 5 or 10 different articles, depending on how many notable organizations they have. --- RockMFR 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I doubt such numbers would occur frequently.--Hús ö nd 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a school had 5 to 10 different notable organizations, it would be considered notable as a whole. The crux of this matter is two-fold: the notability of the school (contested), and the notability of the marching band (agreed) – therefore you would expect the claim to notability to be the main focus of the article and as such placed in a more prominent position. Just a thought. I'm still out for deliberation. Bubba HoTep 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3:
"2. The school has verifiably gained national recognition in an area such as curriculum (academics in U.S.), architecture, athletics, or extracurricular activities, or for its history or its program of instruction. For example, the school has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record.

- The band as well as the winterguard has many nationwide awards.

Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3 as well
"3. The school has verifiably gained regional recognition in at least two of the areas mentioned in criterion #2."

- Easy. 1) In 2004-05 The baseball team was the semifinalist the class AAAAA State tournament. 2) in 2004-05 the basketball team was the 5-AAAAA Region champions. — Pbroks13 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOL have never become policies. Wonder why.--Hús ö nd 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you tell me, why should it be deleted? Pbroks13 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See nomination. The article asserts no notability for the school, the subject of the article.--Hús ö nd 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it states the history, that its a magnet school, scores a higher average on the SAT and ACT than the rest of the nation, 1 of 5 magnet school in its county, basketball team region champs in the frist year of play, baseball state semifinalist in 1st year of play, marching band 7th in nation first year of competing in the national competition, as well as 4th, 2nd, 3rd every year they competed, and (although not stated, but soon to be), the winterguard was the Scholastic A DCI World Champions in 2004. How can you say that none of that is notable? Pbroks13 05:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The borderline between trivial and notable is at each one's own discretion. For me none of that information is encyclopedic. It's perfectly suited for the school's website which has the duty to provide that information, but not for Wikipedia which is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information that includes registries of all achievements of high school teams.--Hús ö nd 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not take every professional football and basketball team off wikipedia. You can find most of their information on ther own websites. Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The page could use a history section. — RJH (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep. Does not meet WP:SCHOOLS3 because no independent reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. Lacking independent sources, it should not be a stand-alone article. If it were to be kept, it would be in serious need of cleanup, anyway. Redirect to Kennesaw or Cobb County is probably preferable to deletion. Shimeru 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article needs continued work, but I also think there's potential for this article. I added a minor reference for the achievements for the band. I know high school articles will always be controversial, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools is trying to improve their quality. --Jh12 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schools3. Not even remotely notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Schools3, they are very notable. Please read my above post, (starts with Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3:) Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Perhaps this article should have been prodded when is was less developed, but it is a clear keep as of now. I found some interesting, encyclopaedic, information while creating the Campus section and identified two design/construction articles I think that need creating as a result. I have yet to see a single high school AfD that could be justified, especially in light of Jimbo's previous comment on the subject, since every one that I looked at had sufficient online information that was reliable and verifiable to edit the article to at least Start Class.--Hjal 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment---I'm the guy who kinda started trying to fix up the page and stuff, and I'm kind of new to this whole "articles for deletion" discussion thing...so I was just wondering if there was a time frame for stuff like this, and i just wanted to say thanks to all the people who have helped me with the page and to all of you guys who are making sure that Wikipedia articles are all legit and well made. CRD07 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence is not notability. There's nothing notable about this school: sure it exists, but what's notable about it ? The article doesn't say. Deeply sad that Wikipedia has been hijacked by the schools crowd. WMMartin 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — WMMartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . User seems to be a likely single-purpose account used for AfD participation, may be WP:SOCK violation to avoid scrutiny, as good hand/bad hand account or for multiple voting. Alansohn 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perturbed by the above comment, and particularly perturbed that the person who made it did not feel able to contact me directly. I would encourage him to "assume good faith" here and elsewhere. I have added a note about why I participate in AfD debates to my user-page, which I hope is useful. I have also added a comment to the above user's talk-page. The problem for me is that I feel that for a school to be notable it has to do something more than just exist and teach students. The two places where notability might most plausibly be asserted for this school are: (a) the fact that it's a magnet school, and (b) the supposedly unusual steelwork in the architecture. On (a) I feel that although the policy of magnet schools is notable, the individual schools so designated are not per se notable unless their teaching styles develop unique characteristics that are not general to all magnet schools. On (b) I feel that the reference from the "Steel Joist Institute" simply uses the school as an example of an architectural and construction technique, and does not assert any particular notability for the school building per se. On balance, therefore, I do not feel that notability is sufficiently clearly established. I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. WMMartin 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is an excellent, encyclopedic article that makes explicit claims of notability per both WP:SCHOOL and per WP:SCHOOLS3, as noted above. Sources provided are relevant, reliable and verifiable. Nominator offers no standard by which this article fails to demonstrate notability, other than his knee-jerk rejection of this article, making it impossible to demonstrate that an objective standard has -- or has not -- been met. Alansohn 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no decision, malformed, try again later at own discretion. - brenneman 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles that have been merged into Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe

An incredibly massive amount of articles in the Gundam series that I merged into this article. Once you've seen one, you've basically seen them all. Medium-sized articles of non-notable fictional weapons. ~ Flame vip e r 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Here's a list if you want to see them: FA-010A FAZZ - FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type - FD-03 Gustav Karl - MSA-007 Nero - MSA-0011 (MSZ-011) S Gundam - RAG-79 Aqua GM - RB-79 (RX-76) Ball - RGC-80 GM Cannon – RGC-83 GM Cannon II - RGM-79 (RX-79) GM - RGM-86R GM III – RGM-89 Jegan - RGZ-91 Re-GZ - RX-104FF Penelope - RX-75 Guntank - RX-77 Guncannon - RX-78 Gundam - RX-78GP Gundam GP series - RX-79 Gundam - RX-93 Nu Gundam - MSZ-006+ (MSK-006) Zeta Plus - TGM-79 (RGM-79T) GM Trainer)

Merge the rest of them in. Split the page if you need more space. --Ineffable3000 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Othwerwise, Redirect as redundant. ~ Flame vip e r 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize that if these are merged, they can't be deleted, right? Edit history must be maintained for all of them. --- RockMFR 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect except for those that are already under AfD. Redirects for those articles should only be created after those AfDs are over. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't imagine this ending in any other way than a train wreck. Copy and paste merge of all of them has merely created an enormous nightmare out of many bad articles. None of the articles even link to this discussion. Some of these articles already have their own discussions which are trainwrecking as we speak (RX-78 Gundam has been included in THREE DIFFERENT NOMINATIONS). Anyone with any sense will run away from this nomination as fast as possible. --- RockMFR 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pretty much all the keep votes above. The merge that has been done has made an utter trainwreck of the articles, it needs to be undone and redone properly. Kyaa the Catlord 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can fix that. And also, is there an option to close the debate with "trainwreck"? ~ Flame vip e r 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You can close it by withdrawing the nomination. This is especially helpful if the nomination is too ambiguous that editors don't know what is being nominated in the first place, which seems to be the case. --Farix (Talk) 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the new article's a mess, but frankly, I'd rather have some centralized discussion there, rather than having it carry on in twenty different AfDs for twenty different articles. Quack 688 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the fact that we need to close this because it will be a desator. I may be wrong but I think that we should blank Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe and do a set of proper mergers. I would also wait for the end of the AFD of RX-78 Gundam before merging that one because it that one appears to have a decent chance of surviving AFD and it also makes little sense to have the same article as a part of 3 ongoing AFDs. There would be a lot of confusion if it was kept in its AFD and deleted here for example. I think it is too probablamatic. --65.95.16.65 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what do you mean by "proper merge"? You are looking at 16 different articles here (and probably two of those could have standalone articles other then RX-78 Gundam). Unless you are suggesting a history merge, in which case blanking the merged article is completely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to blank the new page. The new page gives editors familiar with the subject an opportunity to start creating a decent list out of the mass-merge, while removing unencyclopedic detail from minor units. Its talk page could also be used to discuss which units are notable enough for their own articles. I think that a less-inflamed forum than AfD for that discussion might be useful at this time. Quack 688 12:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely what is happening in WP:GUNDAM, btw. Kyaa the Catlord 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone discussion until the current set of Gundam AfDs have finished. At the moment, this is just going to generate more heat than light --Pak21 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per ANI, the nominator's account has been blocked due to it being compromised. Could we get this article withdrawn for this reason? Kyaa the Catlord 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe is not arranged at all, and content is incorrect, and it is a very incomprehensible page. You should just leave an original page. --shikai shaw 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe is admittedly a trainwreck, but it's a work in progress. It is no more "incorrect" than the previous pages, as it is merely a master page that includes the exact content of all the subpages. What do you even mean by "original page"? ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least we should keep RX-78 Gundam because that survivied a recent AFD attempt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.172.30 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty South Improv

Violates WP:VAIN and WP:N. --Ineffable3000 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references/sources. WMMartin 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not think that is the best reason for deleting an article. In my opinion, the reason for deletion is plain vanity and non-notability. --Ineffable3000 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, WP:V and WP:RS are excellent reasons for deleting an article. Hence my agreement to delete. This article provides neither. No prejudice to recreation if proper citation and sources supporting assertions to notability and encyclopedic value are provided. Agent 86 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it is verifiable thus it does not fail WP:V. An article only fails WP:V if it cannot be verified, not if it is not currently verified. Here's verification [57] - the google gives plenty more. However, as to whether it should be deleted as not notable, I abstain.--Doc^g 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Fatalism

Neologism, no reliable sources provided: Google search for "neo-fatalism" finds that, other than in the context of mirrors of this article, the term is not widely used. Delete. The Anome 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to determinism. --Ineffable3000 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - Same thing as determinism but I never heard the term neo-fatalism used before. --Ineffable3000 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And WP:NEO. And this says it all, really. Bubba HoTep 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like determinism, etc. with the "neo" tag added to everything. Ergo, WP:OR. SkierRMH 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to determinism - PocklingtonDan 10:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redirect to determinism, as term not widely used ( per google-hittage ). WMMartin 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All delete opinions were prior to the article improvement. GRBerry 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant joke

Unencyclopedic, merely a list of jokes. If it should exist at all, then it should be at Wikisource or elsewhere. The first AfD was speedy closed as no deletion rationale was given. Ezeu 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. It is a substantially different article now. --Ezeu 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This is simply an index or directory of elephant jokes. Nothing in the article demonstrates encyclopedic value. We don't need umbrella-articles for every dime-a-dozen topic that has been the subject matter for jokes. Agent 86 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent86. There's nothing encyclopediaic here, apart from maybe the joke by Groucho Marx - but that should go on Groucho Marx's page...or Wikiquote:Groucho Marx or maybe even Wikiquote:Elephant. --Montchav 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD was pretty dodgy. Ignorable even. --Montchav 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, in fact, quite a lot of serious documentation and discussion of elephant jokes in books and in journal articles, in particular of the elephant joke craze that began in the United States in 1963. (I've already cited one such article in Folklore of the United States#Further reading. There are plenty of others.) The problem with this article is that it contains almost none of this discussion, cites no sources, and relies mainly upon original research analyses by Wikipedia editors of the actual jokes themselves. That problem is a matter of cleanup, not deletion, however. Coincidentally, I've just improved shaggy dog story, which was at one point just as bad as this article currently is. I'm rather pressed for time at the moment, but I'll have a go at improving this article too.
To see that, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, there's scope for more than a stub article here and that fixing this is simply a matter of modifying the article to use what sources provide, see the aforementioned journal article, pages 142 et seq. of ISBN 0765806592, pages 59 et seq. of ISBN 0395572266, pages 116 et seq. of ISBN 0813013968, the whole of chapter 2 of ISBN 0813117747, pages 23–25 of ISBN 0252027868, and page 4 of ISBN 0813918111. Feel free to use these sources, and the many others that exist on the subject, to improve the article before I have the opportunity to do so. Keep. Uncle G 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Uncle G. WMMartin 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Keep, Uncle G has transformed this into a brilliant article. Paul B 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (police officer)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Otto4711 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is not a memorial but a Police Officer shot dead in the Capitol is notable, no?--Sully 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is notable but that doesn't automatically confer notability on the people involved in the incident. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Grady where the event (Brinks robbery (1981)) is notable but the individual officer isn't. Otto4711 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be automatic but in this case the incident was notable enough for them to have funerals attended by members of congress and lying in honor in the Rotunda. This may well be because of circumstance but it does give them an element of notability, every other person to have done so has an article.--Sully 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this article and Jacob Chestnut to Russell Eugene Weston, per longstanding precedent for crime victims (particularly multiple victims of one criminal). --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect- per Dhartung. —Dylan Lake 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, actually, I think Chestnut might be independently notable because of being the first African American to lie in honor at the Capitol. That's why I didn't nominate his article. Otto4711 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the same reason Otto4711 provided. SkierRMH 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because you can't give the cop killer an article and not one for the cop. It is ridiculous to think you could. --Daysleeper47 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, did you review the AfD I linked to, which clearly demonstrates that you can have an article on a cop killing without an article on the cop, before posting that? Otto4711 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the primary article is titled "Russell Eugene Weston"; if you want to talk about the incident, leave all three or create one board article about the 1998 shooting event similar to the 1954 event. Why should the killer be more notable than the person he killed? --Daysleeper47 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head, Richard Speck is more notable than the women he killed, Ted Bundy is more notable than the women he killed, Jeffrey Dahmer is more notable than the men he killed, John Wayne Gacy is more notable than the men he killed, the Columbine shooters are more notable than the people they killed, and so on. I would support a rename of the Russell Eugene Weston article to one more descriptive of the incident. I also have no problem with merging this article into the Weston article and I don't have a huge problem with merging the Chestnut article either, although I do think he might be notable because of the first of his ethnicity lying in state aspect. Otto4711 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those people stormed the Capitol and killed two police officers. I will support a merge to U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998). --Daysleeper47 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, Russell Weston didn't strangle 17 people and alternately have sex with and eat bits of them after, what's your point? Otto4711 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly merge as already discussed. We have had issues before regarding notability of police officers killed in the line of duty, on the previous one the decision was keep because a new memorial foundation was created as a result of the death. In this case, there is less information, and I think that the best way to get this article kept is to merge it as proposed by Dhartung. SGGH 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Any officer killed in the Line of Duty is notable, because we are the peace keepers and we are supposed to be treated with respect and dignity, we keep you safe at night, we look out for you, an officer getting killed is one less officer to watch over you and your property. I hope this article will not be deleted.

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. I have the utmost respect for officers killed in the line of duty, but as was previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The other victim in this shooting, Jacob Chestnut, is barely notable as the first African American to lie in honor in the Capitol. Still, I think the most appropriate action is to merge the victims' articles merged into Russell Eugene Weston with redirects for the victims' names. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE For many of these arguments that police officers killed in the line of duty are not worth Wikipedia articles, I present J. D. Tippit an officer who has an extensive (entirely unreferenced) article and was simply trying to have a chat with a guy who was not yet famous. --Daysleeper47 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the existence of one article to support the existence of another is a meritless argument. Each article must meet notability guidelines on its own. Otto4711 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I agree that any Police Officer killed in the line of duty is notable enough to have an article here. I disagree that the names should be listed with the victims of the incident as Police Officers are not "victims". The officers intentionally placed themselves in harms way to protect others. To list them as victims implies that they had no control over their fate, when in fact they chose to put themselves in harms way(thus making them notable). I also disagree that Jacob Chestnut is barely notable. being the "first" anyone to lie in honor at the capitol is notable, as a matter of fact if you did something earning you the right to lie in honor at the capitol, I'd say your notable enough to have an article here. EMT1871 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I really wish people would stop acting like suggesting that this guy isn't notable enough for an article is a personal affront to them. Some of y'all need to take a step back and stop taking the nomination so personally. It has nothing to do with any of you personally. Otto4711 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find suggesting that a police officer killed in the line of duty is not notable enough to have an article on here personnaly offensive. secondly I'm pretty sure this is a forum for expressing our opinions on the subject so if my opinion is to strong for you, oh well. I happen to feel pretty strongly about this one, as is noted by the fact that I am writting anything here at all, and it happens to be a very personal issue for many people here. I find it personally offensive that the topic is even up for debate. Considering some of the things that pass as "notable" on this website,such as soccer players and minor celebreties, an article about a police officer killed in the line of duty should not even be questioned. As a matter of fact I would think that anyone who is a member of "wikiproject: Law Enforcement" would find this debate offensive.EMT1871 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that I found the opinions expressed "offensive." I said that taking this personally is an error. Further, at no time did I suggest in any way that any editor was not free to express an opinion on this or any other nomination. If you're going to whip yourself up into a dudgeon, please try to do so over things that are actually said as opposed to things that you make up in your own head. Otto4711 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Situation Resolved I have taken care of the problem with this article and followed the direction of most of the editors in merging all of the articles. I created a decent article which can be viewed HERE. The concensus was heading that direction and instead of letting someone else lead the charge, I took care of it. The information for the articles for the two officers and the shooter have all been merged into one. Let me know if anyone has any other problems with this new article. --Daysleeper47 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one making things up in their head is apparently you. First, "I did not say that I found the opinions expressed "offensive."...I never said you did say that, I said I found the suggestion that he is not notable enough offensive. Second, "Further, at no time did I suggest in any way that any editor was not free to express an opinion on this or any other nomination." My comment about this being a forum to express opinions was in response to your staement "I really wish people would stop acting like suggesting that this guy isn't notable enough for an article is a personal affront to them. " Your staement clearly shows a frustration at my opinion, the opinion of others, and expresses your feeling that we are too personally involved. I am free to express my opinion no matter if I take it as a "personal afront" or not and, i'll repeat, too bad if you dont like it. Thirdly, If you are going to suggest that a person killed while serving the community and protecting others is not notable enough to have an article here you should expect strong, heartfelt, opinions especially from the law enforcement community, firefighters etc.EMT1871 18:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give a rat's ass in hell whether you express your opinion or not. Express away. It would, however, be noce if you based your opinion on Wikipedia policy rather than drama queen histrionics. Otto4711 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought this debate was based on wikipedia policy, and on if a topic was notable. I clearly stated my opinion, and portrayed it as nothing else than my opinion on the notability of the subject. As I said again too bad if you don't like my opinion I certainly didnt ask you to agree with me. I also stated my opinion intelligently and did not resort to the use of profanity and name calling nor personally disparage you. It would also have been nice if when you typed your previous response you had actually read what I wrote first since you feverishly responded to remarks I did not make. Responding to my remarks and opinions with profanity, name calling and personal attacks again will causes me to report you to the administrators.EMT1871 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the officer became notable and a public figure as a result of the incident. Congressmen attended the funeral, there may be facilities named after the individual, etc. Calwatch 10:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep I am glad to see the article was brought back, and must repeat my vote for a keep

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Andrés, Lempira

Delete This place is only notable on Google. On Google Most places link to the Wikipedia Article San Andrés, Lempira.Or a site that takes info off Wikipedia. ~~Magistrand~~ 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2007.

Speedy keep. This is a real place. No rationale given for why the article should be deleted. --Ezeu 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Real places are always notable. --Carioca 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Real place. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep stub-a-liscious, but 'tis a real place. SkierRMH 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though article needs expansion. Important mineralogical site ( I've added a sentence about opal mining to the article ). WMMartin 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZap!

This article does not assert notability and contains no reliable references. It would also be easier to write this article from scratch than leave it in its present messy state. I nominate this page for deletion. Yuser31415 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Notability is asserted. This is a candidate for cleaning up and referencing, not deletion. --Ezeu 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepZakTek 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeez... I mean, let's face the facts: Is the show notable? Absolutely. There is no question about this. Is the article a huge mess? Absolutely. I guess I would say keep, since I'd think it would be harder to make a good article from scratch than to clean up this one. Of course, that brings up the question as to whether the {{cleanup}} tag is sufficient... -- Kicking222 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep needs a lot of clean-up, but theres more than enough there to assert notability. Artw 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for appropriate maintenance activity. Baby, bathwater, etc. Messy is in no way unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has taken over a year to make the article, and if it's deleted, how long will it take to make of of that again? It will be a lot easier to clean it than to create. Sponge6778 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE IT!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.121 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable within its context, with ample evidence to support this available from independent sources. But article requires Cleanup. WMMartin 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that this is in desperate need of cleanup, but this would be easier to achieve with the article still available, rather than being deleted.Elcondor 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insmed

Non-notable company, no reliable third party sources, et al. Fails WP:V, WP:CORP, WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability - 1/10th the number of google hits of small local companies to me - PocklingtonDan 10:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent references/sources, and no evidence of notability. Also badly punctuated ! WMMartin 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dontcha

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea if this guy meets WP:MUSIC. I was going to {{prod}}, but I don't want to erronously tag an article if it does meet MUSIC. So, envoking the fact that AfD is meant to be a discussion, eat your heart out - I'm leaning towards delete currently because of the lack of souces, and no assertion of notability, however if someone can convince me his labels are notable, and find a source or two, I'm amacable to withdrawing. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability asserted at all. The article is a copy of the rapper's French WP page, which also asserts no notability except for the fact that some of the people he's worked with are apparently notable enough to have French WP articles of their own (whereas they're all redlinks in the English WP). Google searching of various terms (i.e. Dontcha+"[album title]") does not bring up any reliable sources as far as I can see- but, of course, I can't speak French. Anyway, there's not much to this article; if, after the AfD has ended, someone digs up some sources establishing notability, it would take about 15 seconds to recreate the article. At this moment, it could probably be speedied. -- Kicking222 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Brother 2002 (UK). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Culley

Delete - Reality television contestant with no notable activity since the show ended. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Useless stub about nn, uninteresting person. Redirect to relevant BB article. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother 2002 (UK) He's non-notable, but at the same time, there's no reason to assume someone wouldn't search for him. -- Kicking222 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Kicking222. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Kicking222 - PocklingtonDan 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge content to Big Brother 2002 (UK). The article was recently given a facelift, but he is still not notable enough to deserve an article on his own. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once the multiple non-trivial works required to establish notability have been created, they persist, so WP:N remains satisfied. To demonstrate this, I have re-written the article from scratch, and added sourced non-trivial pieces from reliable newspapers (and a book) about Culley; there would have been others published about him in the UK press during 2002. Eludium-q36 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is published by Channel 4 Books, which doesn't really count as a third party source. And musings on the word "comprende" don't meet the definition of "non-trivial published works" as I understand it. Anyone on a game show might get some blurbs written about them, but unless they win, I don't think they qualify as notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the book as a reliable source for biographical details of Culley, not for anything that happened in the Big Brother competition. The two Guardian articles are more about Culley than anything else, and certainly would not have been written if he had not done what he did. I fundamentally disagree with Leebo's last sentence; win or lose, if the non-trivial works exist, then the only logical conclusion would be to keep. In this case, there is an argument that sufficient works do not exist. Should the consensus be that the articles do not support a stand-alone article, then I would strongly support a merge. Eludium-q36 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my last sentence I was referring to the situation in which there are not multiple non-trivial written publications supporting notability. Obviously, if the person is notable for something outside of the blurbs written about the show, that notability would apply. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious to me that game show contestants are in general notable ( see recent AfD debates on "Countdown" ). Redirect per Kicking222. WMMartin 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Scaruffi

Negative points:

Fails criteria of WP:Bio.
Article is also badly written.
Entirely unsourced.
Contains original, unfootnoted research.
Possibly self-promotion either by the person in question or by a fan.
Very hard to find evidence of peer review.

Positive points:

Subject of article possibly merits an article but only if further evidence can be found of notability.

TRM-G 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after searching his name at Amazon.com - seems notable enough to stay here--Ioannes Pragensis 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the guy is a writer of several books, has popular website, and is a noted intellectual. 96T 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books exist, seem to be read reasonably widely within context. Article does need cleanup, but this is not a reason for deletion. Am I just imagining it, or are there a lot of bad-faith nominations today ? WMMartin 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both per consensus. Although I personally think a decent article could be written on e-mail forwarding, doing so would require looking for sources instead of writing from personal knowledge. GRBerry 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional e-mail address

leftover corporate vanity from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITZoom. Check the edit history. Watchsmart 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating E-mail forwarding for deletion, since it is the same sort of advertising by the same author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchsmart (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Complete OR, and not particularly notable OR. -- Kicking222 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unprofessional because the text presented here has no relation to an encyclopedia article. Or were both these articles just thinly veiled attempts to promote ITZoom? *Delete both. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as OR, and the fact that "teddy.bears@myunusual-domain.com" is considered as 'professional' :) SkierRMH 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as OR. And what if that professional address comes from a spammer, what would they say about that? Nate 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, though it breaks my heart to delete anything that refers to teddy-bears. Still, I'm trying to be professional here, so I'll cite a couple of reasons: OR, and inadequately referenced. WMMartin 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close, change of venue to RfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HermitStory

~~Non-notable protologism for video game MapleStory. Fails WP:NEO. Lmblackjack21 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination and relist at WP:RFD because the article in discussion is indeed a redirect. Lmblackjack21 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a redirect; the AfD process is for articles. What you're looking for is redirects for discussion - it can be handled better there. Crystallina 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been relisted at RfD - Admin, please close this! SkierRMH 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keeping Talbott, Flynn, and Parslow. Deleting the rest.. Avi 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Woolford

The second part of my analysis of Conference players started here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson WP:BIO states that the players must have made an appearance in a fully professional league. Woolford has not played a league game above Conference level.

For the same reason, I am nominating Noureddine Maamria, Liam Blakeman, Nathan Talbott, Wayne Daniel (footballer), Craig Lovatt, Nathan Smith (footballer), Danny Edwards (footballer), Ged Murphy,r Chris Seeby, Scott Cousins, Tom Davis (footballer), Rambir Marwa, Paul Hakim, Dean Cracknell, Ricky Perks, Simon Martin (footballer), Lee Flynn, Ben Martin, Nick Roddis, Jason Goodliffe, Michael Touhy, Kyle Storer, Dave Clarke (footballer), Shaun Ridgway, Harry Hambleton, Tony James (footballer), Craig McAllister, James Bittner, Neal Bishop, Byron Webster, Darren Hollingsworth, Alex Rhodes (footballer born 1988), Arran Reid and Daniel Parslow. I've been through these players Soccerbase profiles and again can't spot any League appearances.

I know the Conference is approaching fully-professional status, but until it attains that these players fail WP:BIO. Precedents are here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Gray and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Eyre

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Daniel Parslow as under-21 player (I'm open to counter arguments though, anyway other youth teams don't suffice). The articles of Danny Edwards and Ged Murphy assert notability (playing above Conference), but this is not backed up by Soccerbase.com. The rest of the articles are in trouble per WP:BIO, English Conference is not a high enough level. Punkmorten 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Qwghlm 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lee Flynn played in the football league with Barnet in 2000-01. Also Edwards played for Shrewsbury in 2002-03 and Ben Martin played for Swindon once. ArtVandelay13 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep especially Daniel Parslow + strong keep others Daniel Parslow is a former under-21 INTERNATIONAL with caps; that seems worthy of an article to me. I don't think the existence of these articles does anyone harm anyway. -- Mattythewhite 08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd recommend being very wary of using soccerbase as the way of backing this up. Nathan Talbott has played in the league for Yeovil Town according to the Stafford Rangers website for example. Doesn't help when the articles don't say this though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGull (talk • contribs)

Further comment and a suggestion. Talbott and Flynn are the only two who appear to have played a game at a higher level than the Conference (I've added to those two articles to clarify this). Danny Edwards did not, the Edwards that played for Shrewsbury in 2002-03 was Dave Edwards. Not sure about Ged Murphy as he may or may not have played for Oldham. If the others are to be deleted, how about transferring the details to a section on the club page about non-notable (in the WP:BIO) sense players? WikiGull 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These articles should be kept.-- Stokie matt 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate as to why they should be kept? ChrisTheDude 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stokie matt's only contributions are to this afd. Possible single purpose account? Robotforaday 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nathan Talbott- played professionally for Yeovil. Keep Lee Flynn- played professionally for Barnet before they were relegated into the conference. Weak keep Daniel Parslow- several caps for Wales U21. Delete ALL OTHERS as not meeting the criteria of WP:BIO of having played in a fully professional league, and not having any evidence of other verifiable notability. Robotforaday 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, Keep Dino Maamria per ArtVandelay13. Robotforaday 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - should Dino Maamria's spell at Charleston Battery save him? There are a fair few USL First Division players on WP, and although those appearances won't appear on Soccerbase, you can be fairly sure he played for their first-team. ArtVandelay13 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- this shows he played 9 times in the US, and refers to him as a former Tunisian Under-21 international. Setting up the redirect from his shortened name (Dino) also reveals a link from the Tunisian senior team article, but I'm not sure he was ever a full international. ArtVandelay13 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is very little difference in standard between League 2 and the Conference. Playing for aconference side is a lot more significant than bring a youth team player in league 2 Ram4eva 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And Conference North/South isn't much different from the Conference. Where you draw the line? HornetMike 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so you know, youth team players in League 2 (or in the Premier League, for that matter) would generally be deleted, unless they'd made an appearance for the first team. Robotforaday 20:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of youth and reserve players at big and not so big clubs who have never played first team football. So that is a lot of work to do to get rid of them. Ram4eva 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would argue the Conference is the lowest league that should have player profiles in its own right as it is a professional league (personally I think 5 full time divisions is too many) , Conference North and South are not so any profiles should only be for players who have dropped down. Ram4eva 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These articles should be kept. A lot of time, effort and research has gone into them, and it is what wikipedia is all about. Some of the Tamworth players suggested for deletion where nation television the other day and one even scored (Kyle Storer). DO NOT DELETE THESE PROFILES!!! -- Jonesy702 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what Wikipedia's all about. Wikipedia's about creating a verifiable online encyclopedia. I could put a lot of effort into writing an article about me. Wouldn't mean it should be kept. And if we had an article for everyone who appeared on television... HornetMike 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me, hours of work on professional footballers is just going to be deleted off because they are not in the top flight, please! And what do you mean you could write an article about yourself, you have, it's called your user profile, wake up!. All I'm saying is that the lower down teams deserve as much recognition as the Premiership, these players still go out on Saturday afternoon and play football for 90 minutes and if you ask me, a better quality of football than the Premiership sometimes. If there was a profile for every player in the Conference who would that be hurting? No one. it would just educate people. I think some people need to stop being so picky. -- Jonesy702 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying these players should be deleted because they're not playing in the top flight, don't put words in my mouth. The point is, if Wikipedia is to maintain its standards, there has to be a point whether you're either worthy of a page or not. According to guidelines WP:BIO, Conference players are the wrong side of that line, so they should be deleted. The point I was trying to make with "an article about myself" (and by the way, the userpage shouldn't really be an article about oneself!) is that you can't use the justification that people have put time into something as grounds for keeping it. One could create an article on something utterly trivial (like me!) and devote huge amounts of time to it, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a place on Wikipedia. Cheers, HornetMike 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is if a team is relegated from League 2, all the profiles for each and every player should be deleted? and if your own userpage should not "really be an article about oneself", who should it be about? -- Jonesy702 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. If a player plays in League 2 or above they pass notability criteria. That's why I haven't nominated every single player in the Conference. All the players (well, not all, I've made a couple of mistakes) have only played as high as the Conference, and thus do not pass WP:BIO. Re: the user page, it should contain information about you, but I would call it an article per se! Cheers, HornetMike 01:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is that the BBC, Sky Sports websites etc all give as much coverage on the Conference as they do on other leagues; the BBC site has profiles for all Conference National clubs, and Sky Sports provides news for them. -- Mattythewhite 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I'd argue that the press covers them far less. You might get a report on League 2 sides in the papers, but it's very unlikely you'll see anything but results for Conference sides. HornetMike 11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

erm Danny Edwards HAS played for shewsbury, i saw him play for them in a competitive match. Also Ged Murphy has played in for Oldham Athletic during his time there. I also feel the line is to high why not stop players profiles at Conference North/South.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pique28 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the principle of an encyclopedia is that it requires sources in order to make the information verifiable. If you can provide sources to show that these players played, then please do, but we can't just take the recollection of someone who may or may not have seen them when there is no other evidence- in effect, to do otherwise would be to accept original research, as odd as that might sound. I myself strongly disagree with opening the floodgates to allow semi-professional footballers at conference and conference north/south level, but this is of course open to debate. You may wish to argue with the point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and establish a new consensus of notability. The state at the moment, however, is that the players (with the exception of the few noted above) fall below the level of notability established by consensus at WP:BIO, that is, footballers who have played in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Yorkshire Post and York Press both give detailed match reports for York City who are in the Conference National, and the BBC also gives a match report which also includes statistics on the match. -- Mattythewhite 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Tamworth get the same kind of coverage in the midlands area. They often featured in the Birmingham Evening Mail as well as the BBC website. -- Jonesy702 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have to agree, some hard work has been put into these profiles and it shouldn't matter whether they are world class players or semi professionals, people work hard to make these profiles for others benefit, I cannot believe some people have the time to go over wikipedia with a fine toothcombe looking for things they don't like, my advice is get a life pal, there are more important things in life than deleting off profiles of players that you don't like. Anyway Hornet man the way Watford are playing they will soon be in the Conference and we can delete off all their profiles when that happens.

Stew jones 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IWORKEDONITHARDYOUDELETIONIST are not reasons to keep. These players fail WP:BIO and that is a reason good enough for me to vote delete here. – Elisson • T • C • 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. They are even able to fail a way too inclusionist list of notability principles on WP:BIO. --Angelo 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They don't all fail WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGull (talk • contribs)
Keep Parslow, Flynn, Talbott and Maamria based on above discussions. Delete others. ArtVandelay13 17:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - particularly those who have played one or more league games, U-21 internationals, or who have represented the English National Game XI. My experience is that Conference clubs/players DO get almost as much write up as their League 2 equivalents - the results are read out on Final Score/5 Live etc, and listed in the same newspapers as the League 2 results. Bookies offer odds on them the same way as League 2 games. Plus, there is a 60-page newspaper each week "The Non-League Paper", of which probably half is dedicated to Conference reports/features/speculation etc. Not to mention local sources. - fchd 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to point out that this debate is lurching towards a generalised discussion on whether or not Conference players should be considered notable. As the current WP:BIO guidelines say they aren't (not a fully professional league) surely such a discussion is better suited to WP:FOOTBALL where the supporters of this view could endeavour to establish a consensus for changing the guidlines.....? ChrisTheDude 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with the possible exception of Flynn and Maamria if their brief careers as professionals are shown to have non-trivial media coverage - though no sources demonstrating this have yet been provided. Talbott's professional career consists of a single substitute appearance which did not merit a mention in the local press report about the match [58]. Oldelpaso 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail to meet WP:BIO. If the Keepers wish to make Conference players notable then this should be done through a separate policy proposal. The only basis for a keep would be multiple non-trivial sources that have not been produced. BlueValour 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nathan Talbott, Lee Flynn and Daniel Parslow Nathan Talbott made fl appearance for Yeovil Town. Lee Flynn played for Barnet when they were in Football League. Daniel Parslow played for England under 21s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Englishrose (talk • contribs) 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Soccerbase is, in no way, a definitive reference source. More authorative locations are the post war database [59] (though would merit a search engine) or, even better, a complete database from 1888 [60] (though sadly much of the info here is now subscription only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBroadbent (talk • contribs)
Keep Nathan Talbott, Lee Flynn and Daniel Parslow as per Englishrose. 1888 [61] does not show anything more for any of the listed players that has not already been mentioned. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Grutness (CSD A1. Title has no relevance to the one sentence of the article). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 11:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why fort pitt is fort pitt

Meaningless title, little content, probably a test page. I think this refers to Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania). Neil 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, page already exists for it.--C J King 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A1 or A3. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - question asked and answered in the Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) article. Pastordavid 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God's Message to the United Nations

A seemingly unremarkable Message, which seems to be neither from God, nor actually to the United Nations. A quick search engine search reveals only Wikipedia copy-cat/mirror sites. Furthermore, the text of the article goes something like "Mrs Unnotable from the University of Redlink received this mystical message (God knows how) via Mr Who-the-heck. Montchav 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Seems notable. Been on wiki for about 4 years as well Brian | (Talk) 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom--SUIT⁴² 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search found few results, none of which proved much notablity.Gan fon 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:BOLLOCKS--Tainter 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tainter Josh Parris#: 00:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps move to more specific/appropriate title. Smeelgova 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Pastordavid 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^Blank ^Verse 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Major part of doctrine of a religion with between 250,000 and 3,000,000 members. Needs more info certainly, or perhaps moving to a different name, but topic seems eminently notable. - PocklingtonDan 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Rev. Sun Myung Moon is not an "Unnotable" but a major world religious leader, instrumental in the transformation of the USSR from Communism and a major player in the world peace movement. --Uncle Ed 15:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale has no bearing upon the article at hand, which is not an article about that person at all. Uncle G 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is POV pushing and lacks independent sources. We do not have an article on every claimed missive from a higher power. Edison 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True, Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church are very much notable, but this particular missive does not seem to be notable in and by itself (as religious issues goes). The article does not seem to assert any claim of major importance this missive has within the Church itself. Per nom, it has WP:NOTE issues and the only single source cited is a Unification Church website, its only source leading to external verification problems. --Eqdoktor 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The title needs work also, since this is a Unification Church missive. A major blanket term usage of "God". --Eqdoktor 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eqdoktor. We cannot host every single missive or announcement the Unification Church publishes on their website; we are not a mirror for them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced. If the world were talking about this missive, we'd have sources. If they're not, it's not encyclopedia material. What we have here now is not an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nonnoteable as any of millions of other messages claimed to have been recieved from God that lack significant mention in mainstrean press or the like. WAS 4.250 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references/sources. WMMartin 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WAS 4.250. — coelacan talk — 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Kittens

No sources to verify that this is making it to the air. Ghit sis poor -- thee is an intervbiew with the creator that hints that a deal has been signed, but there is nothing concrete anywhere. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several comments have bee removed from this discussion by anonymous accounts beginning with the prefixes 86.135.185.* and 86.135.90.*. Please check history for full details. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I am the creator of the series and a deal has been signes yes, I can't divulge too much information at theis time because of an NDA. The Website has also been around for several years. before it was picked up as a show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guru Larry (talk • contribs).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AfD template was blanked on article page, and the show has to actually air on an actual network before it becomes notable. Nate 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain In the meantime, Why not change it to a website category then? Theres notable proof of the site, in both a .com and .co.uk domain which has existed for several years and appears on several other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.144.180 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2007
- Note/Comment This IP was the one that deleted the AfD template before I restored it. Why would we change it to a category, it's clear that you're stubbornly keeping the article, no matter how much proof of unnotability there is. Until a network releases something saying this is a future project, it's still on the drawing board and going nowhere else. Nate 05:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence beyond this two year old press release that this will be produced into a TV series. And I don't trust the "agreed in principal" as a sign that it is going to happen as evident in the Rich Rodriguez case. --Farix (Talk) 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that this is clearly a vanity page based on the article's original author claims to be the artist of the subject. So I upgrade to Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farix, You are welcome to your opinion, but opposing to something just because of your over zealous fanboyism towards manga/artists who are not born in Japan (like you have to other wiki's of the same ilk) is blatent racism and fashism and will not be tollerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.106.165 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 January 2007
First, I remind you to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Second, I never said anything about whether this was manga or anime, both of which have clear definitions. Third, don't remove someone else's comments from an AFD discussion because you disagree with them, that is vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - If something cannot be verified, in this case due to a No Disclosure clause then it does not belong on Wikipedia. If there is no press release or advertising then isn't this Wikipedia article breaking the No Disclosure clause? The author cannot divulge too much information at this time so Wikipedia should not consist of any information that would get the author into trouble. --Squilibob 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like a duck. JuJube 10:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose thats fair enough, As soon as i'm legally allowed to divulge info or it's on air, I'll ask to recreate the page then, delete away. But I can assure you that it isn't a duck and it isn't vanity. (talk)

Delete - the TV series seems have have been announced about three years ago (March / April 2004), and nothing has been heard about it since. If anything actually turns up on TV, then it can always be recreated. The website on it's own doesn't seem notable either. FredOrAlive 16:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not real yet, so it's crystal-balling. Off it goes. WMMartin 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. I'm also not too sure about how genuine the article actually is; it seems odd to release a picture of the character into the public domain since studios usually rely on copyright enforcement for profit. —ShadowHalo 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite hours

Fails WP:MUSIC - lack of external coverage, only sources given are Purevolume and Myspace, etc. Crystallina 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google brought up nothing but myspace and a lot of links not related to this band. again, not notable.--Tainter 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate evidence to support claim of notability. WMMartin 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep*. Closing this as a keep hopefully won't end discussion about a possible renaming if consensus is for that, perhaps even a broader discussion about the overall organization of evolution-related articles could be in order, this discussion indicates not everyone is happy with the current setup. But there is clearly not a consensus to delete this particular article. W.marsh 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings about evolution

Following several days of discussion on Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution (see also Talk:Evolution), there seems to be significant support for the idea of deleting this article, and moving whatever useful information it has to other articles, such as the newly-planned article Objections to evolution (a more NPOV approach to addressing misunderstanding-based criticisms of evolutionary theory). Although it is indeed important to clear up common misconceptions about evolution, the topic does not merit an entire article (it can be addressed briefly on articles like Evolution, and in more depth on articles like Evolution as theory and fact, Evolution (term), and Entropy and life; a middleman article is quite unnecessary and superfluous), and there is no precedent for naming articles about people's views (even clearly counterfactual views) specifically as "Misunderstandings".

The NPOV of such an article seems very dubious; consider that in many cases it touches specifically on creationist arguments, not just on the misunderstandings that underly many of them. It has an entire section for the creation-evolution controversy, thus practically stating outright that the entire controversy is a "misunderstanding". Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is not Wikipedia's place to make such judgment calls; we should simply present the facts, backed up by reputable sources, and allow readers to weigh the arguments largely on their own. Therefore, although it may indeed be accurate to characterize most, or even all, creationist arguments as resting on misunderstandings, that doesn't make it acceptable (or necessary or helpful, for that matter) to bend WP:NPOV just to over-emphasize that. We only discredit ourselves in the process.

The topic and title of the article, thus, is at the very least a borderline violation of NPOV, if not a clear-cut case (not to mention grammatically dubious; misunderstandings "about", rather than "of"?). And the informational contents of the article can all much more easily and thoroughly be provided by transferring those contents to other pages, such as the in-development "Objections" page, and the many more specific articles on these topics. Without any good reason to bend or ignore our NPOV standards just for the sake of a largely redundant and unhelpful article, I propose that we either delete this article outright, or, if the edit history is deemed important enough to save, move it to Objections to evolution, where it can be rewritten almost from scratch and where we will be able to provide a much more in-depth, thorough, balanced, and informative article on pretty much all of the same topics. Silence 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should move this material to a new Objections to evolution article. It is all good stuff, however (although more editing and cleaning up wouldnt hurt). I wonder if in the meantime, we should just change its name to Objections to evolution so it can continue to garner contributions and ideas while the other sections of the Objections to evolution are being worked on?--Filll 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps. Almost all of the article will need to be rewritten if we change its scope so thoroughly, however; we'll still be able to provide most of the contents, but the wordings, presentation, layout, introduction, etc. will need revising. I've posted up a preliminary draft of one possible layout (and a few sections I've worked on, drawing significantly from your excellent work on things like the "Falsifiability" page) at User:Silence/Evolution which anyone can feel free to edit. That page also incorporates most of the important information from Misunderstandings about evolution already, so it's another candidate for moving to the new name if users decide to delete, rather than move, this page. The main advantage I can see to a move is that it would preserve the Talk and the longer histories; the main disadvantage is that it would give more of an impression of bias to later outside observers, though I don't see that as a major concern. Our main concern should be providing users with a valuable resource for information, not with looking good. -Silence 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redo and move to the proposed article or Delete. It's an odd coincidence that these "misunderstandings" are basically Creationist arguments. The article should be re-written as "Objections to evolution", or otherwise deleted. Obviously, it's far, far better to rename and rewrite... but it seems to be too POV to keep if it remains in its current form. .V. (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that seem odd? You think that creationists and others might have different misunderstandings? And of all the misunderstandings out there, which misunderstandings do you think are repeated more often and more loudly? Those of a graduate student trying to learn the material and making a mistake? Or the "misunderstandings" of a willfully ignorant but heavily funded creationist that presents evolution as a threat to civilization as we know it and responsible for everything from Hitler to plugged toilets, and makes his living by repeating these misunderstandings over and over, in the shrillest possible voice, at high volume?--Filll 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd because it's taking Creationist statements and turning them into misunderstandings, thereby systematically invalidating them. I make no claim as to whether Creationists or Evolutionists are right, but when it comes to this article, we should call a spade a spade. .V. (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion and Close AfD. If the general consensus is that this article needs to be renamed, or merged to one or more of the existing articles on the subject, there's no need to _delete_ it. It can quite happily exist as a redirect, no matter where the text ends up. The article talk page is the place to discuss moves/merges, not AfD. Tevildo 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redo and move to the proposed article. The text is best in an article with a different name. No redirect neccessary. — CJewell (talk to me) 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD - the aim and scope of the article is appropriate and necessary, can be of encyclopedic value, but the title is very NPOV. Discussion of renaming the article and/or changing the content of the article should be taken to the Talk page. Be bold; rename, merge, and/or redirect. If that turns into an editing problem then see about arbitration, not deletion. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "the title is very NPOV", did you mean to say "the title is very POV"? -Silence 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's EXACTLY what I meant. I swear it looked perfectly understandable, to me, when I wrote it. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. Arguments based on misunderstandings is a misunderstanding; not a valid argument. It is how creationists frame their misunderstandings that make them arguments; but they remain, for the most part, misunderstandings. (Further, unnecessary sub-articles like Evolution as theory and fact should be merged into this article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the fact that we just went through another lengthy exchange on the talk pages of both Evolution as theory and fact and evolution about this very issue, it is clear to me that the "theory vs. fact" issue continues to be poorly understood and poorly explained. I am in the midst of a substantial rewrite of Evolution as a theory and fact to address more of the confusion and misunderstandings that these discussions have amply revealed, and still exist in public discourse and the media. It will have many more references and be more carefully written. If you look at the talk page of Misunderstandings of evolution, you will see that there is a substantial amount of other material that will go in this article once it is renamed, and quite a bit already exists in two other separate sandbox articles. It would be nice if everything could be addressed in one short article or in one short paragraph, but the fact is, this is a huge issue, and it is not going away any time soon. And it has many many facets. Just take a look at Support for evolution for example, another proposed "subarticle" in this series, which will probably survive in a renamed form.--Filll 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I agree with that. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the meaning of "argument": an argument cannot be a misunderstanding, anymore than a book can be a misunderstanding. An argument, or book, can be based on misunderstandings, or can contain misunderstandings, but neither can themselves be "misunderstandings". You also misunderstand the meaning of "valid": validity is not dependent upon the truth of premises (i.e., it doesn't matter whether the premises are misunderstandings), but on whether the conclusion follows from the premises. It is impossible to "frame" a misunderstanding into an argument; creationists' arguments aren't misunderstandings, they're reliant upon misunderstandings. For example, "Evolution is a theory. Theories are just guesses. Therefore evolution is just a guess." This argument is not a misunderstanding, but it's based on one ("Theories are just guesses"), which makes it, although valid, entirely unsound.

That's why we decided to focus on misunderstandings.

But it is outside the scope of an article on "Misunderstandings" to assess arguments against, criticisms of, or objections to evolution, even though doing so has much more potential to be informative to readers than only addressessing the misunderstandings; in contrast, an "Objections" article to address every single one of the misunderstandings involved in the page, since, as has been noted, the misunderstandings form a key part of the objections (but the objections are not themselves misunderstandings, so we couldn't do the reverse and interject every major creationist argument into the "misunderstandings" page). I couldn't care less whether we end up moving, redirecting, or deleting this article (there is already one explicit vote for just "deleting" so far, and several votes considering that possibility, so it seems worthwhile to continue the discussion rather than speedying anything, since there's no hurry anyway), but I don't see any reason at all to keep it around as-is.

It is more informative, and it also means replicating a lot of stuff that is already well laid out elsewhere, like talk.origins. The point initially was to actually avoid doing that.

Moreover, it is important to note that just because a premise is factually inaccurate, doesn't make it a "misunderstanding". To conclude from the fact that a creationist argument is faulty that it must be based on a misunderstanding is to assume that we can see into the minds of everyone. Obviously it is fully possible for someone to make an argument that simply deliberately relies on falsehoods. Because there is no reliable method for reading someone's mind to see whether they "understand" something (it can only be inferred from their actions), distinguishing misunderstandings from deliberate falsehoods is impossible, and it's not Wikipedia's duty to stick its neck out to try and discern such things. What matters for our purposes is the various arguments, and the factual errors they may involve, surrounding evolution; an "Objections" article can address all the relevant issues much more effectively and directly than a "Misunderstandings" article.

That's why we focus on known misunderstandings; magically no mind reading is required. It can also be said we assume good faith for those who put forward the arguments, and that they would not rely on falsehoods. Again, we didn't see an immediate need to address "all the relevant issues" in that initial section; but I feel it did address the relevant issues insofar as misunderstandings go. If you feel the scope needs to be changed; well then the sections focus does need to shift.

Good faith only applies to our interactions with other editors, never to article contents. It is a violation of WP:NOR to always assume good faith of public figures and other article subject matters. We should not have to assume anything at all, at least in dealing with opinions like these. Simply reference and state what people have said, and leave speculating about motives to others. -Silence 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abundantly aware Wikipedia policy is applied to Wikipedians; but its simply a POV one can adopt regarding a subject to maintain a NPOV framing of a debate. Nothing is being violated so long as you do not reference specific people, but rather provide generic examples of known misunderstandings... and with a misunderstanding there is no motive. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Its simply a POV one can adopt regarding a subject to maintain a NPOV framing of a debate"? How on earth can adopting a POV help maintain NPOV?! Wikipedia should neither adopt the POV that creationists do not misunderstand evolution (and thus are disingenuous in their objections), nor adopt the POV that creationists are genuine in their objections (and thus misunderstand evolution); it should simply state the fact that they object to evolution, explain their objections, provide verifiable responses where appropriate, and not participate in, or weigh in on, the disagreement itself.

Besides, isn't it much more valuable to our readers, and much more verifiable and concrete, to provide specific examples of these claims rather than shirking from "referencing specific people"? And if we can't reference specific examples of these misunderstandings (because to do so would be to assume that the speaker misunderstands, when you yourself acknowledge that there are other possibilities), then we can't provide any direct sources to back up any of the claimed misunderstandings at Misunderstandings about evolution. So the article is POVed, useless, and unverifiable either way. -Silence 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Evolution as theory and fact is really just too long to merge anywhere. If you want to merge that article elsewhere, you'll need to delete most of the text currently on the page. And will you do the same for every other comparable sub-article, like Entropy and life? -Silence 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Filll quickly convinced me by mentioning legal battles. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that when Evolution as theory and fact is rewritten it will be longer with more material yet. From my conversations with both people in favor of evolution and creationists, both sides badly understand this issue, which seems like a trivial issue to me. It clearly needs to be explained carefully because it is a recurring source of confusion. After all, the confusion has been written into state law or considered for inclusion as part of state law in over 20 states, if I am not mistaken (maybe as many as 40 states). Since there is a strong opinion that the previous status quo was adequate, I think this is worthy of inspection, since that is what spurred Orangemarlin and I to create it in the first place. We asked for a while if anyone was interested in making the sections that existed in evolution actually readable, and no one responded after days of asking. So we made one and invited comments for days and days. No one responded. So we made an article. If the original article was readable and adequate at addressing this question, we would have never gone down this road.--Filll 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as a pedagogical idea, "misunderstandings" and misconceptions are very encyclopedic. I do not buy the argument that such an article cannot be NPOV. It is well-documented that there are many misconceptions and misunderstandings about evolution that surface during the creation-evolution controversy. This is not to take sides: it is to simply point out where those verifiable and documented misunderstandings take place. I think this has the propensity to be an excellent article and think that its surpression is the result of people being too wary of addressing misunderstandings (which are well-documented in the article by the way) head-on. --ScienceApologist 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are we wary of addressing them head-on? Thanks to my summarizing and re-adding removed content to Evolution, all of them are adequately addressed in Evolution#Misunderstandings, a much more direct approach than a daughter article. Further details can be provided quite fine in other articles, such as the "Objections" one. The problem is as much that this article is useless as that it is POVed (which it is). Removing this article will have no negative effect on people learning about misunderstandings, since the "Misunderstandings" section on evolution is where most people will get their info anyway; and it will have a positive effect on the people who want more detailed information, as we will be able to provide a much more in-depth and comprehensive coverage of misunderstandings in an "Objections" article. -Silence 11:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't produced any evidence that the article is "POVed". It is basically on your say-so. There is obviously enough material for an article here, so I cannot for the life of me divine what exactly your rationale is for trying to get this particular article deleted. To me "Objections" looks like a much bigger problem in terms of article naming. While a misunderstanding can be documented as a lapse in rational thought or due to a lack of complete information, "objections" can be levied with impunity and without regard for research. No, "objections to evolution", as I see it, shouldn't be an article while "misunderstandings" seems much more appropriate and NPOV. --ScienceApologist 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "lapse in rational thought" cannot be documented, nor is it NPOV for Wikipedia to state as fact that a person, organization, or movement is suffering a "lapse in rational thought", even if it's true. To claim that it is suitably NPOV to explicitly state in an article title that certain common beliefs are "lapses in rational thought" is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding (or "lapse in rational thought"?) of WP:NPOV itself.

And nobody has "complete information", so if lacking complete information is sufficient to make something a "misunderstanding", everyone misunderstands everything. Misunderstandings are defined by being false, not solely by being based on incomplete information; an article called "Falsehoods spread by creationists", "Errors in creationist arguments", or "Irrational objections to evolution" would be POVed, so why is a "Misunderstandings" article which lists common creationist claims so much more acceptable, much less ideal?

The reason I haven't bothered to go into specific examples of POV in the article itself in depth (e.g., the presence of a "Social and religious controversies" section in a "Misunderstandings about evolution" article) is because POV problems within the text should be resolved by fixing them, not by deleting or moving the article; it is because the POV problems are with the article title/topic itself that merely changing the text would not resolve the problem. Therefore it is the title/topic, not the specific claims within the article, that are important to discuss, and that is exactly what I've been discussing, and provided a number of valid arguments against, thus far.

Your argument against making an "Objections" article ("'objections' can be levied with impunity and without regard for research") is absurd, as it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to censor objections based on how well-researched they are; our standards for including a certain argument on the encyclopedia are notability and commonness, not validity or evidential basis. Indeed, it is the very fact that objections can be levied with impunity and without regard for research that makes having an article on them so important, since that's the only way to neutrally point out how poorly-researched just about all of the objections to evolution really are! -Silence 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does a good job of expanding an existing section in the evolution article. Any change of name would also be a change in scope. This article is not concerned with objections, only with misconceptions. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all counts. Which is exactly why this article should be deleted (or moved). As you correctly note, this article is not about objections; and while it does a good job, an objections article would do a much better job. And to change the name here would require changing the entire scope. So, changing the name, and scope, is necessary. -Silence 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ScienceApologist. — ceejayoz ^talk 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have several other articles on science subjects (and probably elsewhere) where articles are oriented around a way of presenting or teaching or using the material. Its a practical way for complicated subjects. DGG 04:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ScienceApologist said what I wanted to say more eloquently than I could have done. I should also say that I'm finding it very difficult to "assume good faith" about this nomination, the nominator's professed personal beliefs on his userpage notwithstanding... WMMartin 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why's that? -Silence 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Silence, you are taking a somewhat "creationist" stance here. You support an article "Objections to evolution" but want to delete an article on "misunderstandings about evolution" seemingly on the grounds that "misunderstandings" are POV while "objections" are NPOV. That, to me, does have a little bit of a creationist spin (to the tune of "teach the controversy"). --ScienceApologist 15:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is an effort to broaden the article by incorporating this article material into an article that includes both misunderstandings, and other kinds of objections in one article.--Filll 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's a "creationist stance" to want Wikipedia to cover an article as important as "Objections to evolution", nor how it's creationistic to take the commonsensical view that such an article would have so much overlap with "Misunderstandings about evolution" as to render the latter article superfluous. A "creationist stance" would be to argue for making an article like Problems with evolution or Evolutionist lies, or would argue for deleting "Misunderstandings" because it's false (which it isn't) rather than because it's POVed and too limited in scope. Conflating my arguments with a typical creationist's arguments is clearly both inaccurate and a failure to assume good faith, and serves no purpose except to polarize an important discussion and discourage reasoned, open-minded discourse. Consequently, whether the purpose of this association fallacy is to vilify me or simply to shame me into changing my mind, it seems rather counterproductive.
I support an article called "Objections to evolution" because such an article will be much more useful for clearing up people's misunderstandings than one called "Misunderstandings about evolution", a much more limited and stunted topic with much more debatable contents. For example, which of the creationist claims on TalkOrigins are misunderstandings, and which are not? Is everything incorrect a misunderstanding? If so, we can list anything we want on a "misunderstandings" page, including amazingly subjective arguments (i.e., ones that aren't strictly factual and don't directly address the science of evolution, but rather are more philosophical or vague) like "Evolution is immoral", "Were you there?", "Evolution is atheistic", "Evolution is a religion", "Evolution assumes naturalism", "Evolution assumes uniformitarianism", "The Bible contradicts evolution", or "Design requires a designer". Are all of these simple "misunderstandings"?
Where do you draw the line between misunderstandings and non-misunderstandings, when dealing with so many complex claims that so many people believe passionately in? Distinguishing between the two is simply too subjective, and too contentious and counterproductive in the long term, for an article like this to be practical, as long as it's dealing so heavily with common creationist claims.
The reason "Misunderstandings" should be changed to "Objections" is not to appease creationists, but to appease Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view. There is simply no precedent on Wikipedia for outright saying that a certain common point of view is false, which is what a "misunderstandings" article on such a disputed issue amounts to. Even articles like racism never once simply come out and say "Racism is false" or "Racism is a misunderstanding", even though racism contradicts science much more directly and thoroughly than even creationism does! Rather, they merely present the different facts and opinions on the issue and let readers come to their own conclusions.
The reason it is inappropriate to list a bunch of widely-used creationist arguments in a "Misunderstandings" page is the same reason it is inappropriate to make a "Creationist lies" page; it might be a fact that many creationists misunderstand many aspects of evolution, and it might be just as much of a fact that many creationists deliberately lie and deceive (though how verifiable these facts are may be debatable), but neither of these claims should be part of the article title itself, as this presupposes a specific point or agenda that is being made about common creationist arguments. Even if we make that point perfectly clear in the article text, by providing well-referenced objections to creationist arguments like "Evolution is just a theory", we should not give readers of Wikipedia even the impression that Wikipedia is biased by making the article title itself so loaded in scope.
Whether or not it is a "fact" that these are misunderstandings is immaterial; Wikipedia judges whether or not something is a "fact" based on whether or not it is seriously disputed (from WP:NPOV: "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'"), not based on how obvious something seems to an article's editors. Thus, although it may be a "fact" that creationist claims are misunderstandings from our view, it is not a "fact" in the Wikipedian sense (except in articles that are specifically and solely scientific, like Evolution itself, where experts in the field, not popular opinion or movements like creationism, are relevant), because it's not 100% undisputed. This is the exact reason why it is not stated anywhere in the Young Earth creationism article that "Young Earth creationism is false", or even that "Young Earth creationism misunderstands science". It's because, even if something is true, it should be attributed to a source (rather than claimed by Wikipedia itself) when it is disputed. This is the same reason that an "Objections" article is so much more Wikipedian, and encyclopedic, than a "Misunderstandings" article. As soon as you successfully and lastingly change the lead section of "Young Earth creationism" to state "Young Earth creationism is false" or "Young Earth Creationism is a misunderstanding", I will stop opposing this article. Until then, it is applying a double standard for us to treat this article differently than we treat all others.
The easiest, simplest, and most productive solution to avoiding years of fruitless squabbling over where to draw the line between misunderstandings and non-misunderstandings is simply to sidestep this trivial issue while still presenting all the same information to our readers, by changing the scope of the article to "Objections to evolution". Although there may still be some article disputes over a topic like this over time (that's inevitable for any article related to the creation-evolution dispute), at least these are likely to mostly be concerned with content issues, not with the basic question of what to include, making improving, fleshing out, polishing, and maintaining such an article in the long run much easier and more efficient. It will also provide a much wider range of topics to users, and will indirectly clear up their misunderstandings without resorting to the rather unencyclopedic tactic of listing a bunch of severely lacking and objectionable arguments against evolution as mere "Misunderstandings". -Silence 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As a non-American I find this conversation bizarre and I wonder why it is included in a world-wide encyclopedia. Should we have pages on "objections to gravity", "objections to the proposal to use fire for cooking and heating"? The problem stems from the failure of parts of the US eduction system and an article on "Misunderstandings about evolution" might help clarify this issue.--Grahamec 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, although this is a worldwide encyclopedia, since this is such a huge issue in the US, it is also important from a world perspective, since the US includes a large fraction of the Western world, and also forms a large part of the world's economy. The US also has an inordinately large effect on the culture of the rest of the world, so if this does happen in the US, it is a bit premature to expect that similar things might not happen elsewhere. Also, there have been problems with creationism in the UK, in Russia, in Serbia, in Poland, in Italy etc. The Muslim world also struggles with their own brand of creationism, as does the Hindu World. So if we start to add up the people affected or potentially affected by creationism, a conservative estimate is well in excess of one out of three people on earth, and certainly more than one out of three people in the developed Western world. If we concentrate on the AngloSaxon world, the ratio might be even more pronounced. It is partly because of problems with the US education system, but it is far more complicated than that. If you make such a claim, it tells me that you know very little about the US, and it demonstrates an even greater reason to include this sort of material in an encyclopedia, because you clearly do not understand the US, which has a huge influence on the English speaking world, and on Australia in particular. Misunderstandings is just a subset of the Objections. And that is why it is more appropriate to have an Objections article. Also Misunderstandings opens itself to charges of NPOV far more.--Filll 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as creationists start objecting to gravity in enough detail and with enough verifiable frequency to merit a separate article, feel free to make Objections to gravity. Likewise, I could see a strong case being made for creating an Objections to the Big Bang article, as this is a very common creationist theme and has a lot of different facets, though not nearly as many as the objections to evolution do—and the objections to evolution are much more noteworthy because they have played a central role in a number of recent U.S. court cases that have shaped and reaffirmed the implementation of the Establishment Clause. At best, such objections to evolution will be an important historical footnote; at worst, they could foreshadow a future anti-intellectual dark age. In either case, they are noteworthy, verifiable, and relevant enough to merit an article. The fact that an objection or criticism is ridiculous or baseless does not make it non-noteworthy! What Wikipedia policy page says that an article's topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia if it is "bizarre"?

You yourself note that this is a "world-wide encyclopedia", which means that topics that are important only in a specific part of the world—including the United States—are worthy of inclusion. They do not need to make international headlines; national ones suffice. As an American, I find creationism's claims bizarre too, and in many cases laughably unsubstantiated. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor that they aren't important enough to be neutrally reported on in a Wikipedia article. If you want us to make up for the U.S. education system's failures, then the correct article for us to work on is Evolution, not Misunderstandings about evolution; the best way to clear up misunderstandings is to nip them at the bud and try to clearly and thoroughly explain what evolution is, rather than just what it isn't—the best way is not to presume that we can predict every aspect of evolution that will be misunderstood by anyone. If a lot of people misunderstand George Washington, does that mean that we should leap to make a Misunderstandings about George Washington article, or that we should try to further clarify and improve the George Washington article itself?

For the same reason, misunderstandings of evolution should be covered on Evolution and, for more depth, in their specific areas (e.g., misunderstandings of natural selection in Natural selection, misunderstandings of vestigial structures in Vestigial structure...), not in a generic "Misunderstandings" article. And since clearly the main intention of such an article was to undermine the major creationist objections to evolution, both the stated and the unstated purposes of Misunderstandings about evolution can be better served by an "Objections" article. Where misunderstandings merit in-depth coverage (i.e., beyond the level at Evolution#Misunderstandings), they by and large merit it as a result of their common usage in the creation-evolution controversy, which means that the ideal place to thoroughly, and neutrally, discuss them is at an article like Objections to evolution. -Silence 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per HIV and AIDS misconceptions. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laypeople have misconceptions about scientific ideas all the time. There is nothing POV about the term per se. Looking through the article I don't see anything that would arise to a scientific debate per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in which case the term "objections" might be applicable. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Objections article is explicitly not about scientific objections, but about objections in general. See User:Silence/Evolution for the draft, which, unlike the "Misunderstandings" page, makes it exceedingly clear that there is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. -Silence 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other than the "Evolution is a theory" and "Devolution is possible" sections on the Misunderstandings page, I don't think that any of the topics covered on Misunderstandings about evolution are very common among laypeople, other than laypeople who are either creationists or perhaps agnostics who have been significantly exposed to creationist literature. There might be a common misconception that "Evolution is unproven/hasn't been observed", but the specific claim that speciation hasn't been observed is a creationist trademark; even more so, the the entropy and information arguments are exclusive creationist arguments. They're creationist claims first, and misconceptions second, because they didn't arise until after creationists tried to think up possible scientific-seeming ways to object to evolution and ended up resorting to thermodynamic laws and information theory. It is disingenuous to present arguments which only creationists use as though they were general-use misunderstandings, i.e., the kind of things that high-school biology students, for example, are remotely likely to get wrong. Although they are based on misunderstandings, the information theory and thermodynamic arguments are quite complex and sophisticated (albeit pseudoscientific) falsehoods. -Silence 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That sounds like an edit dispute to me, not an argument that the misconceptions article needs to be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. If I read Silence correctly, he is proposing incorporating this material in a more general article, the Objections to evolution article in preparation.--Filll 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The reason this article is different from the "AIDS misconceptions" article is that the distinction between misunderstandings and objections to evolution is so fluid, and the two topics are so fundamentally interwoven. To try to artifically subdivide the two would be both an unnecessary hardship on editors, as it will require much more work to try and neutrally distinguish misunderstandings fom non-misunderstandings, and a disservice to interested readers, as it will be withholding tons of important and relevant information from them. Misconceptions about AIDS are almost solely a result of lack of education; misconceptions about evolution, in contrast, are a complex mix of natural misunderstandings and a huge number of deliberate distortions and falsehoods resulting from decades of creationist propaganda. Once we strip away all the misunderstandings that aren't used by creationists as objections to evolution, we strip away pretty much everything that would make a "Misunderstandings" article useful to begin with. I say, kill two birds with one stone by presenting the two interrelated topics together, and thus avoiding the problem of having to sort mere misunderstandings from lies, distortions, arguments, and criticisms. -Silence 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you incorporate material from this article into yours, that's an automatic redirect or, more likely, a page move. ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that bad?--Filll 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but no grounds for deletion. Deletion, amongst others, removes the edit history necessary for attribution under GFDL. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a page move or redirect. This deletion discussion is a useful way to get broad community input before we decide what to do; it shouldn't be assumed that the only two options are to delete the page and its history, or to keep the article exactly as it is. We should discuss all the options. I'm not in favor of deleting any page histories just because I proposed this AfD; even if it ends up getting "deleted" rather than moved, it makes more sense to turn it into a redirect. -Silence 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Possibly with a rename. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland network for injured equestrians

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:ORG. Only 50 ghits. YechielMan 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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