< June 19 June 21 >
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The result was Nomination withdrawn. — Scientizzle 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsougria

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it is obviously a case of wp:not, specifically, it appears to be something made up by the author very recently.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Waltontalk 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ten Commandments for Drivers

AfDs for this article:
Ten Commandments for Drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The first AFD was closed a few minutes ago as a bad-faith nomination. I agree with that decision, but looking at the article, I considered: just because the nominator was a jerk (and has been blocked indefinitely), doesn't mean he's wrong on the substance of the matter. This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability. Let this article have its five days in court. :) YechielMan 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment That's a good point. Official papal pronouncements are copyright[1], so is this? I think the probability is high enough that this could be speedied. --Charlene 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment non-notable because... ? There are over 1 million ghits now [4]. Could need expansion and may be renamed/redirected to the whole document, but that's no reason to delete the article. We have the whole text of the ten commandments too and a large number of websites already publish all 10 driver-commandments, that's because they are commandments, they are meant for publication and there is zero chance of copyright becoming a problem here. Malc82 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Robinson

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 23:04, 20 June 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 obviously delete. It's already in the main high school article anyway, and is borderline speedyable.--Wizardman 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Day (Lambton High School)

Green Day (Lambton High School) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Annual event at a particualr high school. Seems pretty clearly non-notable, and no sources cited to counter this impression. Tagged for speedy, but A7 does not apply to events nor, it is generally heald, to school articles. DES (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FUPEI

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

Does not meet WP:WEB, no WP:RS to indicate notability. Previously deleted as G11 spam. Leuko 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Manchester United F.C.. — Scientizzle 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Manchester United

History of Manchester United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are now four separate articles chronicling the history of Manchester United F.C. in a more detailed fashion. This article is rarely updated and is now largely redundant. PeeJay 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable merge proposal. Instead of deleting the main article outright, it needs to be trimmed according to Wikipedia:Summary style. YechielMan 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's also Manchester United 1998-1999.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm erring towards this idea, tbh. That's what they've done for the History of Arsenal F.C. articles, so I think that's what we should do here. - PeeJay 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd also support this idea. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really an option as the article would be well over 200kb in size. - PeeJay 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Madara Uchiha (Naruto)

Madara Uchiha (Naruto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research/fanfiction ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Fan fiction is not by definition non-notable, or The Seven Percent Solution would be non-notable. The guidelines says that fan fiction may be considered vanity and usually is non-notable, but it's not by definition or always without exception non-notable. (Although it's true that a lot of fanboys would like to think so.) --Charlene 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a world of difference between The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and Naruto fanfic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly there is, but my point was that notability should be based on policy and guidelines. Policy and guidelines don't say straight out that fan fiction is absolutely, no exception, non-notable, and that's likely because of exceptions like Nicholas Meyer's and a hundred others. --Charlene 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there is a difference in usage here. Fan fiction, as an indulgent exercise in speculation by some kid, is almost always worthy of deletion. Published fiction that uses characters and plot elements from another work is a wholly different matter. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take this off the AfD. --Charlene 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, total original research. Sr13 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular girl

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

Contains an essay which appears to be original research, and a list of characters none of which have any sources or attribution. Article has been tagged as failing to cite references or sources since March, but there is no sign that it is being improved. Hobson 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Girish (singer)

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

Promotional article on new age musician. Difficult to ascertain any notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination, without comment on the notability of the subject. MastCell Talk 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ten Commandments for Drivers

Ten Commandments for Drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Another list of unrelated topics, POV of pastor of non-notable church, previous AfDs on similar listcruft from J. Ratzinger, Username Benedict16. Does not cite to any recognized source "Assoc Press" or alt. "Assok Press" not found in Google search of publishers, possible hoax.

Also AfDs proposed for deletion: "Ten Commandments" (purely opinion oriented list) and "Luther's 95 Theses" (Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for speculative ideas). WP:NOT Joe Rat 21:54, 20 June 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 Consensus not reached - KEEP. --VS talk 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts

List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of red links. Unnecessary. Information is more easily ascertained outside of WP, and better-maintained. —  MusicMaker 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Can be better ascertained outside of WP, but still provides some information in the context in which it is contained. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 21:49, 20 June 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. Pax:Vobiscum 09:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thalidomide!! A Musical

Thalidomide!! A Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Respond. First, having played 5 relatively small cities in England and Scotland does not qualify for notability. Second, the fact that the BBC covered it does not make it notable. The BBC does pieces on people's cats; are we to include them in WP? —  MusicMaker 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond I have to plead relative ignorance at the geography of London, which is what made going through the British musicals that much more difficult. I really don't want to offend the Brits; that's not my intent. The rationale I've stated elsewhere notwithstanding, I'm not going to withdraw this nom. Should this be judged a keep, it would simply go to support the rationale I've stated, and, therefore, would help with the eventual guidelines I hope to get out of this mess.... —  MusicMaker 04:17, 21 June 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Chitra Ramanathan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Snow! The Musical

Snow! The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN holiday musical that, apparently, didn't even do that well. (Tho, you gotta love a good disambig line....) —  MusicMaker 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Response. Apparently, there are no notability guidelines pertaining specifically to musicals. Part of my reasoning in nominating so many of these articles, in addition to the desire to rid the servers of some undeniable effluvium, is in an attempt to ascertain what the WP community at large will consider a notable musical, and what it will not. My own personal criteria were thus:
  1. If the musical achieved any production whatsoever in the two main English-language theatre cities, New York or London, it is notable.
  2. If the musical achieved a production in a "Broadway-sized" theater (1000 seats or more) in a major secondary theatre city (Toronto, San Diego, Sydney, etc.), then it is notable.
  3. If the musical achieved a production in a major festival or fringe festival in major cities known for such (New York or Edinburgh), then it is notable.
  4. If the musical achieved one production in a relatively uncompetitive town, theater-wise (Boston, Atlanta, etc.), then the musical is not notable.
  5. If the musical exists mainly to be licensed by schools, it is not notable.
To me, simply having a production somewhere that had a notable actor does not make the musical notable -- the actor could very well have done it some time before he or she was famous, or, conversely, on the way down the ladder and that was all the work he or she could get. But, like I said, the main reason for nominating so many was to see what everyone else thinks, then maybe get some guidelines together for inclusion in WP:NOTE. So, my suggestion would be to vote your conscience.... —  MusicMaker 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • By your own criteria (#1 the musical achieved any production whatsoever in... London), this musical is notable. It achieved a production in central London (it says London in the second line). If it's notable by your own criteria, you appear to be contradicting yourself by nominating it as non-notable. Until a specific WP:N guideline for musical productions is introduced we should just use the general guidline, ie significant coverage in reliable sources, which is taken care of by The Sun and The Stage articles (and a few others), so I'd recommend keeping this as before. Masaruemoto 04:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have added "that aren't a holiday-time flop". The article basically says that it played for a month and no one went to see it. This deserves inclusion in WP? —  MusicMaker 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your criteria fail Wikipedia's policy to counter systemic bias. A musical is not non-notable just because it hasn't played in an English-speaking country, and favouring US and UK productions over those of other countries is also biased. --Charlene 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not me who's favoring US and UK productions over other countries; it's the theatre community at large. I am attempting to discern some sort of reasoning in determining the notability requirements for musicals in WP. The rationale of "this has been produced somewhere so it deserves inclusion" simply doesn't make any sense. Yes, my criteria for inclusion used English-speaking cities. The fact of the matter is that New York and London are the two most competitive cities on the planet when it comes to musical theatre. "If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere."
I nominated maybe three musicals that did not achieve an English-language production. I'm not saying that a musical is NN if it didn't play in an English-speaking city; I'm using typical musical theatre conventions as to what constitutes a major production.
Are you really saying that a musical that achieved three performances in a random small town in Siberia deserve inclusion?—  MusicMaker 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)j
And those conventions come from US and UK musical theatre, which is not the entire story. --Charlene 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Waltontalk 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus: the Musical

Santa Claus: the Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. One (holiday) production in Southampton. —  MusicMaker 21:33, 20 June 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 WP:BOLDly re-written as a page on the country song. If this was a wrong move, please feel free to reopen the discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From a Jack to a King

From a Jack to a King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A song that made it to a significant national chart is notable under section 3 of the WP:MUSIC guideline for songs. --Charlene 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So does that mean that if I were to delete the current info on this page, and replace it with information on that song, that this AfD would then be closed? (I'll wait until we get more delete votes first.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:35, 20 June 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 — Caknuck 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbarella (musical)

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

NN musical. Apparently never left Austria. —  MusicMaker 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Class of 77

Class of 77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Foosbeer

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up at a bar one night; taken to AfD because a prod was removed Iknowyourider (t c) 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Waa-Mu

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

NN yearly college musical revue. NN anywhere but Northwestern. —  MusicMaker 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Waltontalk 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich in Hell

Wilhelm Reich in Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Only college production in Dublin 20 years ago. —  MusicMaker 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect. Sr13 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let the Eagle Fly

Let the Eagle Fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN Musical. —  MusicMaker 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gift (musical)

The Gift (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:05, 20 June 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 — Caknuck 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship!

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

NN musical. Six-week run at a Comic Con. —  MusicMaker 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I really don't think that a favorable review from the LA Times counts as an "award". —  MusicMaker 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dracula Spectacula

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

NN musical for schools. —  MusicMaker 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Beavershark

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

Hoax. No GHits, just some MySpace photoshopping.... Chris 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. --VS talk 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Summers

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

I can't find anything particularly notable about this guy or his achievements, so unless there is some kind of precedent/consensus for vicars, this is non-notable. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 20 June 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, capitalization fixed in the article title — Caknuck 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Lady (character)

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

Procedural nomination. Someone tagged this article for speedy deletion (CSD A7), and I disagree because it's about a character from a notable comic strip. Rather than use {hangon}, I decided to take it directly to AFD. YechielMan 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there was a redlink to this character on the Dragon Lady disambiguation page. To change the redlink to an active link, I began work on the article. But I had not been writing for five minutes when someone marked it for deletion. Consult any major history of the comic strip, and you will find that this is an important character in a major strip. I note that whoever marked it for deletion added "category: comical fictional character", which suggests confusion between "comical" and "comics".

The redlink on the disambiguation pages had a lower case "l" in Lady. If the article is not deleted, then it should be moved to Dragon Lady with a capital "L". I have already fixed the lower case letter on the disambiguation page. Rick Norwood 20:34, 20 June 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. Waltontalk 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Control freak

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

Unreferenced original research. A quick search of JSTOR seems to indicate that the term is used primarily in a joking context and does not interest psychologists. Chick Bowen 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The most important references can be added to the parent articles (novel, film, or both), but does not require a repository of its own, complete with other mundane and inconsequential references. —Kurykh 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Fight Club in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - still an indiscriminate colletion of information, a directory of loosely-associated bits of trivia, chock full of original research and very short on sources. Seeks to capture any reference to Fight Club the novel or Fight Club the film, or any reference to the rules of Fight Club, or anything with a name that sounds like Fight Club, or (my personal favorite) characters with the same name as a character in Fight Club when something else in the same episode unrelated to that character also reminds an editor of Fight Club. The listed items have nothing in common beyond the passing reference. The last AFD closed no consensus, largely based on the supposed impact that FC has had over the last several years. However, a massive sprawling list of every time anyone on a TV show, film, book, video game or whatever says something Fight Club-y tells us nothing about Fight Club, nothing about the fiction the reference is from and nothing about the real world. Defenders of the article have had several months to turn the article into something other than an enormous mess and have not done so. Time for this to be deleted. Strongly oppose in advance the inevitable suggestion to merge any of it into the article for either the novel or the film. It is worthless as a stand-alone article and it is equally worthless as a section of another article. Otto4711 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you point out to me where exactly it says that lists are somehow not subject to policy because people aren't expected to read them from top to bottom? Can you point out to me where it is exactly that it's written at all that people are expected not to read lists from top to bottom? Can you cite a reliable source that indicates, to take the first item off the list, that Ryan Lavery of All My Children's going to a fight club is in any way a reference to the film or the book,? If so, can you cite a souce that explains how All My Children is so closely associated with, to take the last item off the list (I read the list from top to bottom), the comic book The Mighty Thor that they should be on the same list, and while you're at it could you cite a reliable source that the "variation" on the FC line from the comic book was actually a variation on the line and that it was an intentional reference to Fight Club? Can you explain what having a variation of a line from the movie in a comic book tells us about the movie or the comic book or the real world? Is there a source that backs that up? Otto4711 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lists are subject to WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Do you think people read the established List of countries, Deaths in 2007, or lists of episodes from top to bottom? Can you show how the first death is related to the last death other than that they occurred in the same year? Where does it say in policy or guidelines that lists have to uphold such demanding standards? No, I can't tell you anything about All My Children or The Mighty Thor, but I intend to find out. I'm perfectly fine with you removing those entries in the mean time, and I think I've already replied with my view on the relevance of these items and the real world. Incidentally I've also added a bunch of film/novel-inspired real world fight clubs that talk about the real world. –Pomte 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • LIST and SAL are guidelines. Conformity to a guideline does not mean that policy violations can be ignored. Otto4711 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's talk about policy then. WP:NOT#IINFO says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", not that "Wikipedia cannot contain articles that some editors believe are indiscriminate collections of information". This article does not fall under any of the rejected types of articles listed in WP:NOT#IINFO. While Wikipedia itself is discriminate in choosing which articles to accept, this does not mean the articles themselves act the same way. Articles only have to be sufficiently discriminate such that they do not run into unmaintainable lengths. This article has obvious criteria for inclusion and lists items with plenty of discrimination. None of the types of articles under WP:NOT#DIR apply here either. The article is not a directory by nature; it can always be converted to streamlined prose, which takes a lot of effort and frankly I don't think it's worth it. WP:OR can always be removed, and isn't a problem inherent with this topic. WP:V is what I'm working on right now. –Pomte 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The items listed at NOT#IINFO are not and should not be read as an exhaustive list of the only possible types of articles that can be considered indiscriminate. Thos are the types for which consensus has been acheived but that does not mean that IINFO doesn't still apply to every article and that other specific aricles don't violate it. NOT#DIR is violated because this is a collection of items that are loosely associated. The inclusion of the same or a similar line of dialogue in a bunch of different movies or TV shows don't make for a strong association amongst those movies or TV shows. The fact that some examples of this type of loosely associated items is offered in the policy does not, again, mean that th examples are or should be read as an exhaustive list of all the types of articles that fall under it. Otto4711 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive, but as you implied there is no consensus on this particular type of article, so we have to focus on exactly what makes this particular list unworthy, and your answer seems to be NOT#DIR. NOT#DIR is not violated because "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." Some of the items are known for and heavily associated with the fact that they reference Fight Club, while others are already famous by themselves but also contribute to the topic at hand. The list is like a reference table, which is explicitly allowed. –Pomte 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the notion that any TV show or movie or whatever on that list is more famous because it quotes a line from Fight Club is ludicrous. There is not one item on that list that, if you asked anyone about it, would garner a response of "it quoted Fight Club" as among the top hundred reasons why it's famous or notable. "Oh yeah, Corner Gas? That was that show that had a passing reference to Fight Club in one episode!" Not hardly. Otto4711 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Those belong to the part where I said "...while others are already famous by themselves but also contribute to the topic at hand." School for Scoundrels is known for being a rip-off, from the numerous reviews I've found. All English commentary on Slagsmålsklubben refer to it as meaning "the fight club". Some of the real life fight club articles (such as Princeton University and The Real Fight Club) would take a darker tone if they weren't inspired by the film. One of the only things Through a glass productions is known for is their remix parody. The song "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" doesn't seem to be notable by itself other than the fact that its music video re-enacts Fight Club scenes. The only thing non-Greek readers currently know about the Greek SuperSport FM radio program called Fight Club is that it is called that and samples the Tyler Durden in its intro. Looking at the article for Nashville's Pirate Radio immediately conjures an image of the film. Of course, most of the TV shows and movies listed do not increase in popularity due to referencing Fight Club, but they do get people talking about it (contributed by the nature of the "you do not talk about..." meme), and they provide a counterweight to those listed above for a comprehensive look at the various formats that make references and what types of references those are. If someone is familiar with Corner Gas, then they can relate the quote to the show's general sense of humour. I can always dumb the TV/film lists into one curt list sentence with a footnote verifying each. It would also be interesting to research on any effect of the TV/movie/mass media hype on the real life fight clubs. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact of the film's popularity does not mean that every single reference to it or things that are similar to it collected together makes for an encyclopedic article. And the fact that the article has not changed much since the last AFD is a large part of the point. The article has been given four months to improve and address the concerns brought forth in the nomination and that hasn't happened. As to the entries being self-referential, even if one accepts without question that every such self-reference serves to establish the existence of the item, they do not serve to establish the relationship betweeb the item and the other items on the list, the item and Fight Club, or the item and the real world.Otto4711 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which main article? –Pomte 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "In popular culture" articles have in fact been deleted in significant number over the last few months. Otto4711 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Inclusion trends pave way for deletionist trends, whereas the latter breeds itself. I am the sole active maintainer of the article and have been gradually sourcing it over several months, so nevermind ineffective cleanup tags. I would do what you prescribed, but consider that commentary about the film's impact belongs in the film's article first and foremost. Prose may eventually be written once the firsthand experiences are verified, which is in progress. Regarding IINFO and DIR, see my response above. –Pomte 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely welcome attributable commentary about the film's impact on popular culture on the film article itself. However, I have to agree with Otto's counterpoint, "The notion that any TV show or movie or whatever on that list is more famous because it quotes a line from Fight Club is ludicrous." The list itself is synthesized to put forward the argument of Fight Club's impact in popular culture. These items are "See for yourself" original contributions, with editors taking a viewed item and adding it here to "further" the argument of the article. There is no explicit commentary talking about the film and its cultural impact; the commentary is being created by the editors themselves, saying, "Look, the book/film was referenced in these TV shows, so it has impacted that specific medium." This isn't unquestionable 1+1=2 logic -- it's subjective because no cultural standards are defined without any kind of attributable commentary offering independent perspective on the topic. It's basically original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • About Otto's counterpoint, I responded above. Sources have talked about Fight Club's impact in pop culture, as you should be aware from your own research. I'll look for more to dissipate SYN/OR concerns. The argument is not being furthered by the list; the argument warrants the list. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it is; all encyclopedias contain a bunch of trivial facts about things, whether in prose or list form. WP:TRIVIA (a style guideline) says nothing about what trivia actually is, only that it should be integrated. –Pomte 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, WP:TRIV describes trivia as "lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Cultural references", "Cultural depictions", "Subject in popular culture", "Other information", etc." Also, it says that only relevant items should be integrated: "Some entries may be speculative, or factually incorrect, and should be removed; others, such as "how-to" material, may fall outside Wikipedia's content scope policies. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Other entries may be too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all." Emphasis mine. María (críticame) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works when we're talking about the whole nature of encyclopedia articles. There was an edit war on the intro WP:TRIV,[8] and the intent of the addition was not to necessarily delete.[9] Most of the items currently on the list are relevant to the topic, not tangential because they clearly fit under the inclusion criteria. Determining which references are minor is too arbitrary a process for me to undertake with the consequence of limiting what readers see, though others are welcome to give suggestions. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did any of those films cause people to beat each other up? Were they are verifiable as this one? I honestly don't know, because I can't read those articles now. There is a severe lack of discussion about issues specific to this article here. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Useless" is as convincing as WP:USEFUL. Most sentences in the encyclopedia can be construed as trivia; it comes with being a resource for all sorts of knowledge. However, trivia becomes coherent given context, and context is being provided in the introduction. Which references are coincidental similarities? They don't just happen to reference Fight Club; many of the sources verify the reference or the intent of the creator. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize; regard "useless" and concentrate instead of "unencyclopedic," meaning WP:NOT. As for coincidental similarities, my little eye spies "The track "Roll Us a Giant" from B.P. Empire EP (2001) used Chloe's words, "I am in a pretty lonely place" among several others that have no overt reference to Fight Club. I do admit, however, that there's enough "the first rule..." jokes to bury someone alive. It comes down to indiscriminate information and lack of notability, both of which plagues this article and therefore goes against guidelines. María (críticame) 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As Infected Mushroom (creator of B.P. Empire EP) is a psychedelic trance act, it's more than likely that "I am in a pretty lonely place" is used as a sample of the character Chloe from the film Fight Club. This should be evident to anyone clicking a few links. I haven't gotten around to verifying this particular entry yet, so you may wish to do it yourself. Notability is asserted by the introduction. The information is quite discriminate; every entry is supposed to be a reference to Fight Club. Refer to my arguments above about that interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO. –Pomte 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While I haven't yet stumbled upon any sources that focus solely on the subject, there are sources that talk about pop culture in general and cite Fight Club as a non-trivial example. Many of the references listed are more than one-sentence mentions; any clearly trivial mentions can be removed. If someone reads the lead-in, I think it justifies to them the existence of the rest of the page. Every step of the claim is sourced, so there is no original research/synthesis. –Pomte 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which handful? Which parent article? Who's going to make the editorial judgment? –Pomte 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The parent article is Fight Club. That's where primary discussion should take place. And the editorial decision is easy: use the ones that are verified as significant by being referenced in independent sources. --Eyrian 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The majority of references are for Fight Club (film), not the novel. Many are verified in independent sources, making them significant by your criterion, and they would double the size of the parent article, creating undue weight. –Pomte 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, most of the things in the sections "General references in popular culture works" and beyond are not independently verified. Most have no reference, and most of what remains are self-verified (for instance, a Thottbot link for the World of Warcraft link). And a large (cited) popular culture section is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT; it seems to me that a movie's cultural impact might well be one of its most significant aspects. --Eyrian 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems your position is selective merge, not delete as bolded above. Long articles about a distinct subtopic ought to be split off according to WP:SUMMARY, especially if there is no single parent article. People will not want this at Fight Club (film). Note that I have not begun verifying large sections of the listed items as most of the opposition is concerned about the nature and justification of the list rather than its verifiability. I've removed the Thottbot link, though Thottbot is more reliable for this type of existence claim than independent publications that merely report what sites say, and may be useful in conjunction with some independent source that relates World of Warcraft to Fight Club as a whole. Feel free to remove other self-verification, and I'll be sure to look for independent sources in the future. –Pomte 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My opinion is still delete, and after reading this last comment even more so. This is not a long article about a distinct subtopic, this is a list of disparate references that have varying degrees of relation to a film and/or a book. And as for "People will not want this at Fight Club (film), well so what? If it's related to the film, either put it there or delete it. What "people" are you talking about? Do they have any inflated worth or say in what goes into such an artcile above any consensus? - fchd 09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"Fight Club in popular culture (and society)" is a distinct subtopic of "Fight Club", just as "Plot summary of Fight Club" or "Critical reception of Fight Club" are subtopics, except those shouldn't have articles by themselves. Incidentally, Fight Club (novel), Fight Club (film), Fight Club (video game) etc. are also distinct subtopics of the general topic Fight Club, and this article deals with all of those.
Sure the references relate to the film, but some of them relate to the book as well and as long as there exist references that are verifiably reference either the film or the novel without specifying which one, it doesn't make sense to have them at either Fight Club or Fight Club (film). If you actually want to delete this content, then don't say "either put it there or delete it". That's clearly merge or delete. The "people" I refer to are two who regularly contribute to Fight Club (film), both established editors and you can ask them to elaborate. There's no consensus here to "put it there" anyway. –Pomte 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#INFO says nothing about this. WP:TRIVIA deals with presentation within general articles, though you are welcome to suggest a better way to organize this list. –Pomte 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Onelastbugfixprogramming

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

Unreferenced, probably original research; prod was contested, so listing here. GJD 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of All England at York

Grand Lodge of All England at York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn. Very small schismatic group from another very small schismatic group. MSJapan 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur hoax

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

The article itself is the hoax. Google is silent about an alleged organisation SAPORD and the external link don't work. -- RHaworth 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Google also silent about Dr. Andrew McMillin in association to dinosaurs. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The creater `DinoHoax07' is probably a SPA as well.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There are some more examples of this sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry on the article's talk page. Iknowyourider (t c) 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

IPhone 2.0

IPhone 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merely a speculative list of potential features, unattributed to reliable sources, not placed in any real context for the general reader. Adequate sources for referencing an encyclopedic article on an iPhone successor are unlikely to exist right now, and any encyclopedic information that is available could reasonably included in the iPhone article. Dancter 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons By James Phillips

The Simpsons By James Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Carbon copy of The Simpsons. No reason for a redirect. Blueboy96 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aavin

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

Reads like a prospectus or an advertisement. Would have listed as a CSD candidate, but thought an AfD is more appropriate due to its length Rackabello 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus. Waltontalk 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

List of words having different meanings in British and American English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These lists originated as spinoffs of American and British English differences. The editors who used to work on that page thought that differences in vocabulary between American (AmE) and British English (BrE) could be divided into:

  1. words not used in AmE
  2. words not used in BrE
  3. words with different meanings in AmE and BrE

Unfortunately, this didn't work; this categorization turned out to be too rigid. Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and therefore don't qualify as being "not used" at all in BrE or AmE; that would have meant leaving out a lot of AmE/BrE vocabulary differences. The pages List of words not used... were therefore moved to List of words not widely used... However, page #3, i.e. List of words with different meanings, is too rigid as well. Real words with different meanings are relatively few (cf. Trudgill and Hannah, International English); most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation (e.g. smart, clever, mad). The article doesn't make such distinctions, and is in fact a confusing hodgepodge; it also features a lot of irrelevant information (such as "bird means 'avian creature'" and "read means 'to peruse written material'").

In addition, these articles are totally unmanageable and unmaintainable. Practically every day somebody adds a word to list #1 or #2 that actually belongs on list #3, or vice versa; often, someone will change or delete one or more entries on the basis of his/her personal experience (=original research: "I've never heard that" and the like).

But most of all, these articles violate several WP policies, to wit:

Bottom line: Lexical differences between AmE and BrE sure ought to be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. But that's not the way to do that; these articles have grown out of control, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. It's time to start all over again, with a totally different, source-based, encyclopedic approach. As we have seen, there are both linguistic arguments and policy-related arguments to get rid of these pages. Futhermore, two similar articles were deleted a few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_idioms.

Note that there's no need to transwiki these pages to wiktionary, either: thanks to wiktionary categories (UK, US, etc.), a list of words used differently in BrE and AmE can be automatically generated.

Please keep from pleading usefulness, effort, or interest. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've edited these articles 662 times. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, someday we're gonna bring back this stuff---in a different form. But why transwiki? This information should already be in the wiktionary, under the germane entries, duly categorized as UK, US, etc. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. No paper dictionary has such appendixes, to the best of my knowledge. Paper dictionaries have this information under the individual entries. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
See my comment #1 below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That aside, your argument is a balanced blend of WP:POKEMON and WP:NOHARM. See also my comment below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is null and void. 1) You are pleading usefulness. 2) "The article is unsourced because there is no other similar resource." Well, that's exactly the definition of original research. Boo. See also below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I do. I'd like to start an American and British English lexical differences, along the lines of American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences, both of which are spinoffs of the main article and are fairly well written. We could for example categorize lexical differences by topic: food, apparel, household, business, transportation, education, colloquial usage, etc., and include more obscure differences as well: to extend the real estate analogy, for example, try googling UK and US sites for renovate and refurbish. Pieces of information such as "a bird is an avian creature" and "to read means to peruse" would naturally be left out. I can find printed sources to support even the "renovate/refurbish" example. As for the essays, they may not be excellent, but sure they're fun... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case I support your nomination to delete and encourage you to follow-up on your plans to write an even more useful article. -MrFizyx 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Either you didn't read the discussion, or you are making a fool of me. EVERYBODY agrees that the topic is relevant. On the contrary, your comment is totally irrelevant, since it evades the issue. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't read the discussion. It takes a lot more than 8 minutes to get to this page, read it through, and post a six-line paragraph. I just hope the closing administrator takes this into account. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The closing administrator should take into account your incivility and blatant intimidation. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not just maintenance, it's also WP:WINAD. And then come linguistic issues. From a purely linguistic standpoint, the three-way classification (not used here, not used there, used with different meanings) is poor; we should gut-rehab the lists into something that makes more sense, merging them and then tearing them apart again. But it's gonna take a lot of work; I believe that a categorization by topic would be more useful than a dictionary-like alphabetical list. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's list #4? I nominated three lists. The problem of the current approach (which I prefer to term the double-entry bookkeeping approach) is that it's linguistically WRONG.
Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and real words with different meanings are relatively few; most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation. The double-entry bookkeeping doesn't make such distinctions. You can't smoothly explain how the words smart, clever, mad, rubbish, rent, quite, rather, renovate, refurbish, and hundreds more are used, with them friggin' columns. Them friggin' columns are just factually inaccurate---and take up an enormous amount of space to boot. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
LANGUAGE IS NOT A REFRIGERATOR! Language is dynamic, it evolves, it can't be compartmentalized! ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Gone as of 6/26/07. You happy now? May it rest in peace. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps language can't be compartmentalized-- but comparisons and contrasts of the language of the U.K. and the U.S. would seem to require separating the two into compartments. As I think about it, I believe that language really is a refrigerator, preserving its contents for public consumption, ready to receive additions. Some of the items have gone stale, no longer consumed, but left in the refrigerator until they are no longer recognizable. Definitely an interesting analogy. Mandsford 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also Divided by a Common Language: A Guide to British and American English by Christopher Davies (an Englishman; published by Houghton Mifflin) and Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Transatlantic English by Orin Hargraves (an American; published by OUP). Both are guides to British and American customs and culture as well as language. But neither of them feel the need to remind the reader that read can mean "to peruse and understand written material." ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Changing my opinion based on the above. If the material can be sourced, then the articles should stay and be properly referenced, not deleted merely because of formatting problems. Tevildo 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A list of words is not necessarily a dictionary. See for example List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China (!) ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment we have 11—5.5—5.5 (D-K-T). ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if this were a vote, that would be 'no overall majority'. As we know, AfDs are not votes, but overall, actions are meant to be taken on consensus with a bias of 'no consensus = no action'. At the moment, the only way to argue this is to say that those not arguing for deletion (either immediately, or after a transwiki) are not taking policy into account - whereupon Wikipedia becomes a vast Nomic, at the beck-and-call of those who know how to play the game. WLDtalk|edits 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The table example is featured in the main article. Anyway, lexical differences between EngEng and USEng are to be covered, that's for sure. We still have to figure out how. 11—6—6 (D-K-T). ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
11-6.5-7.5 ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z...... Mandsford 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • paradigm lists -- samples every type of difference (e.g. unknown in America; considered obsolete in Britain; used only ironically in America; considered offensive in Britain; applied only to children in America; used only in the metaphorical sense in Britain; etc. etc.) Such a list would be useful IMO; the current articles are nothing like that.
  • glossaries -- a set of structured lists of differences by topic, say, might be useful -- I think this is what JackLumber has in mind -- or possibly as an augmentation of existing dialect-neutral, topic-specific glossaries.
  • exhaustive lists -- this is possible for restrictive topics; the English language is not such a topic. These lists can only be exhaustive by replicating Wiktionary. Far easier to move them all over there and save duplication. For subsequent maintenance, if you can't be bothered creating a Wiktionary account, just add your wee edits anonymously.
  • random subset lists -- this is what we currently have. Falling between all the stools, reading it all through is sometimes interesting, sometimes tedious, but never encyclopedic. It diverts both readers and editors from more productive work.

jnestorius(talk) 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Joesty---your description is most perfect. I actually prefer the paradigm kind of thing, as noted in the complaint and on the LOWHDMIBAAE's talk page: Just because a word displays British/American differences doesn't mean it's "mostly used in one variety" or it has "different meanings." Usage, frequency, denotation, connotation, register,... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Discounting the SPA's, notability is is not established by reliable independent sources per WP:NOT. Sandahl 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Max Keiser

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

Not notable. Subject is founder of Hollywood Stock Market, which is notable, but Keiser himself has received insufficient independent media coverage under BLP. Article reads like a fan site, and a large amount of it is devoted to non-notable Karmabanque website.--Mantanmoreland 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • information Note: The above comment comes from an IP address that has no editing history prior to the above comment.--Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum - Sorry no I am not Max Keiser. I didn't have an account now I do. — Predictablefrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC). (diff)
  • the "Max Keiser" entry on Wikipedia is useful because it gives additional information about the first version of the Holllywood Stock Exchange, which seems to be a more ambitious endeavor that what we have right now. Shouldn't that information go in a Hollywood Stock Exchange article then? Morgan Wick 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but shouldn't there be only one "keep"? You appear to have "voted" (quote unquote) twice, once logged in and once not. I assume this is inadvertent. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing your "vote" but I was hoping that you might also revert the links to your site too. They are not appropriate.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: six edits by four SPAs are from two users at most (perhaps only one):
  • (I ((spa))-tagged their posts.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - subj is an active correspondant for Al Jazeera English. In considering notability, wikiepedia BLPs are replete with brief stubs of reporters for various news networks, a good portion of which are of debatable notability as people, but have their own very brief articles due to their positions. As this wikipedia by nature is British/American by location, language, majority of users, caution should taken in neutrally considering reporters from Western hemisphere networks vs networks that have in the past evoked widespread hatred against it, whether justified or not. Piperdown 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First, being a journalist for Al Jazeera is not sufficient to establish notability. You appear to recognize this by taking a "neutral" position. Second, please stop disparaging the motives of editors favoring deletion of this article. That is now the second time you have done this. Your innuendo and attacks are tiresome.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Paula Campbell (singer)

Paula Campbell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promo campaign, see also cfd for Category:Paula Campbell albums) of a monnotable singer with a single album of dubious merit and circulation. `'юзырь:mikka 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is nothing really to merge; there is a mention in two of the three artists' articles already, one of which is supported by reference to an interview. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The DNA Algorithm

The DNA Algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non noteable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Should be merged with Daniel Bedingfield, Nikola Rachelle and Natasha Bedingfield Dalejenkins 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge as above. Not notable in itself.-gadfium 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dalejenkins 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Biowiki

Even less notable than many of the wikis Wyington Duarm has been nominating for deletion. No articles even link to this one. Mynglestine 14:47, 20 June 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 & Merge. --VS talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother

George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Galbijim Wiki

Not notable, no outside sources, no newspaper articles, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyington Duarm (talk • contribs) 2007-06-19 21:43:14

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet systematics

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

Article describes a non-notable group; as noted on its talk page by the author, "Of course is a new term, not "established" but no harm can be done by collectively creating a new term of something that exists by many different names, as the entry text warns." I requested it for speedy deletion; another user removed the tag for a reason that I don't understand, but since it was removed I brought it here. Nyttend 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular cultural references for The Wizard of Oz

Popular cultural references for The Wizard of Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Article lists any trivial mention of The Wizard of Oz in film, book or TV show, including "movies where the characters are seen watching The Wizard of Oz." Therefore, it runs the risk of becoming insanely bloated. The main article has a "cultural impact" section as well as a list of notable adaptations. My mistake; this list seems to be concerned with pop culture refs to the film, not the story itself. The entirety of the article up for AfD is duplicated at the film's article. Bzuh? María (críticame) 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Better here than there is not a valid argument for keeping the article. If the information is unencyclopedic in the main article then it's unencyclopedic on its own. The proper course of action for dealing with unencyclopedic material is to delete it, not to foist it off into its own terrible article for someone else to deal with. Otto4711 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I didn't find the keep arguments sufficiently persuasive. Keep if referenced is not a good argument, when you are not providing the references. A search through google does not yield anything which can be taken as a serious academic or reliable source. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bektashi jokes

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

Wikipedia is not a joke book, and this article does not cover encyclopedic material. The article does not cite its sources and is basically a list of off-color jokes. Agha Nader 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article contains a lot of original research. The article states: "The following example illustrates how the Heterodox understanding of Islam by Bektashis is expressed in these jokes:" While it tries to give significance to the "examples", it is entirely based on OR. Another case of OR is "The legacy of the Bektashi also serves as a means of opposing the pressures put on society by Orthodox Islam." If you remove the original research from the article, then it will indeed be an article that is just a list of jokes.--Agha Nader 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment There has been no sources to prove the notability of Bektashi jokes. Just because a theme for a joke exists does not mean it ought to have its own article.--Agha Nader 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith--Agha Nader 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Its basic premise" is based on original research that cites no references... how is that encyclopedic?--Agha Nader 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Your characterizing it as a "joke book" when it obviously is not is difficult to understand. That it is not properly sourced does not make its content unencyclopedic. And it certainly is not in violation of WP:OR given the information in its external links. Obviously, it needs more scholarly references but that can be fixed and is not grounds in and of itself for deletion. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The entire article is in violation of WP:ATT. Are we to assume it is encyclopedic because the unreferenced original research sounds encyclopedic? There has been no proof that it is encyclopedic. Since you are making the affirmative statement (i.e. "its basic premise is clearly encyclopedic.") you have the burden of proof. Moreover, the external links are not references, they are websites that have these jokes.--Agha Nader 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless the editor who originated this article is John Shindeldecker, none of this is OR. The content appears to be derived from the third external link, which really should be listed as a citation instead. (Under Section X, there is a series of jokes listed, along with interpretations that seem to match those adopted in the WP article.) A check of the organization hosting the ref'ed article suggests this is a secondary source with editorial control, not self-published, although I won't claim to know anything about the "Alevilik-Bektasilik Research Site." But a google search tells me that whoever this author is, the Canadian gov't considers him authoritative enough to cite on an official document. Zenauberon 16:36, 25 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lighthouses in Spain

Lighthouses in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

zomg listcruft!!!111! Erm. Sorry. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. -- Merope 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look on a map. We don't delete articles because you can't verify it without getting out of your chair. Dhaluza 12:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect and possible merge to AC/DC. Most of the keep arguments fail to address the issue of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The relevant portions of this article can be merged at editorial discretion, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
AC/DC in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This is the third nomination for this article, but I hope those who are going to look at that fact and be inclined to !vote "keep" because it has survived previous AFDs will look at the article and at the quality of the "keep" arguments. In the 1st AFD, two of the four keepers appealed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX, arguing that if this article is deleted then other similar articles would also be deleted. In the 2nd, three out of the four "keeps" were based on the notion that the article could be improved and the other keeper at least partially agreed with the nomination. As to why this article should be deleted, it falls under WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:AVTRIVIA. The mere presence of something that AC/DC did or that a character in a movie is dressed like a member of AC/DC or that someone drew a picture of an AC/DC member for an album cover for another band tells us nothing about AC/DC or the thing in which AC/DC appears or the real world. The fact that a character wears an AC/DC t-shirt or regrets missing an AC/DC concert is trivial and again tells us nothing about the band, the fiction it's drawn from or the real world. A strong consensus has emerged that it is not notable that an artist covered another artist's song and over a dozen lists of such cover songs have been deleted. The only part of this article that is encyclopedic is the list of tribute albums, and I have preserved that in List of AC/DC tribute albums and located it where it belongs in Category:Tribute albums. This article is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Otto4711 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note - the first AFD for this article is found here under a different article title. Otto4711 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion - often crap ends up in articles which simply should not be there, but the subject itself is notable of an article and a decent article *can* be written. Orderinchaos 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then let's delete this article, which is not decent, and then someone can write a decent article. Otto4711 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that an article is sourced does not mean that the rest of WIkipolicies don't apply. Simply saying "it's sourced" does not address the policy violations asserted in the nomination. "Relevant" does not appear to have any foundation in policy or guidelines. Otto4711 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, I think "relevant" was in reference to your nom, which asserts that many of the references to AC/DC are not relevant to the band. It would also seem pertinent to WP:AVTRIVIA, since that which is trivial is presumably non-relevant. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That similar articles may exist about other acts is not a valid justification for this article. Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, The Who and Rush all had an influence on pop culture but articles filled with this sort of stuff were deleted for them. This article does not in any way establish AC/DC's influence on pop culture. It establishes that there have been a few instances of people mentioning AC/DC or dressing up like someone from AC/DC in movies or TV shows. In almost every instance noted, some other band could have been substituted and it would have made absolutely no difference. Otto4711 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please dont put words in my mouth or try to refactor what I'm saying, I said "The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years" I didn't say xxx has an article so this one should, referencing demonstrates Notability together woth Verfiability the sources are reliable the indiscriminate unsourced pieces were removed during the previous AfD, but then you know this as you initiate the second nomination a week after the first AfD closed and have now started a third, I suggest that you go and read the policy WP:POINT and since your demanding further policy considerations also read WP:CIVIL and respect the opinions of others. 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of civil, falsely accusing people of violating POINT or CIVIL just because they disagree with you and expect you to be able to defend your statements is in itself highly uncivil. I respect your right to have your opinion but I also disagree with it and I will continue to challenge it. If you don't like having your opinion challenged then you should probably reconsider participating in these sorts of discussions. Otto4711 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7. -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Barajas

Jesus Barajas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedy Deleted as duplicate page and not a candidate for a redirect. SirFozzie 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A R REHMAN

A R REHMAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article already exists for this individual. This duplicate article is a redundant mess. The article was created not long ago today, June 20. The creator apparently compiled this mess of information haphazardly primarily for the addition of this individual to the List of notable converts to Islam page, unaware that the individual is already listed on that page (with a link to the established article). The creator and sole editor of the article in question, Abrus, has shown to have little familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it should be noted by his short contribution history that he has spent a good portion of it removing information that he does not like, and listing Answers.com articles (which are explicit mirrors of Wikipedia) as sources. I suggest that this article be speedily deleted. C.Logan 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. I'm not crazy about moving things to BJAODN that aren't funny, so I won't. Sr13 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chickens in popular culture

Chickens in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate list serving as a directory of loosely-associated topics. Draws together material from multiple genres and styles of fiction along with a few real chickens with absolutely nthing in common beyond the existence of a chicken, or in some cases a person in a chicken suit. Otto4711 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep (or annihilate popular culture sections!). Please don't remove this, otherwise all this rubbish gets rolled back into the already too-large Chicken article from where I removed it. I'm not wild about "popular culture" stuff anyway, but there are plenty of Wiki editors who seem to love it, and better they add it to articles like this than into serious articles about biology or whatever. Neale Monks 16:54, 20 June 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. Prodego talk 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott Davies (English footballer)

Scott Davies (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect and merge as per editorial consensus on appropriate talk pages. Not here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The speedy deletion of this article (as a CSD G4, also in light of NPOV issues) was overturned at DRV. The article's title and structure raise NPOV concerns. Clearly, some content is useful, and a merge, redirect, or even a rewrite, could be in order. However, no consensus emerged at the DRV about any further action after overturning. Weak delete, as it stands, though obviously the DRV (and I) encourage alternative suggestions. Xoloz 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply referencing something doesn't make it neutral. If I were to create an article Accusations of racism made against George Bush and then write about every controversy he'd been involved in, where some commentator had used the word 'racist', would that be NPOV? Of course, all the incidents from Iraq to Gitmo would be notable and, of course, criticism of Bush's involvement in them would a legitimate topic, but organising them round that loaded word would be biased. Now we should have articles (don't we?) on French attitudes and actions towards Algeria - and criticism of them should be recorded (including, in context, any description of them as genocide) - but this is as biased as List of times someone has described the pope as bigoted or Accusations of barbarism against Islam.--Sandy Donald 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There are about 12 daughter articles of 'George Bush' including one called Criticism of George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush so I don't think your example about George Bush was a good one. Your example of 'barbarism against islam' is also not good as we have Allegations of Islamic apartheid, Criticism of Islam and Islam and slavery as well as Islamist terrorism not to mention Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid amongst many others including just articles on books or documentaries and redirects. If we were to accept your argument all of these articles must be deleted, by the way I think genocide should be mentioned in this title name, because it has been described as a Genocide by individuals, organizations and some governments (such as the government of Turkey, whatever your personal opinion of them is), the article is not presenting the French actions in Algeria as genocide as a fact, it is an examination of the phenomena surrounding the genocide claim. Also this title was chosen by an admin to make it more neutral, so if your objection is just the title alone, it doesn't merit deletion. Reach consensus on the talk page for name change, rather than deleting, btw your arguments sound very similar to Doc glasgow you wouldn't happen to be friends? Bleh999 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Both of those articles are already quite extensive, they are not suitable for merging as we usually split articles that are very long, I don't think that is a good reason to delete this article since it is going against wikipedia policy. Bleh999 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To be more precise: The historical events these accusations are based on, and how France behaved, is covered in other articles. The accusation from official Algeria was brought up rather recently and should be added to one of these articles, for now, IMO. The accusation article is not very long, yet, either. -- Steve Hart 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not know about Torture during the Algerian War. That might be a good idea to merge both articles (but by reading a bit that one, a big NPOV work seems needed on that one too). -- lucasbfr talk 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with what you are saying about the obvious relevancy of the topics, but Torture during the Algerian War that article is specific to one topic, namely torture, maybe it could be renamed to Human rights abuses and accusations of Genocide during the Algerian War, and both old articles redirecting to the newly merged one, maybe then I would support a merge, but I don't see how the topics would fit in the same article otherwise. Bleh999 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentIt should be noted that Philip Baird Shearer is the admin that speedily deleted this without an AfD contrary to wikipedia policy. I don't agree this should be merged into human rights in Algeria because the French rule in Algeria is considered a different state as per wikipedia norms, besides yet again Philip Baird Shearer is confusing moving the name of the article with a deletion of the content, either you disagree with the title or the content, which is it? You don't make any sense at all. Bleh999 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree that Human rights in French Algeria and Algeria shouldn't be discussed in the same article, these are 2 very different subjects. I note that Human rights in France has a section called Torture and inhumane treatments during the Algerian War that points the reader to Torture during the Algerian War. -- lucasbfr talk 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask which above you are refering to? AfD is more a discussion than a vote. -- lucasbfr talk 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The major reason is that if it remains it makes a mockery of the AFD process. (see History of previous deletions above). The second reason is that the current name makes the structure of the article tend towards a non neutral point of view, if the text were to be placed into the article human rights in Algeria the issued and the recent allegations could be looked at in an historical context --Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I considered your vote to be keep if you just want it renamed, however we have Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid. Allegations_of_Brazillian_apartheid, Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba, Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid survived 6 AfD and it looks like Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid will survive too Bleh999 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My !vote is consistent with keep if someone is only counting noses (I hope the closing admin actually reads stuff where there is a true difference of opinion). Why keep it somewhere? It seems to easily pass WP:N, the war is a historical event (how one interprets it seems to be the core of the controversy/accusation). WP has seen fit to not use certain terms as being inherently POV ("cults" comes to mind), unfortunately "apartheid" isn't there perhaps so we don't mischaracterize anything, we're left to parrot whatever terminology the "alleger" or "accuser" uses. Also the whole "allegations", "claims", and "accusations" is troublesome in titles as it is in articles themselves. Is a "claim" sufficient to support an article? I hope not. Many "claims" are based on the loudest voices with the most strident views, and WP would give WP:UNDUE weight to those views. A quick google search for Bush and "war crimes generates 2million ghits, Bush and "war criminal" another 770k, but unless and until Bush is put on trial somewhere for something related to those accusations, I'd venture to say that accusations are cheap and despite their volume an article Accusations of war crimes against George W. Bush would be unwarranted and premature, as would be the 2 million ghits for judaism + evil, 2.3 million ghits for islam + evil, and 2.5 million for christianity + evil, be bases for articles Accusations that Judaism is evil, Accusations that Islam is evil, Accusations that Christianity is evil. Sorry for the long explanation, but it's not an easy keep or delete for me on this one. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Those comparisons aren't really valid since those articles don't even exist and we can't even judge them but if they did exist we would judge them on their own merits per WP:ALLORNOTHING, also do we have articles that criticize George Bush, by the way someone else pointed out that the Assyrian holocaust is not recognized by any country in the world, therefore it is really just an accusation as well, and that term is not recognized except online. Should it be deleted? The fact is that there is no set guideline on what constitutes a genocide for the people that have suffered the events that lead them to call it a genocide. There is nothing hateful or incorrect about the current title of this article, it may not be perfect but I don't understand the objections of some people, although I do respect what you have said about the 'allegations' articles, but the fact is that the people of wikipedia support articles with such names, expect more to be created. Bleh999 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Bleh999 I think you are putting beans up your nose, just because there are some articles that exist on Wikipedia that are inappropriately named is no reason for keeping another one that has all the same problems as the ones you are mentioning. A much better idea would be to suggest that those articles be moved to better names or deleted as is being discussed here with this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That link has no relevancy to what we are discussing, I don't what compelled you to think it did. Besides we judge the content as it is viewed from wikipedia policies, not because of personal bias, maybe you forgot that in your zeal to get this article deleted. No one has yet stated a valid reason why this article violates wikipedia policies, your own personal opinions aside.Bleh999 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gavin wolpert

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

This is a borderline case, but he's not on the right side of notability yet, I'm affraid. Apart from being unreferenced, (I found the link to copy of the documentary here), it's tough to say what distinguishes Wolpert from numerous others Bridge pros around. His achievements are all fine (Blue Ribbon pairs are still a side event of NABCs, and he came second one year at Spingold. He's currently ranked 586 in the world [18]. The problem with establishing of notability within bridge world is a bit difficult, as it's kind of walled garden; (see Google). In all fairness, he was sort of featured in Sydney Morning Herald, but more as a traveling bridge hired gun than for his achievements... Tough call, I'd say. Duja► 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas talk? 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Wilson (Consultant)

Paul Wilson (Consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet notability criteria for persons. Of the four sources given, only one is from a reliable source, and it is not an article about the subject, just one that mentions him. Prod was removed by anon. -- Merope 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Burroughs Report

The Burroughs Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about an e-book by William S. Burroughs. First, it fails WP:BK since no secondary sources are known. Second, I would merge to the article about the author if there were any sources about this text; but even the text itself is no longer available online, the web site seems to be dead. PROD was contested, with comment: "major author. any of his works is impt." By WP:BK, this would require special historical significance of the author, which does not seem obvious to me. --B. Wolterding 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete William S. Burroughs is an important author but, as far as I can tell, The Burroughs Report is not cited in the MLA bibliography and doesn't come up in Academic Search Premier. Unless other sources are forthcoming, this information should be included in the William S. Burroughs article. Jordansc 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deletion - (Patent nonsense). This article from start to finish has been nothing more than a forum in-joke. If it's ever to be a serious article, it needs to rewritten from scratch citing real academics and journalists.  Netsnipe  ►  20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First World Problems

First World Problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:OR and/or WP:NEO Iknowyourider (t c) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

this is a fascinating conundrum in the modern world and wikipedia desperately needs to stay on top of stuff like this to stay relevant.

also, ironically, having your wikipedia article marked for deletion is perhaps the ultimate FWP. as a mark of wikipedia's hipness (hipsters love irony!) perhaps the article could be left in this state indefinitely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imperialism cola (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 Jun 2007 (UTC)

  • (Disclosure: I have once been a victim of WP:IDONTLIKEIT delete of a fresh article that was thus deprived a chance to develop properly.) Digwuren 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would consent to see it userified for that reason; but this should not be in article space. There may be an article here; but this is not it, and is not likely to become it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't get that from the article; I got the idea that certain things that are enormous problems in the first world are completely irrelevant in the third, and vice versa. But I can't tell if this article is OR, and I don't have time to go find out. I could agree that a different article with a different name approaching this issue might be the best solution. Capmango 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I do find the OR that Rogue offers a wish-fulfillment of living in the Third World hilarious, however, and offer BJAODN as an alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I must have skipped over that paragraph the first time. That is pretty hilarious. I wonder how many third worlders spend their days fighting mythical monsters in underground dungeons. Capmango 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Likely less than the number of first worlders, SqueakBox 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not as bad as "My McGriddle's folds were not injected with enough syrup this morning" Wildthing61476 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
How does that change the fact that Krugman used the phrase "first world problems" ? User:Imperialism_cola
Comment The fact that Krugman used the phrase is not a justification for an article and especially one that fails to address the reality of first world problems, SqueakBox 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Especially since his argument is that real problems in the First World are not being caused by the Third World, although some claim this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Klaatu barada nikto

Klaatu barada nikto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are not compelling, and a simple list of occurrences tells us nothing about the phrase, the film, the media in which the phrase appears or the real world. I agree that none of this should be merged to the film article and in fact I'd be willing to bet without looking that this was forked off from that article because the editors there got tired of dealing with it so they decided to turn it into someone else's problem. Otto4711 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to avoid the words in AfD discussions because it always seems to provoke this response. I understand and agree with the the WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING guidelines, so by implication when I use the words in AfD I mean within an encyclopaedic context. I guess I need to add the context every time. It is useful encyclopaedic content, and would be of interest to people using an encyclopaedia to research the impact of 1950's sci fi in popular culture. I've come down on the delete side of plenty of lists that I personally found interesting or entertaining, because I didn't think they belonged in an encyclopaedia. I think this list belongs. Capmango 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because the content was split off from that article, per the edit history of each article. Editors don't want it there. Otto4711 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps said editors are having an ownership problem, then? If it is relevant information to the movie, then it rightly belongs in the article. I don't think the difficulty of maintenance should be a criteria to delete. Tarc 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But the presence of the quote in some other film or TV show is not relevant information to TDTESS. Otto4711 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The entries are not famous for being associated with the phrase. The phrase being uttered in Rayman 3 does not make the game famous. The large majority of the items in this list are not famous because they used the phrase. When people think of any of these items, they don't think, "Oh, that phrase boosted the medium's prominence!" The only exception on the list I can see is the Star Wars characters being named after parts of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The phrase is notable, not just because of its mention in the movie, but because it has become so deeply embedded as a cultural phenomenon, having been used in a wide range of media over a period of decades, as is throroughly documented in the article. It is the inclusion of these dozens of references that establish notability of the phrase and the article. The entries are not proving their fame; it is the notability of the phrase and the article that are being conclusively proven. Alansohn 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you are citing original research -- the firsthand observations of the editors themselves -- to put forward an argument about the film's impact. The article has "See for yourself" original contributions instead of attributable critical commentary about the phrase's impact. This is not an logical 1+1=2 argument -- this is subjective since this topic is bound by cultural standards. The editors themselves are basically listing their own observations and saying, "The phrase was used in these TV shows, so it has impacted that particular medium!" It's essentially indiscriminate trivia because there is no attributable intermediary that observes the film's impact on certain media. The editors are doing that themselves, and that's just plain synthesizing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The primary means by which Notability is established in Wikipedia is by providing references to the subject. That's what I see in this article. It does not mean providing quotes that say "the phrase 'Klaatu barada nikto' is notable". Every single one of these quotes is a completely objective reference supporting the depth to which the phrase has permeated popular culture. There is simply no requirement whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia policy that requires that Notability may only be established if it is "reflected through uncovered commentary". Notability has been established. Alansohn 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability is being established through original research. This article has no independent and attributable voice saying, "The phrase is prominent in popular culture." Even if there were sources provided, this does not give editors a reason to indiscriminately list bits of trivia to support the viewpoint. I've explained already that the inclusion of the phrase in most listed items do not automatically make it notable. Of course the connection is "clear" -- but is it encyclopedic for inclusion? That's not possible to judge with editor-submitted indiscriminate trivia. I've already said that most of these items are not made famous for including the phrase, and besides having these phrases, there is no relevant connection between the items. There is no independent basis for this article. How is the phrase any more prominent than having in popular culture entities like root beer or chicken? Because it's specialized? You're arguing for an article without merit, because the topic has not been explicitly explored by attributable critics. There is no inherent substance that is not being determined by the editors themselves. I'll be concluding my arguments here because neither of us will bend, and I believe I've made my case clearly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but applying some common sense to this arena: Most of the references to Klaatu Barada Nikto are easter eggs; the whole point of the reference is that it is subtle. Capmango 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Klaatu barada nickel. Jtrainor 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, that's a nicely circular argument. It's notable because people mention it and people mention it becuase it's notable. Otto4711 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect and merge to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. Edit history remains intact and can be used while merging content. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sergeant Bluff-Luton High School

As Schoolcruft. Article is not encyclopaedic, does not meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thewinchester (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

quite seriously, perhaps you can try to convince us of this, or at least outline why. ?DGG 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing just that, ad nauseum, in the past 200 deletion discussions I've participated in, so I guess I figured everyone knew it. But I guess I should do it every time. Here's the argument: User:Noroton/opinions. Noroton 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CIA HTTP cookies controversy

AfDs for this article:
CIA HTTP cookies controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was nominated a week ago and Kept with the argument "let's wait until the DRV for Brandt is closed". Well, it has been closed, and this topic is as non-notable as it was then. -- Itub 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait for what? --- RockMFR 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless there's some really compelling reason to delete, I'd like to give the article some time to expand. This article has been in existence for not even two weeks yet, for example. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. Wizardman 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sergeant Bluff-Luton Elementary School

As Schoolcruft. Article is not encyclopaedic, does not meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thewinchester (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Logan Levkoff

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

unsourced, reads like an advert Will (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Smilodon in popular culture

Smilodon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of an extinct tiger. Otto4711 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of pets in EastEnders

List of pets in EastEnders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a list of pets from a soap opera? There is no encyclopedic value here. Otto4711 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its as important as a list of characters, as pets can be crucial to a plot a lot of the time. Keep. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Groomba

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

No claim of notability in article; product is still in beta stage. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't establish notability. Contested prod. Kathy A. 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrug people

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

As per the article creator request. Some other contributors have raised some concerns about the article as being a hoax or at leas not verified. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Victorianism

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

Looks like someone's high school essay. Full of opinions and not a source in sight. The term itself does not appear to be common at all. Sandy Donald 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Encantadia plot summary (part one)

Encantadia plot summary (part one) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Encantadia plot summary (part two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Two long, sprawling, rambling articles summarizing what appears to be every detail that flashed across the screen. Otto4711 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The notability of the concept has not been established through coverage by independent reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-universality in computation

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

Non-notable concept, used only by its inventor. An additional issue with the article is that the meanings of the terms used deviate from the common meanings used in the field of computability theory, making the article confusing and misleading. Discussion with the author (see Talk:Non-universality in computation) has failed to resolve this.  --LambiamTalk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. What exactly would we be keeping? What could be proposed as a neutral topic for an article? If reliable sources can be found to show that Akl's work is notable, any appropriate work could be merged to our article on Hypercomputation. Note that there is already an article called Selim Akl that contains a statement that's clearly POV: Dr. Akl has shown that the notion of universality in computation is false. This statement lacks reliable sources to establish its truth. I still maintain my Delete vote for the present article, and invite discussion as to whether any of this material belongs in Hypercomputation. EdJohnston 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You would keep what is verifiable and place it in context, even if that leaves a stub. The theory was published, and even if disproved, it is still notable as a rejected theory.Dhaluza 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. One of the consequences of "publish or perish" is that almost any assistant professor has managed to formulate several ideas on which they have written a series of peer-reviewed publications; see also Least publishable unit. Peer review examines whether the work is original, of interest to researchers in the area, and does not contain serious mistakes. Acceptance does not mean it is notable in any usual sense of the word. That comes only when others pick up the idea and start using it (and not just dutifully refer to it in a "related work" section). Should we lower the threshold to publication by the inventor of an idea in a few peer-reviewed publications being enough to consider the topic sufficiently notable to become encyclopedic, there is no end to the uninteresting stuff we can expect.  --LambiamTalk 07:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You raise a valid point about "publish or perish", however you use this to justify a novel interpretation of WP:RS. There is no requirement there for checking that sources have themselves been cited. Unless the journals publishing this work are known for publishing quackery, we need to defer to their judgment, and not substitute our own. They do more than just check for typos; they decide whether to publish or not to protect their reputation. While this is not an absolutely effective filter, it does eliminate most of the usual wacky stuff. This AfD is taking the WP "quackery patrol" into new ground, arguing the relative merits of the theory itself, and dismissing what appear to be RS. That is not our job. Dhaluza 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He does not need to argue verifiability; merely notability. Papers that are not cited are the equivalent of articles that end up on a cuttingroom floor; there's no evidence they're of interest to anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that your personal opinion, or does it reflect a consensus opinion shared by the WP community? It certainly seems to go well beyond the policy guidance at WP:V and WP:RS. Dhaluza 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Hello, about the comment on "publish or perish"... once again, I feel as if some people are very quick to judge these sources or these articles without going through a thorough fact check. I do agree with Dhaluza and beleive we have shown that the article is verifiable. I do not believe Dr. Akl falls under the publish or perish mentality. I can see there being more of a concern if Dr. Akl was a recent PhD graduate, but according to his bio he has had his PhD for thirty years and is a Tenured professor at one of Canada's best universities... i don't see this as a publish or perish motive, and feel to acuse this on that basis is stretching it. I am aware, as per Lambiam 's and my discussion on the talk page that we are to forget all credentials in WP, however, if we are talking about something like publish or perish, his credentials should come into question. Also, I do not think that just because an article about the Perspex machine is being considered for deletion that this is a valid reason to throw the article away. Once again if you read the article, James Anderson dedicates an entire section to Dr. Akl's result. He goes one step further and claims to have found the universal machine... however, this does represent valid research. I don't understand how anything that is not publish in anything less than the most prestigious journals would gain any validity in WP, if editors could not agree as to what is considered a "good" or "bad" journal. The scientific community accepts peer reviewed journals and even though some may be more prestigious and better edited than others, they must all start somewhere. I don't think we can be the judge as to what counts as "Good" peer reviewed sources and bad ones. It seems far too subjective. You either create a list of journals that WP accepts as valid or you must accept them all as valid. Thank you ewakened 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
While I basically agree with most of what you said, I think we can give relative weight to different journals, and discount those that have been shown to publish unreliable material. In fact WP:FRINGE deals with this in the "primary witness to notability" criterion. So, we would not use references from a journal less reliable than WP for notability, because that could make WP the primary witness. But in this case, no one seems to question the reliability of the journals, the argument seems to set a very high bar, by requiring that the references are also used as references. This is novel, and in my opinion excessive. Dhaluza 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The requirement is that others than the inventor pick up on the topic: his or her idea/invention/.... If that is done in academic publications, the authors of these publications will cite their sources, which possibly are the original publications, but that is besides the point. An example. I can easily find many sources referring to Riemann's xi function, even without going back to the original publication by Riemann. Therefore his xi function is notable. The same does not hold for his psi function defined in the same publication. Although Riemann's publication Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse is well cited, the psi function he defines therein is rarely mentioned. It is not notable. If the mere fact of an idea being used by its inventor, who happens to be the author of a publication mentioning it, is enough to establish notability, then we are definitely setting the bar too low.  --LambiamTalk 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that sources have been cited are cited can be considered more reliable, and given more weight. But, the bar for inclusion has been set much lower in WP policy, and while the arguments to raise it may have merit, they do not represent consensus. The place to try to get consensus for new policy is in the related policy forums, not AfD. Dhaluza 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep bringing up reliability, since that is not at issue here. The place where we try to get consensus on the question whether the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia is right here, in this discussion. Also, I don't know which of the many Wikipedia policies you are referring to when you write "the bar for inclusion has been set much lower in WP policy". I am not trying to set any new policy, but am just applying what I consider to be common sense. There are some guidelines for notability – which is not the same as policy – but they are not cast in stone, and are to be applied with common sense.  --LambiamTalk 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so then you agree that the sources are reliable per WP:RS (and therefore at least some of the content is verifiable per WP:V). Where your interpretation goes well beyond policy is by rejecting these sources on some other grounds, then saying it does not have Notability (which is based on sourcing). You need to cite some consensus based policy or guideline supported argument for deleting this, otherwise what you call "common sense" seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dhaluza 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you be more specific in identifying the relevant policy than saying "well beyond policy"? I have no clue what the policy is or policies are that you are referring to. I think the material covered in the article is non-notable. If you feel that it is notable and therefore should be kept, please argue why you think that it is notable, instead of waving some unspecified policy in my face.  --LambiamTalk 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Of course the sources are reliable, in the sense of WP:V. They are primary sources. What source could be more reliable for verifying that Dr. Akl claims such-and-such than a publication by Dr. Akl in which he claims such-and-such? 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This statemet is contrary to the WP definition of primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS. The author's notes are primary sources, but his scholarly publications are secondary sources. This argument is conflating the author with his theory. The author is a primary reference in relation to his biography, but not his theory. Again, these new, novel, and evolving deletion arguments all appear to be contorting policy to support what at bottom is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dhaluza 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not my understanding of WP:PSTS for mathematical publications. Primary sources are the original published research papers describing a new concept, theorem, definition, etc. Secondary sources are survey papers, textbooks, or other research papers that describe the same material but do not make any claim of novelty for it. Research papers that cite the original published work may be secondary sources, or may not, depending on how trivial the citation is. Author's notes are generally not available and therefore generally not any kind of source at all. —David Eppstein 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP terms have definitions that may differ from common or specialist usage, but we must use the WP definition to interpret WP policy. WP:PSTS does not address mathematics specifically (the term "math" does not even appear), but it does address science in general, linking to lab notebook under primary sources. Mathematics research is a little different, but not so different that we need a completely different definition. Primary sources on WP are the set of initial observations, and secondary sources are the subsequent conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports on what is published in RS. There is no need for WP to set a higher standard for inclusion by only considering secondary sources that have been cited previously. The authors of the consensus-based policy documents could have used this standard for inclusion, but did not. Dhaluza 10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Although not fully accepted as consensus, I think WP:SCI is far more relevant to this discussion than the quotes you are mining from WP:PSTS, especially since lab notebooks have little relevance to this type of research. —David Eppstein 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There should be a secondary source (preferrably by someone other than Dr. Aki) that the material is WP:Notable, or that it means what the editors here say it does, or we've violated WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of that guideline either. WP:SYN deals with synthesizing material in articles on WP, not synthesizing ideas as scholarly research, publishing those ideas in WP:RS and then citing them on WP. This is specifically permitted in the next paragraph of that guideline WP:COS: "Citing oneself: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." Dhaluza 00:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Question. Can you give a pointer to publications by any of these authors that address the topic addressed in the present article (non-universality in computation, in the particular sense as defined by S. G. Akl?)? This article is not about the research of the authors you mention, even if there are common aspects. For most of the topics addressed by the research of these authors we already do have articles that deal with it, such as our articles on Hypercomputation and Quantum computing. I am not necessarily against a different article with a different content on a different topic with probably a different title; my concerns are about the article under discussion here.  --LambiamTalk 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Response. Additional sources, who are not Mr. Akl, do need to be added to the article. As I mentioned, my Google search was cursory and I am unfortunately unwilling to purchase the articles I located on non-universality and hypercomputing that referenced S. G. Akl's work. There appears to be enough of them that it leads me to believe this AfD based on non-notability is premature. I personally think a merge request would have been a more appropriate course of action. It appears there are some others who agree that Mr. Akl's work appears to be notable, but who also feel it might not merit it's own article. But we're now here in the middle of an AfD and not a merge request. I personally think that merging this article into a larger treatment of universality/non-universality would be a more appropriate course of action than dumping this content into Davey Jones' bit-bucket. A more general treatment would have hundreds, if not thousands, of more easily accessible (read: free) non-Akl references available. Of course Mr. Akl's research would constitute a much smaller section of the article as a whole. Since we're not in a merge request (where I think we should be), but rather an AfD, my Keep stands. SqlPac 04:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is not very satisfactory, is it. You don't need to purchase the articles to give the names of authors and titles of referencing articles. Curiously, using Google scholar and Citeseer, I can't find any respectable references. It is possible that encyclopedic articles can be written about unconventional notions of computation, or about challenges to the Church-Turing thesis. I see no evidence that the work reported on in the article under discussion would deserve a mention in such (thus far hypothetical) articles.  --LambiamTalk 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Petrus H. Potgieter, Zeno machines and hypercomputation, University of South Africa. See Zeno machine article. SqlPac 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
So what does it say about Akl's work? This is it: "In this regard [8], [9], [10] and [11] are well worth also consulting." Here "[9]" is a reference to Akl's "The myth of universal computation". This is a trivial "dutiful" citation, basically not meaning more than "yes yes, I'm aware of this". The citation occurs at the end of a section discussing modified forms of the Church-Turing thesis. Here is Potgieter's final conclusion: "... this author has found no compelling reason for an immediate redefinition of what we mean by computable."  --LambiamTalk 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The difference between the Zeno machine and this article is that the former made a perfect sense from the start while the article under discussion was a nonsense due to the lack of clear definitions and a confusion of terminology (sadly, a reflection of the references), which brought about the initial negative attention. One could make similar notability arguments about the Zeno machine, ask for more references by more authors, etc., but noone did. Now the article is reasonable (though not perfect) so why not take it as if this initial phase never happened? Jmath666 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
My main concern, as nominator, was and is lack of notability. The confusing presentation of the article was only a minor issue, since that could be fixed. The topic has not become more notable by the clean-up of the article. The current clearer version makes it only more understandable why the scientific community ignores this work: it consists of rather trivial observations grandiosely presented as deep insights.  --LambiamTalk 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I do assume good faith in saying that you are not inherently wrong, but in my mind premature to bring this to AfD. --Kevin Murray 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is not based on consensus, but on the strength of people's arguments - the closing admin should be like a judge, weighing all arguments and deciding which is the best option. So I don't see a problem.—greenrd 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a twist on what WP:RS actually says, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." WP editors do not interpret evidence. Now, if Akl is an editor on the journals he has used to publish his work, there could be a case for treating them as self-published sources. But the idea that we should ignore a dissenting opinion because we think it is wrong is completely against WP policy. I am not suggesting that WP "promote" Akl's work, only that we report it as a published dissenting opinion. And if there are others who have published dissenting opinions in RS, we should report them as well. Dhaluza 11:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok fine, substitute "source/sourcing" for where I wrote "evidence". Happy? Now, nobody has suggested that we ignore dissenting opinion because we think it is wrong. So that is a strawman. Please kindly address the arguments that have been made. --C S (Talk) 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not a strawman argument, it is what many of the arguments for deletion, including yours, come down to in my view. Your statement that I wish to promote Akl's work is the strawman, because I never proposed that. What I said was that his theory apparently was published in multiple RS, and should be covered to some extent in some form. For now, we should keep this article to preserve the edit history, and the editors involved should work through the normal editing process to determine what stays and where. The content may well be recast, trimmed, and/or merged, and redirected. Deleting this article on notability grounds does not make it go away, because Notability only limits articles, not their content. Dhaluza 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see, you are simply recasting everyone's deletion argument as "I don't like it". If you insist on doing that, I can't stop you, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Promotion may not be your intent, but that is the overall effect. Akl is one of many that have proposed alternatives. There is no indication his work needs to be held above others. WP:Fringe is what is relevant here. --C S (Talk) 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not recasting, just observing that once the arguments are stripped of their fancy clothing, that's all I see. I agree that WP:FRINGE is relevant, and its central point is that WP not be the "primary witness to notability." Since Akl's work is published in academic sources, there is no danger of that. It's out there, so we can talk about it, and that does not mean we are promoting it. WP is a tertiary source encyclopedia, so we don't promote anything that has not already been promoted. Your arguments that we must cover topics in strict proportion to the ratio of publications or references is spurious, and your statement that Akl's work needs to be held above others is a straw-man. We can report his work and others in order to provide readers with the "sum of human knowledge." Dhaluza 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
So we have a clear, and apparently unbridgeable, difference in interpretation of the notion of "witness to notability". You consider Akl's reporting on his own work a secondary source, and a witness to the notability of his work because it is published in academic sources. I, on the other hand, think his writings are primary sources and do not count as witnesses to notability.  --LambiamTalk 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I also take the position that Akl's writings are primary sources. By the way, Dhaluza, when you say my position is a strawman, that makes no sense, as I am not misrepresenting my own position. You simply don't like my stance. My claim that you have created a strawman is still quite valid, as in the end, you insist on arguing against a position that your oppponents do not even claim to hold. --C S (Talk) 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as illustrated by Achilles below, this article does not meet the preset requisites to establish notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Gatti

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

Autobiography, violates WP:AUTO. I found 600 Google hits for "John Gatti", and the large majority are for other men with the same name. He's not nearly notable. YechielMan 12:42, 20 June 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Edward's College, Gosford

St. Edward's College, Gosford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable school 2good2btrue 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)— 2good2btrue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Q-Bench

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

This article represents the only edit by User:Qualnetics, who almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Failing neutral third-party sources, we don't have a NPOV version of this article. YechielMan 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yellowikis

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old).
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion yet again on 2006-01-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus; keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis.

Utterly non-notable wiki, no sources. Wyington Duarm 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete all, the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article had been withdrawn from nomination. Sr13 07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Some sort of crystal ballism. Doesn't provide any help nor real meaninful information. I do not believe such an article is nesscery. Francisco Tevez 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all amount to crystal ballism and they lack WP:RS:

Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bulgaria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - withdrawn per Dr. Submillimeter ↓. Also it is somewhat sourced. --Evb-wiki 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Bundle added by --Evb-wiki 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also added by --Evb-wiki 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its too early for this kind of article.Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.81.152 (talk • contribs)

Yes, please read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Francisco Tevez 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will do that now. Francisco Tevez 15:39, 20 June 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.
DRV overturns unanimously to a keep result. Xoloz 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

27 Club

An old AFD resulted in a consensus to delete, here

The article admits to be about a neologism. This is essentially a list of celebrities that died at age 27, with the vague allusion that this may be something special rather than bland coincidence. However, a basic fact of statistics tells us that given a large enough sample size, any number of samples can be found that have an arbitrary trait. This is speculation, trivia, and not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas talk? 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jared Weinstein

AfDs for this article:
Jared Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Person is non notable. Simply being the American president's assistant doesn't qualify T@nn 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy close per bad faith nom. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_via_multiple_accounts and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mynglestine. Non admin closure, if someone wants to reopen, go ahead. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurispedia

Short, unsourced article on website with no claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

However, unlike a lot of other sites that take a Wiki article verbatim and call it their own, Jurispedia at least acknowledges that it's imitating Wiki. I can only surmise that the reason that Wiki hasn't sued Jurispedia is that this legal research site got permission. Or Wikipedia overlooks these things "pro bono" (for the greater good). Mandsford 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Ok, that may have been a joke, but since you're a relatively new user, Mandsford, I feel compelled to mention the policy on copyrights in case it wasn't and you actually don't realize the wide freedom to reuse content granted by Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. Pinball22 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sites with no sources don't deserve articles. That's why we deleted Encyclopedia of Stupid and Encyclopedia Dramatica and all that other non-notable crap. Mynglestine 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages with no sources should be sourced, not necessarily deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Katrina PeopleFinder Project

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

No sources or claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Two sources ISN'T THAT MUCH. There are no claims to this site's notability, so quit insisting there are. Mynglestine 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kokey

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

No ghits for a TV series, (did find info on the movie tho) I think this might be a hoax Rackabello 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The AFD notice on the article page was removed on 2007-06-15 by User:Witchy2006. I'm therefore relisting this discussion to June 20. - KrakatoaKatie 06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There may be a sourcehere but I don't read Tagalog (if that is the language it's in!) The context there looks good, and wouldn't want to get all Anglo-centric about this, but even with this as an in-line citation, the article as it stands is pretty ropy. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If this is about a television series in Tagalog, wouldn't this article belong in the Tagalog Wikipedia? Rackabello 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Not necessarily. We have articles about Mexican TV shows in English Wikipedia. All that matters is whether or not it meets the notability guidelines, not its country of origin or language. Natalie 10:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Concorde pilots

List of Concorde pilots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a list without any references. I believe it fails on WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#DIR. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I did consider putting it in for a merge but it's just a non-notable list and there wouldn't be any encyclopeadic value in it. If there are notable pilots in the list (i.e. first pilot to fly, last pilot to fly, etc.) then they should be included in relevant sections of the article (which seems has already been done). → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - A lot of the blue links only point to disambiguation pages OR pages of people under the same name. Some of the links, yeah, should be transferred - Maybe 'notable concorde pilots', ie the first woman concorde pilot, and such. Reedy Boy 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose deletion: The article provides information not readily found in other sources. If the list is not referenced then it should be tagged in that way, not summarily deleted after some effort had been put into its creation. BTW, I believe that any editor can remove an AfD tag at any time, FWIW Bzuk 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - I feel that a list of notable pilots to fly concorde could be included in the main Concorde Article -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - I would list notable Concorde Pilots (probably those that have a WP article) in the main Concorde Article. I would then redirect List of Concorde pilots to Concorde. This would enable the full list to be stored in the page history of List of Concorde pilots if it is needed at a later date. -- Rehnn83 Talk 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the suggestion of a merger is only to include those of note (e.g. Test Pilot, First Woman etc.. (i.e. those that have a well written WP article). -- Rehnn83 Talk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Then people should state that more clearly. I still maintain that most of those pilot articles are serious deletion candidates themselves, though I haven't examined them all carefully. I guess being the first woman is somewhat notable, but I don't buy that the first woman [whatever] is notable in and of itself. Is the first female 727 pilot worthy of an article? The first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio? Yeah, the first female concorde pilot beats those, but I'm not sure she's still notable enough for a wikipedia article. I'd have to take a closer look. -R. fiend 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
A few points in its favour:
I don’t agree that this list is comparable to ‘lesser’ lists (“the first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio” was mentioned); Concorde was more than an average plane, and with a finite number of pilots, as it is no longer flying.
The list is genuinely useful in an encyclopaedic context, although I confess that it is now longer than I first suspected.
As for notability, I don’t think the existence of the list implies flying Concorde is itself notable – compare List of UML tools; but the aircraft itself certainly is notable, and those interested may have cause to access a list of the pilots. I certainly don’t agree with R. fiend (whom, I note, appears surprised that others find him too quick to delete their work) that “most of those few pilots who have articles should be deleted as well”.
The importance of the topic is head and shoulders above other specialist lists that are easily found (List of Homer Simpson's jobs springs to mind, with rather less encyclopedic merit and non-generic links.)
Finally, and I hesitate to mention it, the notability of being a Concorde pilot, of itself, is rather higher in the UK than it is probably perceived in North America, and one should be careful not to unwittingly enforce a regional bias.
The main point against, distilled from the comments from various people, that is that a large number of individuals are non notable/unlinked. But as commented above, the article provides information not readily found in other sources.
I think Wikipedia would be lessened by the removal of the list. I believe the choice is therefore:
Retain or at the very least Merge notable entries into main Concorde article, using Rehnn83's sensible suggestion. Thank you everyone. Carbonix 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Marc 'No Nonsense Man' Rudov

Marc_'No_Nonsense_Man'_Rudov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Please delete this page. It was created by someone as a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcRudov (talk • contribs) 2007/06/19 13:59:29

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames for cigarettes

Nicknames for cigarettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An incomplete list, one without any real encyclopedic use, and one that will always remain incomplete. Jmlk17 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Table of keyboard shortcuts

Table of keyboard shortcuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article simply lists some common keyboard shortcuts for various window managers and OSes. There's no accompanying commentary. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This should really be in Wikibooks or some other wiki. —Psychonaut 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas talk? 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia Christian Academy

British Columbia Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned stub of a school that makes no assertion of notability and has no verifiable information. For those of us who generally feel schools are not notable anyway, this may reinforce that view. Eusebeus 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete, the keep arguments have not been able to present enough evidence to prove that this article does not fail WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Josie Murray

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

Subject is certainly not "world kickboxing champion", googling for the subject reveals that he appears to be a blue belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu and former medal holder in over-40s blue belt competition. Non-notable, with no reliable secondary sources. Pathless 09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I Am Paula Campbell

I Am Paula Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Two albums being nominated, which I think would be better redirected to the artist's page. Little more than a list of song tracks that fail WP:MUSIC. I suggest Delete and Redirect to Paula Campbell (singer) with no prejudice against their recreation should they attain sufficient notability. Eusebeus 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who Got Next? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge with Paula Campbell for now. Her article needs some major expansion in order to completely satisfy WP:BIO as it barely meets it right now.--JForget 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Netball and merge as per editorial discretion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Netball positions

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

Enencyclopedic mess that doesnt belong on Wikipedia Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:51, 20 June 2007 UTC)

in reply -- you havea point about the poorly written part, but i infact didnt say the subject was unencyclopedic, but the article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:07, 20 June 2007 UTC)
...but you did nominate it for deletion, which implies that you considered the article unworthy of being here, and - as Matticus says - being a mess isn't in itself grounds for deletion (Redirect, BTW) Grutness...wha? 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I dont really care to debate this any further. Delete or redirect, I dont mind. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:08, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Hello before you comment think. I am only ten years old and I wrote the netball positions page. I wrote the page because I love netball and i know that netball is well covered on wikipedia but the positions aren't well covered. So if anyone is planning to make a wikipedia page that says mine is bad, I'll be first to put yours up for deletion. Anon

For your age, you seem to show great enthusiasm for the project. I myself am only 2 years older, and understand your concerns. However, your article on Netball positions does not qualify some of the criteria which constitute Wikipedia policy. The information contained within the article is very similar to certain sections within the Netball article, and the actual subject of the article (netball positions) is not (I hesitate to say) important (for want of a better word) enough to actually warrant having its own article. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. Some other editors have said that they would have the article redirected to netball, or a relevant body of text with the netball article, which is not a bad idea either. I hope that I have been able to explain myself well to you. Regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:42, 21 June 2007 UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Behavioral Facilitation

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

I am doubting that this is an established academic field or therapeutical school, as the article claims. It seems to have one single protagonist (whose encylopedic notability is in doubt too, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Svarney). As for the references: The 2006 one obviously hasn't appeared yet ("under review"). The publisher given for the next four ("SCS Presentations" in Chicago) doesn't seem to exist. A 1994 workshop on stress management at an adult education center or a seminar talk within a graduate student program are not enough to found an entirely new academic field, they seem not to have been published in print anyway, neither . For all the books, no ISBNs are given and Amazon knows nothing by this author. This leaves the 1989 article (whose existence I didn't verify), obviously published while the author was still a student, and a talk at a statewide conference in 1994, both apparently on a very narrow topic. The 1990 article in the New York Times is really just a letter to the editor, apparently on a very different topic - the abstract on the NYT web site starts To the Editor: As a student of psychology in a world of lawyers, I am sometimes puzzled by a legal mind's description of reality. I do not understand why Robert H. Bork thinks that George Bush, in nominating Judge David H. Souter .... High on a tree 08:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But the article does claim that it is a "field". If that is wrong, I would still not object to a corrected article about the subject if there were several independent reliable sources describing it, but all we have is a string of mostly phony or unverifiable citations all by the same author, who is probably not notable himself. Btw: 0 Google hits outside Wikipedia for '"Behavioral Facilitation" svarney'. Regards, High on a tree 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandahl 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Prince Duhd'u Rahn-Rahn

Prince Duhd'u Rahn-Rahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN bit-part character in student production. —  MusicMaker 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spellbound The Musical

Spellbound The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. May become notable. Recreate at that time. —  MusicMaker 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bubble

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

No assertion of notability. NN. —  MusicMaker 08:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Grail - The Rock Musical of the Future

The Grail - The Rock Musical of the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article makes no assertion of notability. NN. —  MusicMaker 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hatpin (musical)

The Hatpin (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. In the process of being rewritten and may at some point deserve inclusion in WP. —  MusicMaker 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Toxic Avenger: The Musikill

Toxic Avenger: The Musikill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What a Feeling!

What a Feeling! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete by Blnguyen. WjBscribe 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Left Alliance (Australia)

Left Alliance (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aligned Left

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

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wild Bill's Wild West Dinner Extravaganza

Wild Bill's Wild West Dinner Extravaganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Appears to be not more than a dinner theater production. —  MusicMaker 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oscar (musical)

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

Article practically asserts its non-notability. Closed after one show in a not otherwise competitive theater town. —  MusicMaker 08:14, 20 June 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 wasDelete per consensus and the fact that the sources come from GLW, which are not RS.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

National Broad Left

National Broad Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Menopositive

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

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Majigeen

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

NN musical. One production in Jacksonville, Fla. —  MusicMaker 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Being "fairly popular" in a mid-sized city in Florida does not qualify it for notability. —  MusicMaker 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but surely reliable sources would. I'll see if I can dig anything up.--Cúchullain t/c 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not every entity covered by every source in the universe is notable. Notability is universal: if something is notable in Jacksonville, it has to be notable in Cleveland. This is a local curiosity. —  MusicMaker 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant, it may not be just a "local curiosity", it may be notable; if I find any sources demonstrating this, I'll present them here. But I'm pretty sure reliable sources can be found, so I'd say err on the side of caution and keep the article. That's my opinion, but I don't know much about the play as of yet.--Cúchullain t/c 06:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just So (musical)

Just So (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Not much more than a definition. —  MusicMaker 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry the Tudor Dude

Henry the Tudor Dude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Publication is not notability. —  MusicMaker 07:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas talk? 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirate! The Musical

Pirate! The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Vague references to a planned professional New York production is the same pipe dream every composer on the planet has.... —  MusicMaker 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. True. Fixed nom. —  MusicMaker 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Galileo: The True Story

Galileo: The True Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. 4 school performances. —  MusicMaker 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete and re-direct to Fight Club - Members Only. — OcatecirT 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club (musical)

Fight Club (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystalballism. May or may not be created. —  MusicMaker 07:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect all to Energy - there is information in these articles that could merged but AfD isn't a great forum for deciding if this is the case and what info should be merged. I hope everyone can work together in discussing this on the relevant talkpage and in performing any merges onces consensus is reached. WjBscribe 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy (chemistry)

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

Article was created without consensus by User:Hallenrm, who made a big mess by mincing the Energy article and turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation page. As discussion at Talk:Energy and Talk:Energy/Archive 4 shows, there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry). When the Energy article was reconstructed, Energy (chemistry) was turned into a redirect towards Energy, but after further consideration I think that this is not an appropriate redirect for two reasons: 1) the Energy article has a much wider scope; 2) Energy (chemistry) is not a plausible link target or search string. Therefore we should Delete Energy (chemistry). -- Itub 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason, I'm also nominating:

These have all prod'ed, but the prod was reverted by Hallenrm with no explanation. --Itub 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment While it can be argued that: there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry), the content of the pages are not totally useless to deserve deletion, perhaps they can be assimiliated with other articles. After all, the same content survived in the Energy article for more than six months59.180.234.124 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as much as the nominator may think that creating this is disruptive, deleting it is also disruptive. At least, the content needs to be merged back in to Energy or elsewhere. But the energy article is already quite long, and it may be useful to split off some sub-topics. Also with a term as generic as "energy", which is used in different context in different fields, having an article that focuses on a particular area, where terminology can be used consistently and in context, is often preferable. Sometimes a one-size-fits-all article does not fit at all. At bottom, this is a content and editing dispute, and does not belong on AfD--there are other dispute resolution methods available that should be used first. Dhaluza 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

A lot of this content has already been merged into other articles, but I still think that these are not plausible topics and articles such as Energy (chemistry) shouldn't exist (for energy itself, we have Energy, for a more general article on the role of energy in chemistry, but also including entropy, enthalpy, etc., we have Chemical thermodynamics). How about simply moving these pages into user space, where the content can be kept in case someone wants to rescue some of it for other articles? If that is acceptable to Hallenrm, then we don't need to worry about deletion anymore. --Itub 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal made by John Vandenberg is much more sensible, a redirect is more appropiate (but not a blank redirect to Energy as done earlier by physchim62Hallenrm 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "blank redirect"? --Itub 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
For that, please refer to my talk on the talkpage of physchim62[[36]] regarding the first page, that is Energy (chemistry), proposed to be deleted. It is indeed curious that you initiated the Afd just a day after he threatened to do so.Hallenrm 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I still can't fathom what you mean. A page is either a redirect or it isn't. I have no concept of "blank" redirect. And if I happen to agree with Physchim62, so what? --Itub 07:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Energy (chemistry) into Chemical thermodynamics
Energy (biology) into Biological thermodynamics
Energy (cosmology) into Thermodynamics of the universe
Energy (earth science) is already duplicated in Earth science - delete.

I would agree with User:TimVickers' proposal. --Rifleman 82 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good work, Rifleman 82 (or was that Tim?) on finding the appropriate main articles, above. In Energy, there's now a small section up front called "Energy in various contexts" where all this stuff goes (as small summaries), each with "main article" directs in each sumarized subsection, to the main articles named above (after which we can delete the energy(blah) stuff as noted- keeping anything we find there which isn't already in the others). We can keep this "ENERGY IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS (OR VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, which it really is) up front where it is, or else move it down to the end, where "Energy and Life" is now. Of course, Energy and Life will be subsumed into the short subsection "Biological thermodynamics," whatever we do in this move.

So, what do you think on where to put this subsection discussing energy in the various sciences? Do we have put this section on energy in the various sciences up front, before the nasty equations, or at the end, after them? The overall structure of the article needs some thinking. The purist will want all the definitions up front, but they are mathematical and off-putting. The encyclopedist might want a more extended "Energy in various contexts/sciences" up front, with the math and definitions relegated to the end, as a sort of math appendix. Or maybe some very simple math up front (no calculus), and all the thermo and EM equations pushed to the end. SBHarris 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

i do not agree with TimVickers when he says that Energy (Chemistry) can be merged with chemical thermodynamics, because the article contains sections which do not belong to chemical thermodynamics viz energy levels and spectroscopic lines. Same is the case with Energy (cosmology), it deals with dark energy which is not a subject under Thermodynamics of the universe. Hallenrm 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is now. SBHarris 19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spectroscopy should be merged to spectroscopy or electromagnetic spectrum then. When we propose merging, it is an intelligent merge, rather than a dump. --Rifleman 82 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As per that argument, each of the subsections of the present energy page should be merged with pages of that heading. Not much would be left then. Are you suggesting that no subject matter should be repeated in two different articles? Please talk sensibly202.141.141.7 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (Previous comment is from .Hallenrm, recognizable as him, both in 1) coming from Delhi University, and 2) for being insulting. SBHarris 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
See the use of the ((main)) template in Distillation. The point I am making is that we can empty the article, and turn it into a redirect. --Rifleman 82 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't mean you want to completely empty it (indeed this was not done in Distillation), or else then we'd be stuck in the situation we were before. We want to resurrect a nice overall 50 kB summary of the use of energy in the natural sciences, and indeed use the ((main)) template to keep the various sections from overgrowing the article. That's the natural Wiki way things should look. Except here, we're having to do it backwards, because when Energy got too long, instead of summarizing sections and offloading material into ((main)) articles, it instead got nearly gutted and turned into not much more than a redirect. So here we are.SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with th previous post. People like Rifleman 82 should be more careful and understand the nature of wikipedia before they key in their immature opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, a personal insult to Rifleman, and he's only been here a few days! A new record, Charlie. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's indeed fantastic --Rifleman 82, that way we can indeed reduce the volume of wikipedia! Let us start with Energy and merge its various subsections with the related Main articles.Hallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you forget to log in for your previous post and then posted again to agree with yourself? --Itub 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is indeed true, but I really wonder how can I prove that you are a puppet user for User:physchim62 I really suspect thatHallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. Now, Itub (talk · contribs) is my sockpuppet, is that what you're saying? Just as I am supposed to be the sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs)... According to you, there seem to be several other editors who are secretly plotting against you. Hallenrm (talk · contribs), please take a wikibreak before one is forced upon you. Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is true that "several other editors who are secretly plotting against me ." And I have evidence for that, just see the talk page of SBHarris [37] # Suggestions and anybody can see thatHallenrm 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If it was "secret," why the hell would I put it on my TALK page?? It's where it is for a number of very good reasons. One of those reasons is so that you can read it, too. SBHarris 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral on merge. I don't see that there is anything actually to be merged, and Hallenrm (talk · contribs) objects that previous attempts at merging haven't retained "his" material. Make them redirects if you wish to keep the page histories, but I feel that this will only cause problems down the line. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merge. Hallenrm is welcome to add any scientific material he has written on energy to the appropriate pages identified above, so it will not be lost. For example, I really don't care if the article is called Energy (Earth science) or Earth science if it includes the same material. So long as there is a ((main)) template pointer to it as a main energy article in the appropriate subsection of that article, so people can find it, it matters not. I favor the above sub-articles because they pre-date the disasterous energy article dissection and creation of new energy(subscience) articles which were duplicative. But there need be nothing lost if any of new material written for that purpose, is added to the old subscience articles, as needed. Rather than complain about this, Hallenrm, instead, if you find material of yours you want to remain after the energy(subscience) articles are redirected and deleted, just rescue it, and put it where it should be, in the other articles which are destined to remain. If it's science-related, relevant, and adds something, none of us are likly to object. SBHarris 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I would really like that the admins while considering a final decision on the deletion would also look at the background of the people who supported the straw poll Talk:Energy#Energy articles proposal straw poll and the history of the events that led to the creation of these pages. Editor User:Sadi Carnot mysteriously disappeared after the proposal. Hallenrm 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You want us to call the police to report a kidnapping? Or are you trying to suggest User:Sadi Carnot is a sockpuppet? SBHarris 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Energy (biology) - delete: already duplicated in Biological thermodynamics.
Energy (cosmology) - delete: already appears, in different forms, in Thermodynamics of the universe and Physical cosmology, except for the concept of the total energy of the universe, which is ill defined, as the article itself states.
Energy (earth science) - delete: see TimVickers's argument.
Dan Gluck 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there is an issue of copyrights violation with regards to who wrote what in Wikipedia. For a start, most people don't even use their real names. Is there another reason for you to support keeping the articles?Dan Gluck 18:36, 28 June 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 — Caknuck 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Elegies for Angels, Punks and Raging Queens

Elegies for Angels, Punks and Raging Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think having notable performers necessarily qualifies an entity for notability. —  MusicMaker 20:27, 20 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Willard

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

Non notable individual, with not much noteworthy in his career. Simply being a broadcaster/announcer does not satisfy WP:N. Delete xC | ☎ 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ducktails and Bobbysox

Ducktails and Bobbysox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Amateur-only. —  MusicMaker 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Grace (musical)

Amazing Grace (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. One production in Swansea is not notable. —  MusicMaker 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was deleted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Back To The 80's!(musical)

Back To The 80's!(musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. This appears to be a minor musical licensed mainly to schools. —  MusicMaker 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonfire Night: A New Musical

Bonfire Night: A New Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Musical has achieved no professional performances. —  MusicMaker 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mozart in Manhattan

Mozart in Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article asserts NN -- 9 professional performances in Germany. —  MusicMaker 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not saying that it has to have existed internationally to be notable. However, the article only claims 9 performances. That, simply, is not notable, and the article doesn't assert such. —  MusicMaker 03:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Victor Cass

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

Appears to be someone of only very local interest, not really known beyond his own employers in Pasadena. No suggestion that he has any wider notability. Necrothesp 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Li Europan lingues

Li Europan lingues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While an interesting piece of computer lore, it is nearly 98% hearsay, failing verifiability criteria. `'юзырь:mikka 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Strong arguments have been made on both sides - there were too main arguments for deletion: (1) originial research and (2) non-notable intersection. As to (1), the sourcing seems to be of a reasonable standard and given that all entries can be sourced to confirm (a) their membership of the Royal Society and (b) that they are Jewish (and those without such sources removed), that criticism seems to be one that either has been or can be addressed - especially were a consistent definition of "Jewishness" used. However those arguing to keep this article have failed respond to the second concern - that this is not a non-notable intersection. Without convincing explanation as to why there is something specifically significant about members of the Society being Jewish, which neither the article nor those wishing the article kept address, this is no more suitable a list that one containing "red haired" or "bearded" members of the Royal Society. WjBscribe 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society

Unfortunately, there is a evidence that a handful of users were directed to this afd by an email canvassing campaign directed towards inclusionists. As to not single anyone out, I'll keep details light until closure. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally.

AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup, the previous afds on this list were vote-stacked by a group of sockpuppets, user(s) who created and maintained the list. They ended in "no consensus" instead of "delete" -likely srongly because of the stacking. To repeat the arguments cast in the nominations: this list is an highly unusual intersection of ethnicity. There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category. However, any divisions by ethnicity in category form would be immediately met with WP:OCAT, and so the list, especially given the hundreds and hundreds of people that fit the parent list, makes no sense, and can easily be used as an excuse to create dozens and dozens of other ethnicity subdivisions completely unnecessarily. Included is a sub-article created by the puppets - List of Jewish Fellows of the British Academy - single contribution. Also plagued by original research - contentious sourcing. Non-notable intersection, agenda-oriented. See the proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This nomination is a perfect example of the ugliness that has driven me away from major participation in Wikipedia. After the previous disputes about this article, which focused mainly on questions about citation, and even though I had no particular interest in the topic, I spent 40-60 hours finding citations for the various members in the list. And while I usually try to extend an assumption of good faith, it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it.
To address the arguments of the same person who calls the article "agenda-oriented":
  • "There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category." Unlike simple membership in the Royal Society (which is extremely easy to determine) the other criterion here - being Jewish - is relatively difficult to cite for. Hence, anything involving such a consideration is difficult to maintain as a category. Now that the citation work has been done it is relatively easy to maintain it as a list. In any case, though, in the earlier dispute that largely drove me away from active participation - the discussion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 - I was informed in no uncertain terms that the presence or absence of other articles is beside the point. If it is not a valid consideration for preserving an article, then clearly it cannot be a valid consideration for deleting one.
  • "…contentious sourcing… there is a problem with sources on here anyway; many that are linked are either completely unverifiable or straight-up unreliable". Since not one example is given of poor sourcing, this remark is nothing but an irrelevant slap; since I'm the person who did most of the sourcing, it's a slap I take personally.
  • "…might fail professor-notability standards": Oh, please. A member of the Royal Society who doesn't qualify as notable? That's like talking about non-notable winners of the Oscar for Best Actor or non-notable foreign ministers.
I don't have any strong feeling on whether this list is "useful", which is always a subjective criterion. On a different subjective criterion, I personally find it mildly interesting, because it is remarkable that so many people from a relatively small ethnic group have achieved such a distinction. It is certainly of interest to a number of people, it is certainly verifiable, and as far as I can tell, it is at worst harmless (unlike any number of poorly cited, inaccurate, or clearly non-notable articles, which is where I think we should be focusing AFD effort).
However, I think that in general, in the interests of community and organization, we should not be purging well-cited, arguably encyclopedic articles into which a large number of people have put a large amount of work. Wiki is not paper. Removing harmless articles alienates active participants in Wikipedia for no meaningful gain. It has largely alienated me. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I read your comment and can't find your reason for retention. So far, all the keep !votes look like attempts to push this into no consensus rather than actually arguing to keep the list for its own merits. The only real thing I got from JMabel's remarks is that he is not happy seeing a list he spent a long time sourcing go (and since it is "harmless" it shouldn't go). I for one am not going to support the creation of List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Methodist Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Quaker Fellows of the Royal Society purely because of "it's harmless" and "i like it" arguments for keeping this list. Nobody has made a single argument supporting a documented significant article-worthy connection between Jewish people (or any ethnicity) and the Fellows of the Royal Society. No one has thought about the fact that keeping this list completely justifies people to make ethnicity/religious divisions for winners of Darwin Medal, Edison Medal, Gabor Medal...etc. "Jews get a lot of attention so this list if fine" is most certainly not a stronger argument that "This is the only ethnicity division of its kind" There is absolutely no proof this list has any encyclopedic value. Bulldog123 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Comment, Lets see that list of 100 of the greatest painters of all time, I'll bet there are an awful lot of French painters on that list, what's the point? This list is certainly worth keeping. Modernist 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no evidence the latter list passes notability...as I said. And pray tell, what is your reason for keeping this list? It might be helpful to comment on this list instead of on the French example. Bulldog123 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment every person on the list has a page in Wikipedia, no red ink, the list is exceedingly well referenced, per Jmabel, see above, - my original comment speaks for itself. Modernist 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that last point doesn't make sense -- where a list is too large and is broken down in to sublists, it has to be broken down in a logical, consistant, and relevant way, such as by year of election. Doops | talk 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A break down by period is appropriate; a break down by country of origin is appropriate; a break down by ethnicity is also appropriate where the ethnicity is not predominately based in one country. We have one list here; others can be created at any time. John Vandenberg 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, sure; but it was your 'hence' I was replying to— this list stands or falls on its own merits. It's raison d'etre is clearly not "to fill the gap left by the non-existence of "List of Fellows of the Royal Society." Cheers, Doops | talk 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the list would be too big, but the creation and maintenance of this list was never meant to serve as a sub-list. No other list was ever created or likely ever intended to be created. An in fact, the few similar lists that existed has been deleted, so the idea of this serving as a sub-list was thrown out. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, I don't mean that they play soccer left-handed, just that they're left-handed in everyday life. Doops | talk 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sakaru Awazaki

Sakaru Awazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sakaru Akazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax characters created for a non-existent Naruto spin-off. No reliable sources, no information to verify these characters exist, and fan-made characters fail WP:FICT notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete due to insufficient reliable references.-Wafulz 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PET Aliens

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

I know for a fact that the content of this article is true, but it is impossible to verify. Negligible Google hits relevant to the subject, as there are other things that share the same name. Manufactured by this company but as a corporate website it only features products which are currently being sold, not this phased out brand of figurines.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pelinpala

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

Non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. No references or sources. Videmus Omnia 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a recreated deleted article. -- Longhair\talk 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A Good Ass Job

AfDs for this article:
A Good Ass Job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just like the previous 2 AfDs for this article, the article is clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps prevent the article from being created until more sources come out? Douglasr007 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Walter Bernacca

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

Apparent resume for a non-notable film editor. Videmus Omnia 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. After weighing all the arguments against each other, I come to the conclusion that the keep arguments largely seem based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one has heard of something does not make it notable. Ultimately the notability of the subject is weak and cannot be adequately established. Riana (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

InspIRCd

InspIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Actually, in the enwiki-archive, this page was not created by the development team. Instead it was restored and enhanced by the development team after being deleted for non-notability. Would it make any difference if it were deleted and then restored by someone outside the project? The argument is weak. --nenolod (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~Update~ I have rewritten the article with the initial guidance and help from User:USER-cacophony both from his contributions to the article itself, and his excellent comments on this Afd. Thank you heaps! Being new to wikipedia it's always nice to receive guidance from more experienced editors. I think I've included every worthwhile reference I could find, and look forward to seeing how other editors judge the notability of this article. If it does not cut it, too bad, if it does, fine. Either way it goes, thank you again for all the time you have spent on this Afd, the article itself and research of the article's references. -- 83.88.224.53 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply - ee other products written by the same developer: WinBot, IRC Defender etc etc. All of these are notable (one of these projects is over eight years old).

Braindigitalis 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - You say it is a very well known piece of software with many references, yet you have yet to prove that it meets notability requirements. Regarding searchirc, your argument against it is positively absurd. It's a verifiable source of notability, and to say that it needs to be notable to be verifiable is like saying every single news reporter has to be notable to be verifiable. Regarding your last point, the software is not among the core products of a notable software developer. Contrary to what you may believe, you are not notable. That clause is reserved for such developers as Microsoft or Symantec. Therefore, InspIRCd does not meet that notability guideline.
  • Reply - Searchirc is not a written publication, it is a forum, and until a few weeks ago its ircd statistics were broken. What exactly makes searchirc notable, please point out how this is notable within wikipedia's rules. If only large developers such as symantec and microsoft are notable, then most of wikipedias software articles must be removed, and if this removal goes ahead, i will be nominating most of them for RfD to prove a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Again, SearchIRC does NOT have to be notable, nor does any source have to be notable, to be used as a source. That you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point will not change my actions on this AfD. cacophony ◄► 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Considering that all such articles i will submit for RfD will be non-notable and matching the criteria for deletion, and that i will do each one at a time by hand, i do not see how this is disruption, only tidying of non-notable irrelevent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Do, or threaten to do, whatever you want, it won't affect my actions in this AfD. I will stand firm against your terroristic threats. cacophony ◄► 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Pardon? Please keep the emotive words and name calling out of this. Calling people 'vain' without knowing them, 'terrorists' without seeming to have any comprehension of what a terrorist is..? Keep the debate to the merits. Unless you have more in this than enhancing wikipedia. 83.100.194.63 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The user in question is using intimidation and the threat of force to get his way, that's terrorism. Also, I might note that I have never called anybody "vain". cacophony ◄► 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where as, of course, your motives and interactions are perfectly clean. None the less, don't rise to the bait yourself. Also: In addition, vanity, as article was created by W00teh, seems to refute that. 83.100.194.63 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Trying to defend actions with policy doesn't quite cut it. That was a personal attack. If you'd left names out of it and said 'the development team', I think it would have sufficed. That having been said, who knows an IRCd better than IRCd authors? 83.100.194.63 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You can claim it was a personal attack till the cows come home, but the fact remains that WP:Vanity is a policy, and to cite it in a brief AfD discussion, you say "vanity". cacophony ◄► 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Then claim I will. Because I don't call policy grounds for public attack on an individual. Nor would I call 'intimidation' reason to start calling someone a terrorist. That word should stay reserved for the scum that kill people. Not someone who disagrees with you. 83.100.194.63 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - CLARIFICATION IS OBVIOUSLY NEEDED HERE - I am not using SearchIRC to demonstrate non-notability. Non-notability is assumed. It is the burden of those wishing to keep this article to demonstrate notability. I am merely using SearchIRC as a statistic to show usage. cacophony ◄► 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - SearchIRC currently indexes 7,538 servers on 4,242 networks, well in excess of the standard survey sample size is 1,000 units. It is an accurate statistic, whether you like it or not. cacophony ◄► 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - SearchIRC's ircd statistics do not properly represent number of installed IRC servers of each particular version. Lets look into for example the fact that other ircd software releases maybe once or twice a year. This means that in a five year period they may have released 10 different versions. InspIRCd subscribes to the 'release early, release often' principal (see 'cathederal and the bazaar') which means that in a year we may put out fifty releases. With many irc networks running InspIRCd versions spread across 50 releases, these are unlikely to show on stats, which seperate by version number. Therefore the data you are using for your idea of notability is flawed and not fit for this use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The SearchIRC page indexes IRCds seen in the past 2 months. How many releases have you put out in the past 2 months? cacophony ◄► 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Users may be using a release from over a year ago on their network to date. the number of releases in the last 2 months (probably 4 or more for reference) is irrelevant Users may be using 1.0.7, 1.1.1, 1.1.2 through 1.1.9 all released in the last 2 years vrs software being released once a year. Just because it released doesnt mean people upgrade to it. 220.233.225.111
  • Comment You still aren't reading this. There are people running servers that haven't been rebooted for nearly -a year-. That is, 1.0.6 or whatever. I'd estimate the total usage to be around 100-120 servers, based on 2-3 per network. There are currently 75-85 people in the development channel. Come and visit sometime. 83.100.194.63 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Fair enough, regardless of our differing opinions on that. FreeBSD and Gentoo ports have still not been addressed. These are sources for determining notability according to the policy. 220.233.225.111
Comment - They have been addressed previously and the discussion was moved to the talk page, but I will summarize it here: The policy states that is a possibility that the software is notable if it is included in a major software distribution. To be included in the distribution means to be on the disk, to be in the default install, etc. Examples of this are GCC or Glibc. To be in an external package management system, simply available for download and install, does not count as being in the distribution, because anybody can simply add any software to the package management system. Indeed, InspIRCd was added to the FreeBSD ports system by none other than the InspIRCd project's lead developer, Braindigitalis, which counts as self-promotion and thus discounts it from notability anyways. cacophony ◄► 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Incorrect. He submitted a port to the freebsd team, and they included it. Furthermore, the Gentoo port wasn't even created by someone on the team - it's created and maintained by nenolod. BuildSmart is working on getting a package included with OS X server. 83.100.194.63 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - That he submitted the port himself is also self promotion. Regardless, you failed to read the other part of my post - that is, just because a package is in a package management system does not mean it is in the software distribution. For a package to be in the software distribution it has to be on the normal install disk, and installed by default. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see any possible reason for installing an IRCd by default at all. No IRCd is installed by default anywhere. And in case of gentoo, yes, it does mean it is included in software distribution, because the ebuild is included in a portage snapshot on CD, same as kernel or any system tool. 195.131.148.102 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well then perhaps you should consider the possibility that InspIRCd does not meet that notability requirement, as you previously believed. By the way, an ebuild, in case anybody is wondering, is simply a file that lists such things as where to download the software, and how to install it. When one wishes to install a package on Gentoo, it reads the ebuild, downloads the actual program, and installs it. You wanted to get into semantics, so here it is - that doesn't count. cacophony ◄► 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - But it does indeed count per notability guidelines. You cannot treat the ebuild differently than an RPM. They are both package metadata. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, sorry, but you are wrong. As per precedent, inclusion in the Gentoo metadata does count the package as being part of a distribution. Where and when the package gets compiled is not important - whats interesting is that the metadata for the package is managed by the distribution package manager and made available to you. I'm afraid this particular thread of the argument is moot. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And where exactly is this precedent cited on Wikipedia? cacophony ◄► 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How about [41], and [42], and [43], and [44]. These are all keep or no consensus, and all reference Gentoo as a legitimate distribution. You'll note that I commented on several of these. I do generally agree with you about the relatively notability of any given Gentoo package, but what I think doesn't matter. Its very clear that the community has spoken. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You are confusing correlation with causation. In none of those AfDs did a decision of notability depend on the fact that the software in question was available for download in a package management system. cacophony ◄► 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not. However you may want to note that the very guidelines you reference make no such distinction. 83.100.194.63 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to this, Gentoo's portage is included on it's CD. Which does include InspIRCd. 83.100.194.63 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have little need to edit articles, my main use of wikipedia is for finding information for myself, so yes I rarely edit articles, I spend my time elsewhere. I have however made a number of points that I feel valid, and my vote, above, is a very brief summary. I did not follow a link from a forum, was not asked to come here etc. so I do not know why you think it is a SPA. but oh well. 220.233.225.111
Comment I would like to see a reasoning behind your conclusions. Simply stating WP:JNN or WP:APATHY as a reason is not a helpful argument. Please expand on your views as to clarify your position. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - InspIRCd is notable for having an entirely modularized approach (even SSL support is modular). Every config of InspIRCd can be entirely unique from every other. There is an entirely new level of choice in configurability available to the administrators running InspIRCd. That in itself makes it notable. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No it doesn't, please refer to the notability guidelines to find out what makes something notable. cacophony ◄► 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
comment I agree it does seem a little biased in writing and agree with the earlier suggestion by nenolod that it be cleaned up and sourced correctly rather than deleted 220.233.225.111
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles can't be kept on the grounds that they may be notable in the future. Wikipedia is not the place for independant original research either. The research and documentation must take place away from Wikipedia, in reliable sources. If this is the case, then those sources can be cited to assert notability. --Darksun 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article is already on watch, by nenolod. If it isn't cleaned up properly and cited, then remove it in, say a week or two's time, or nominate it for AfD then. Nominating for AfD without doing this seems rather destructive. 83.100.194.63 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you have any additional sources, I suggest you cite them here and now, rather than waiting a week or two. cacophony ◄► 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have a job, and a life. I'm already having to take time out of my schedule to participate in this stupid debate. That in addition to my interests would not make it a good idea for me to do anything on this article. 83.100.194.63 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Well then, if you can't find any additional sources, which I couldn't, then I don't see any reason to keep this article, as it is non-notable. cacophony ◄► 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment My point was that it should be put on notice for myself or others to try and find time to actually work on the article, rather than emulating the bull in the china shop and deleting an article, removing something which has made modest contributions to the IRC landscape. But, whatever. I think Carlo Wood had a point on IRCd:Talk. I'm done with Wikipedia also. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This AfD lasts five days, from the beginning to the end. That even extends into the weekend, giving everybody ample time to find reliable sources. If none can be found in five days, then chances are they don't exist. cacophony ◄► 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment My guess is you've never worked with IRC related software. Take a look at google hits for UltimateIRCd, which has existed for a lot longer than InspIRCd. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can you please explain why you feel this article is WP:NOT, I'm trying to guess your argument, but I would rather you explained it. Just quoting policy WP:JUSTAPOLICY with no explanation does not really help further the resolution of this hearing. Same goes for the search engine. How do you conclude notability or lack of same from that number? 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
reply To be fair take a look at the most used IRCD at the moment, according to searchirc, and its google results, Exactly the same, UnrealIRCD site, Forums, Download Mirrors, and Wiki entries. The community tends to exist within itself, offering support through its self maintained forums (listed in results) and its own IRC channels. Currently there are 350+ registered members, the only reason for someone to register is due to their own usage of such an application. 220.233.225.111
reply A search engine's results WP:GHITS says only little about notability under which this article is marked for deletion. I do not think this can be used as a criteria either way for this particular review. But please give more argumentation. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since there is references in the article to sources can you please extend on your argumentation. See WP:JNN for more information. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply: I can indeed - there is only one reference in the article, for a start (there are a few external links - if these are to be taken as references they need to be included with the text of the article and be "referenced" more precisely). Secondly, the references alone, do not necessarily confer notability - in today's world a link on an internet page does not make something notable. If you can show that it is with some more references (which don't just "mention" the software in question) and which, in themselves, are of sufficiant notability then the article might be worth keeping. At the moment I cannot see it, as such I felt that the article should be deleted as it has had sufficient time to find these. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I wholly agree to your observations of the references, and have utilised my sparse editorial skills to try and rectify the situation. I am not claiming the article is still not non noteable but now it reads more like a proper wikipedia article according to article guidelines. 83.88.224.53 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The issue isn't how it "reads", the issue is, among other things, a lack of sources. In attempting to address Michael's reservations about the article, you have wholly ignored his main complaint - a lack of sources, and thus have not added a single one. cacophony ◄► 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply: I agree on that, I did add another source I found by using google book finder. I apologise for my previous comment about your motives, I made those faulty conclusions before having read any official wikipedia policies and was going by my own convictions. Again, I am truly sorry for that. Based on my experience with IRC and IRC servers, it's a very small community, bringing alot of value to a big community (the ppl that chat on the servers). I find it remarkable that this IRC Server is mentioned in 2 paper books, and is defended by the lead of what seems to be the most popular IRCD right now, namely Stskeeps of UnrealIRCd. In the narrow context of IRC Server Software, I think InspIRCd cuts the mustard for notability and I believe the notability rules should consider the scope too. For IRC Servers you will have to in my opinion. 83.88.224.53 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Please keep in mind two things - first of all, that all users on Wikipedia are equal. That "stskeeps" contributes to UnrealIRCd has no bearing on the value of his opinion - that is, it is as valuable as everybody else's, and no more. Second of all, we are judging the notability of this article among all other Wikipedia articles, which is to say, it's notability is to be judged not among IRCds, but among every article in Wikipedia. If we simply allowed every article that was notable in it's own context, then anything could get it's own Wikipedia article, regardless of it's actual, individual notability. cacophony ◄► 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverse my last comment, as the article has been changed, and believe it fully goes along with wikipedia policy now. Dmbtech 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in "Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise", by Syngress;
  • "The most efficient way to deal with these bots is via server-side filtering, for example the filtering systems of IRC server software such as UnrealIRCd and InspIRCd."
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in '"Emerging Threat Analysis : From Mischief to Malicious", by Syngress;
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
Sorry, but just having your name dropped as a passing reference in a couple books does not make something notable. Also please note that we are to judge InspIRCd's notability in general, among everything, rather than simply among IRCds. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if thats the case, I suppose any article relating to irc should be deleted from the wikipedia and considered not notable. Dmbtech 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As I have already addressed this, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. cacophony ◄► 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Straight from the policy: "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." If the terms are notable, say the show has notable terms- don't painstakingly define and list them.-Wafulz 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Junkies Lingo

The Junkies Lingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is a list of definitions for slang used on a radio show. The primary issue is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but there are also issues of notability and verifiability. Chunky Rice 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've added a few references to the article. DHowell 01:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal. On the surface your argument sounds fine but there's three points here:
1. Their dialect is different from the average person which merits it just as worthy as this article:Klingon Language. This article just needs some back story to make it look less dictionary-like.
2. This is not a form of trivia. Trivia is random unorganized facts about a broad topic, this is neither random or unorganized, concerning one specific item (language usage).
3. Why are lists (List_of_download_managers) ok, but attach usage to the list and it's all of the sudden forbidden? In that case, let's just delete the definition portion!!!
Angrymansr 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) Klingon language is a developed encyclopedic article on the creation of a relatively fully-functioning artificial language. This article is a glossary of slang like the recently-deleted List of Firefly slang words. 2) This is trivia. It is all trivia about the same thing, but it is trivia nonetheless. 3) The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not justify the existence of this article. Otto4711 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither does the fact that other stuff was deleted justify the deletion of this article. I've cited sources, and these sources can be used to improve the article further. Perhaps if you found a few reliable sources about the use of slang on Firefly, you could use them to create an article on Firefly slang, since I notice you were the sole voice to keep that list. DHowell 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't change the fact that this article is strictly against policy. The only way to keep it would be if it also met WP:LIST, which it does not. -Chunky Rice 14:06, 29 June 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. Prodego talk 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

AfDs for this article:
List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've been taking another look at the original rationales that defeated this list's first AfD in late 2005. Wikipedia's standards are always evolving, and this list's survival seems to have been the product of a different era in Wikipedia's history. An example of what was said in the article's defense: "Watching for links here turning blue is actually a useful way to monitor the creation of new articles on diploma mills, provided they are in the list to begin with; if the creator is particularly clumsy, he will also try to remove the name from the list." And this one: "Very interesting page."

Wikipedia articles are not dashboards for editors, and using "interesting" as a criterion for inclusion is more in line with Encyclopedia Dramatica's standards than with Wikipedia's.

There are a few major problems I have noticed with this article:

  1. It is not exhaustive and in all likelihood can never be, and a "List of some unaccredited institutions of higher education" will never be truly encyclopedic.
  2. As has been pointed out on the article's Talk page, this list seems to drift very close to being original research. This perception is occurring primarily because the list is original research, explicitly synthesizing new knowledge -- which disqualifies it from inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:OR, one of the three core content tenets.
  3. With the myriad jurisdictions around the world with their own standards for accreditation, creating this list necessitates taking one point of view, whether it be from the US state lists of unaccredited institutions, the British government listings or what have you. One jurisdiction or set of jurisdictions' standards will hve to be taken as canonical. This inherently grates againstWP:NPOV -- which makes it two of the three core content tenets this list runs afoul of. It also traps the list's maintainers in the strict, arbitrary logic they make up amongst themselves, and that kind of self-created othodoxy will regularly lead to problems, whether it be labeling the Esalen Institute as an unaccredited college, getting into the recent fracas over a religious school that's been dominating the Talk page, etc.
  4. Whether the editors involved want to admit it or not, they and we know that "unaccredited institution" is used primarily as a pejorative term in everyday parlance, and we are labeling all institutions swept up onto this list as such, the diploma mills that fake their accreditation and religious schools which publicly resist accreditation alike. This fact alone makes the list worse than useless to what I suppose was its original intended audience: people trying to figure out if they're being scammed by a rip-off school or by somebody wielding a dodgy credential. What other purpose would this list have, besides being "neat" and a good indicator of red links turning blue? --Dynaflow babble 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Of course such a list should exist. Charlatans deserve all the exposure the Internet can afford. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, and indeed, this is not a list of "schools to watch out for". — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: why isn't wikipedia the place for it? it is encyclopedic and refers to important knowledge about the world as we know it. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
When someone is reading a resume' or deciding where to spend their tuition money they should/would/likely look it up in Wikipedia by the institution name. That will provide the information that they need. Bill Huffman 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For these reasons, and the reasons given by User:Dynaflow above, I would delete the list. — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The attempt to claim "unaccredited" is POV is bollocks. See List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you citing another Wikipedia article (which happens to have been worked on by a lot of the major contributors to this list) as a source? --Dynaflow babble 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
FFS: no, don't be ridiculous. I am using the article to quickly demonstrate that "unaccredited" is not POV; there are accrediting bodies, and they are authoritative sources. John Vandenberg 04:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that POV is not the key problem here. OR is the key problem. Wikipedia editors can not go searching through all of the relevant accreditation documents and lists to see if a particular institution is not listed in any of them. --ElKevbo 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The concept of accreditation is international, but operates in different ways in different contexts. u.n. and oecd documents use the term accreditation in regards to education. It is not inherently POV, it is neutral, it is only if you make the claim that calling something unaccredited is not a statement of fact, which is or is not supportable with evidence. in this case, it is supportable with evidence, how is it then pov? if it is included in other reference works or encyclopedias, then it is encyclopedic. the first encyclopedia had lists that were far worse than this... things like 'tools you find in a blacksmith shop'. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The way this list construes accreditation, it is an inherently POV term. If the test this list applies were as simple as "Does institution appear on Official Register X (Y/N) ?", I'd agree that the list would be neutral, verifiable and valid.
Unfortunately, the test currently goes a little like this: "Does the institution grant post-secondary degrees? ... Has the institution been labelled unaccredited? ... Do we trust the source that says this institution is unaccredited? ... If yes to all, then add institution to list". Quite apart from the unnecessary complexity of this test, it excludes from the list institutions which have not been accused by a third party of handing out non-accredited degrees (be they ever so unaccredited). So it winds up being a List of diploma mills by another name. This list is a refuge for POV, unencyclopedic content. — mholland (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What POV, unencyclopedic content hides here? John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
so cited and sourced articles will not work here? what if we applied that policy to other articles? the inclusion policy of cited materials seems central to wikipedia to me. --Buridan 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that, and that motivation does not appear to have played any role in the first AfD. What I said was that a rationale for keeping the article was that Wikipedia editors could watch the redlinks for articles on (presumably) diploma mills that had been speedied or AfD'ed to turn blue again, which would allow the editors to then pursue the redeletion or co-option of that article. While it seems like a good idea, that is not a reason for a page to exist in article space. If anything, such a page should be in project space, though it would run into problems there too.
The documentation is sufficient for the small number of entries left on the list because we stripped out all the other entries, comprising the bulk of the list, without sufficient sources. The list as it stands (and as it has been for a long, long time) is effectively an [[Arbitrary list of some institutions of post-secondary education whose diplomas may or may not be accepted in certain jurisdictions (see Talk page for which ones!) because they may or may not be accredited by the appropriate accrediting body, as defined in another Wikipedia article, for said jurisdictions]]. A list like that cannot be encyclopedic, no matter how interesting or useful to the corps of editors who watch school articles it may be. --Dynaflow babble 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Dynaflow. Given our prohibition against original research, this list is doomed to be pathetically incomplete. On that merit alone it's a disservice to readers looking for this information. Add in the immense difficulty of creating and maintaining a realistic and generalizable criteria and that seems to clearly point to deletion.
I wish we could do this list justice - I really do. My background and education are in higher education and I understand how important it is for students, parents, and others to make accurate judgments about the quality and qualifications of institutions and the degrees they purport to award. But I think that many people underestimate the complexity of higher education; I assume this underestimation and confusion is heightened by the widespread incidence of college education among Wikipedia editors who wrongly believe their isolated experiences can be generalized. If we were to limit this list to one jurisdiction (state, country, etc.) then we might have a hope of making it worthwhile. But a generalized, one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work. It's an admirable and understandable goal but it's completely unrealistic and doomed to be very incomplete and fundamentally flawed. --ElKevbo 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise. Many of the articles that have been written about individual institutions have been deleted based on assertions of lack of notability, often with attributes such as "diploma mill", "bible college," and "unaccredited" cited as evidence of lack of notability and the existence of this list cited as a reason why the institution-specific article is unnecessary. For some examples, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Berkley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northcentral University (although the decision was "Keep," the article was deleted about 10 days later), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colton University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitefield College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buxton University. Recently, this list, which included many more entries than it has now, was trimmed to remove about 300 institutions that were not annotated with one or more references documenting the school's lack of accreditation. Many of these removed institutions had once had articles that contained source citations, but those citations were not added to the list when the articles were deleted. Many other institutions that were removed from the list have well-sourced articles that clearly document the lack of accreditation (in many cases, even the institution freely states that it is not accredited), but these institutions were removed from the list because someone decided that this particular list requires an individual reference citation for every item on the list (even if the linked article has 15 relevant citations). Now that the "list" article has been thoroughly eviscerated, there is a hue and cry for the list to be deleted, in part due to its woefully incomplete nature. Can you hear me banging my head against the computer screen? --orlady 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I still have a CRT rather than a flat panel monitor, all that head banging would destroy a flat panel monitor. Most unaccredited institutions are understandably very secretive about their particulars. This means that articles on them are frequently going to be stubs. As long as there's a WP:RS for the fact that they are unaccredited then they should have an article, IMHO, even if it is just a perpetual stub. Of course, it also requires responsible editors to watch list these articles because the "alumni" (and sometimes owners I suspect) like to remove any derogatory information like the unaccredited status. So it takes a special breed of editor that can handle "Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise." A breed of editor that owns a CRT rather than flat panel monitor and has a thick skull. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we need to add "not a college guide" to the list? I thought it was self-evident but I guess I'm wrong. --ElKevbo 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a guide-for-schools-to-avoid. The argument that academic fraud is increasingly common should make the delete argument even stronger not weaker. Just because a diploma mill doesn't show up on the list it can't mean that it is a good school. These academic fraudsters can create a new diploma mill in less than a day. There's no way that this list can ever be anywhere near complete. I argue that the way to fight academic fraud is let people read the articles about accreditation and diploma mills. This article is misleading in my opinion because it implies that the school might be good if it doesn't show up on this misleading list. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: The vast majority of religious schools are accredited. The exemption in some jurisdiction applies to government licensing to operate a school, which is not the same thing as accreditation. The state of Texas has attempted to explain the distinction (as well as other aspects of the general issue) in this FAQ. Religious schools that choose not to seek accreditation are equally as "unaccredited" as any other unaccredited school; furthermore, unfortunately, some diploma mill scams claim to be religion-based and use their status to try to avoid scrutiny.--orlady 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Original research cites reliable sources all the time. Just look at any journal article. What makes this original research is the way in which the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new. Again, an arbitrary sampling of some institutions of post-secondary education which dedicated editors' tireless research indicates may not be accredited in certain jurisdictions is a noble undertaking, but it is original research and thus not appropriate to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear—I was using "original research" in the Wikipedia sense of "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." As a referenced list, this entry simply provides an index-of-sorts: I'm unclear as to how "the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new". If you mean "new" as in "this exact list hasn't been published by a reliable source", I suppose that's true.... -- MarcoTolo 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
With this kind of reasoning, Dynaflow, you actually should be very doubtful about the entire wikipedia project. As far as I see, wikipedia aims at and has succeeded in collecting a substantial amount of already established knowledge, in interrelated and easy to grasp manners. If you really meant what you write as a general principe, you could start by critisising the existence of cross references, categories, and navigation boxes in wikipedia. Of course all of this in an abstract sense synthesises something new, namely, an easy and collected access and overview of disparate facts. Wikipedia lists in general are not different from categories or navigation boxes in this respect. JoergenB 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between putting together an encyclopedic summary from secondary sources (with contextual references to primary sources) and just plowing almost exclusively through primary sources to synthesize a new piece of research. While the latter approach is inestimably valuable to the advancement of knowledge, its direct results are not appropriate to a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this list pretty much requires its compilers to take that latter approach, which dooms it as an encyclopedia article. Almost every element on the list (after the scores of unreferenced entries were removed) is based first and foremost on editorial judgement-calls on primary sources. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of the first twenty references, at least ten are secondary sources: here, here, here, here, and here. Wait, there's also this one, and this other one, as well as another one here, here, and here. The majority of the other references in this sample are mostly state departments of education (DOEs)—I suppose these fall into the "primary sources" category. I checked WP:NOR: in all the examples I checked, the references were using these DOEs to establish that a given institution on the list was so classified:no "interpretation" was involved. -- MarcoTolo 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Those refs to state departments of education are not primary sources. Those lists are secondary, or even tertiary, sources -- they are compilations of information that state officials gleaned from various primary and secondary sources. The closest we get to primary sources in articles like this one are (1) the findings in court documents such as those at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/ and (2) materials published by the institutions themselves (or their founders), indicating that they are not accredited (for example, http://www.vision.edu/institutions/viu/authorization.asp).--orlady 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I was trying to see in what model the various DOEs might be considered primaries—thinking of them as 2° or 3° fits the situation much better. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing POV in recognising that some "degrees" are bogus and others clearly valid; nor in presenting lists based on objective criteria (like the lack of accreditation). Nor is it OR. It would be POV if the article wrote someting like the following:"These institutes are blacklisted by US governmental or state agencies, and hence are proved to be criminal". We must present the grounds for listings carefully, and then let people draw their own conclusions. Similarly, institutes invoking the religious exemption should be marked doing so. JoergenB 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That recommendation is not workable. Many "distance learning" diploma mills have (or claim to have) a physical location in a country where they do not solicit or enroll students. Often these are small countries such as Dominica or Turks and Caicos, while solicitations target students in North America. In other cases, the school's official location is in the United States, but it targets students in Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, many of these institutions move around frequently, or else have no identifiable physical location. For some examples, see Saint Regis University (it and its affiliated institutions had or claimed to have locations in Liberia, India, the principality of Seborga, and the U.S. state of Washington), Rushmore University (apparent locations in two U.S. states and the Cayman Islands; Google their name and you will find personal pages by enrolled students living all over the world), and Bronte International University (which also discusses Trinity College and University, apparently another name for the same institution; locations or alleged locations include several U.S. states, Spain, and the British Virgin Islands). --orlady 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
But as per Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC) , I think it is important that this page comes with a caveat emptor - a strong note that this is an INCOMPLETE list. Additionally, a useful reference to checking the accreditation status of someone NOT on the list, even if just a weblink to a page of listed accreditors.Cazza411 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, sorry to spoil your party, but the article contents are not based on original research. --orlady 02:54, 28 June 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.

Old discussion from VfD (2004 June 12)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion concluded and article kept on June 12, 2004

AT-PT

Fictional vehicle from some game or fictional universe. No idea which, though, the author doesn't say. Google shows it up as being a Star Wars thing, but that doesn't seem to match this article. —Stormie 05:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of political parties in the Marshall Islands

List of political parties in the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Badly written, badly linked and uninformative stub, and all this for a list of two (2) parties? All this is already found on Politics of the Marshall Islands. Targeman 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadiqabad Chak 152P

Sadiqabad Chak 152P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Ab initio statement Chak/village 152/P is a small area itself shows that it isnt exactly noteworthy, while the population estimate also carries no ref. Not verifiable, not notable. Regards, xC | ☎ 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • All towns are inherently notable. But there is no non-Wiki web verification anywhere that this place exists. --Oakshade 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No concensus reached, default to Keep. -- Coren (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an admin, and am the originator of the AfD. -- Coren (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Brahim Yadel

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

Try as I might, I can't see any way this individual prisoner at Gitmo can pass WP:BIO. All news articles I can find are, at best, trivial coverage and none of the other notability criterion are met. Coren 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed !vote to neutral after article edits, see below. Coren 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, that justifies an article on Gitmo, and on the events going on there. That probably might justify an article giving a short blurb on each non-notable prisonner (not a list, please!). But an article about every single prisoner we can get a name for? Coren 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I explained above. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my rough notes I have a list I use that gives a short blurb on each captive -- [[48]]. I encourage you to go take a look at it. It is about 430K long. It is incomplete. I largely stopped working on it, when it was around two thirds finished, because it became just too large to edit. It may also be too large to be useful to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. So, this article you propose, that gives a short blurb on each "non-notable" captive, please tell us what you think it would look like. How do you think it would differ from the list in my rough notes?
  • You realize that this union list you propose would require at least several hundred hours of work? Will you commit yourself to a share of that work?
  • During earlier ((afd)) fora when some wikipedians made essentially the same suggestion you just did, that the article in question be merged to a big omnibus article, other wikipedians said they would agree, once the big omnibus article was in place.
  • I can't help noticing that you haven't addressed my earlier point, that Brahim Yadel is suspected of organizing jihadist training camps. Perhaps you should explain how you think we should draw the line between the captives you will acknowledge are notable, and those you would classify as non-notable? Perhaps you could explain why the allegation that an EU citizen organized jihaidst training, in an EU country, fails to make that individual "notable"?
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do realize that would be work. Although, if it got to 430K long then some pruning would need to be done; regardless of how notable their treatment is/was, not every detainee would even be slightly notable enough for even a blurb.
I don't agree with the need or usefulness for such a list/article in the first place (although I wouldn't contest it collectively meeting WP:NN), but if that work is the only thing that stops cluttering the Wiki with hundreds of non-notable articles no one will ever search for by name, then I'm willing to give a hand with it. Coren 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 430K -- How much of a review do you think a fair minded person would need to do to reach the conclusion that "pruning would need to be done"? Can I ask how much time you spent reviewing those 430K before you reached your conlcusion? Did you reach this conclusion merely based on the size, without reviewing it at all?
  • Let's do the math. There are 500 or so captives for whom we have authoritative, verifiable references. Each reference is about 200 bytes long, what with the URL, title, date, publication, author. That is 100K right there. Some captives have multiple authoritative, verifiable references. Over half that 430K is references. We could cut the size in half, if we abandoned the references. But I don't think that is a good solution.
  • You said you weren't being personal. But, in fact you are being personal. You can't imagine that these individual articles could ever be useful? That is you being personal, in that you are relying on your personal judgement and imagination.
    • I know that these articles are useful, are, in fact, being used. The Jurist is a good site I came across as I started writing articles about the captives. I found it to be a very pleasant surprise when they started referencing the wikipedia's articles that I was a big contributor. Here is a recent instance: US military investigating apparent suicide of Guantanamo detainee.
    • About a month ago I wrote to one of the Guantanamo captive's lawyers. He was a former police officer, who became a public defender after twenty years as a police officer. The DoD threw up incredible roadblocks to him meeting his clients. He couldn't meet with them, phone them, or write them. So he decided to travel to Afghanistan, and seek out their friends, relatives and acquaintances, to see whether their accounts would confirm or dispute the DoD's detemination that they were enemy combatants. That was extremely courageous of him. I wrote him, and told him so. I also asked for his help in updating the articles about his clients. He wrote me a very nice reply telling me that he regularly counted on looking up his clients on the wikipedia, anytime he was away from the office, and needed to consult their Tribunal transcripts.
  • So, that your imagination fails to see how the articles could be useful does not, IMO really counter the demonstrable fact that these article are already proving useful.
  • I can't help noticing you still haven't addressed my point that Brahim Yadel was accused of organizing jihadist training camps in France. I continue to hope you will explain why you do not consider this makes him "notable".
  • I am mystified by your characterization of these articles "cluttering up" the wikipedia. Would you reconsider characterizing any contributions that fully comply with the core wikipolicies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER as "clutter"? Do you think that the wikipedia is at risk for of running out of hard drive space?
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Guantanamo is notable, as are the pretexts for its existence (WoT). Simply being a prisoner there is not notable. Simply being accused of a crime, even terrorism, is not notable. The man is innocent unless or until proven guilty, regardless of what a government may believe or assert. List the man on the Guantanamo page or on a Guantanamo list page with brief details. Hu 20:30, 22 June 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 - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Elections in the Marshall Islands

Elections in the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Same reason as for Legislature of the Marshall Islands: badly linked, no new info beyond Politics of the Marshall Islands, and no need for a separate article. Targeman 03:45, 20 June 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 - Nomination withdrawn (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Legislature of the Marshall Islands

Legislature of the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This badly linked and superfluous article only repeates a few sentences from Politics_of_the_Marshall_Islands. Plus, a legislature of such small size and next to no international influence does not need a separate article. Targeman 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm all in favor of an egalitarian approach towards all countries, however small. But as long as there just isn't enough to write about politics in microstates such as RMI, maintaining separate articles all stating the same is making readers walk in circles. I say expand only when needed, because such inevitably long-term stubs don't look good and are simply not informative. --Targeman 04:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of information. It takes effort to look for it, though. —Sesel 05:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue

Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, possible hoax. Website for project exists, but Google search on title brings up on 38 unique returns. No reliable sources found in search or article. Article claims involvement of several known names, but the official sites of those names do not list the project. Google search also brings up concerns about hoax nature of project. Delete. MikeWazowski 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Interesting. If a hoax, they seem to have infiltrated Virgina Hey's site, at least. This page is linked from the Starfighters site, but not from the rest of Hey's blog. When I started the Starfighters article, I'm pretty sure it was still part of the rest of the blog, and was why I decided it was a legit project (though "Hey" does sound overly excited, no?) But I have no horse in this race. Let them be judged on the content of their characters. -- Yamara 04:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pilot that I'm not even sure has been picked up yet. It's been in the pilot stage since early 2006. At one point, Lee Majors was attached. No prejudice to recreating the article once (if) it premieres on SciFi.--Ispy1981 05:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How to Be Rich, Nigga

AfDs for this article:
How to Be Rich, Nigga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly procedural nomination. This is an expired prod but since it has (barely) survived AfD once, it should go through AfD again. As Chick Bowen (talk · contribs) noted in his prod, little if anything has changed in the article since that Sept. 2005 debate. I should also note that there seems to be a complete absence of reliable sources about the author or about the books proclaimed success. All Google can find seems to com from prweb.com which is about as unreliable a source as one can imagine. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 20 June 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, no support for deletion and merging is an editorial decision that can seek consensus on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikigroaning

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

Neologism, only weeks old; needs at least merge and redirect... but to where?

Delete - Seems to be spam for the site of the same name. --BenBurch 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Good thinking. I can get behind this. --Rubber cat (meows/purrs) 08:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's okay. It was only off for a day or so. There are still many days left, and if we need to, it can be extended a bit. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Straightforward BLP deletion, this person is known for a single event which was newsworthy at the time--but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't write biographies based on a single event. A mention at List of internet phenomena should be sufficient.

As a procedural note, I gave less weight to two keep "votes", because one was from an IP user with very few edits, and another was from a user who's a relative newcomer. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Aleksey Vayner

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

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, subject not notable per WP:Bio, subject is utterly unimportant and therefore this is not encyclopedic. BenBurch 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think then of renaming the article to e.g. "Aleksey Vayner Video Resume". That should address the WP:BIO concerns to make it clear it's not a biography about the individual per se, and it's the only the video resume-caused internet meme that is being discussed/notable. Cheers. Tendancer 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Electro estate

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

Speedy declined by admin who says that listing of albums asserts notability. Google search for "Electro Estate" and "Pajama Records," however, turns up nothing but MySpace and forum material. Nonnotable "music collaborative." Deor 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Isla Muerta (series)

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

Non-notable machinima series. Would qualify for CSD-A7, but asserts its microscopic notability. Being popular on Youtube is not a reason for an article to exist. 100 subscribers?!? So what? I'm sure the Bengal cat breeder Richard Norton has more (can't be sure right now, at work). Give reliable independent, non-trivial sources, or delete. Drat (Talk) 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 - KrakatoaKatie 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perry Nickelodeon

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

The article is completely unreferenced, and there are no Google hits for him. At the very least, the founder of the Nickelodeon TV network would have some web presence.I suspect it was an invention of the author's Hamsterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): a known vandal who has had other AfD problems in the past. Silly rabbit 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alvarado Road Show

Alvarado Road Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A band that might become notable someday, but as of now they don't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Digital day care

Digital day care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism; I can't find any significant usage of this term online to support this definition. greenrd 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean Brainfuck

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

This article has no WP:RS and gets zero ghits. Appears to be completely WP:OR. Evb-wiki 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as the AFD goes, you have five days from when it was started to add sources and clean up the article. AFDs aren't concerned with an article's potential- only about the condition of the page when it's tagged, and it will not be stopped to allow you to clean it up. 68.186.51.190 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sure, there's no place for this page on Wikipedia but this quite clearly is not pure vandalism unless you can demonstrate that the creator's sole purpose was vandalism. I see no reason not to assume good faith here so let's let this AfD run its course. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero cipher

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

No references or sources established notability per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jess Hartley

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

No references or sources (except for a single commercial website) establishing notability per WP:BIO. The tone seems autobiographical and self-promotional. Videmus Omnia 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Information is already in Marshall Islands#Government. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities of the Marshall Islands

Municipalities of the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not provide a shred of information beyond what is already written on Marshall Islands#Administrative divisions. Targeman 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Marshall Islands#Administrative divisions by Marshall Islands#Government. There are no municipalities, the country is divided in electoral districts. All 24 of them, plus all the uninhabited atolls, are already listed in the main article. --Targeman 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Fraser

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

This person does not seem notable, with a few music videos and TV appearances to his credit. The article is mostly composed of fancruft, and User:Bearian has noted a conflict of interest because User:Kirk fraser has submitted much of that content. YechielMan 01:31, 20 June 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 nom withdrawn. Sr13 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Turanian Tribes

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

A crank theory from a hundred years ago. Although someone has inserted a weak disclaimer that we're dealing with 19th century "racial ethnology", the rest of the text keeps merrily pretending like it was real science. The only relevance I can recognize is in influencing today's Pan-Turanism, and a notice there about the origin of the idea wouldn't hurt. The concept as such is sufficiently explained and contextualized in Turan. --Latebird 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That might work. However, Hurro-Urartian languages (redirected from your entry Hurro-Urartian) doesn't mention the term Turan[ian] at all. I also don't think that the Ural-Altaic entry should be expanded to mention individual peoples (too much detail for a disambig page). --Latebird 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
regarding Hurro-Urartian, you are right, this could be added. It is, likewise, obsolete terminology used in the early 1900s. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915, for example, calls the Urartians "Turanian Armenians"[50]
the mention of Turks, Huns and Mongols is not a random collection of Ural-Altaic peoples, but a list of those people associated with the term Turanian in particular (much more than, say, Finns or Japanese) dab (𒁳) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but a disambig entry should only contain one link, not a list of examples. --Latebird 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that it has been converted that way, I happen to agree with you. I hereby withdraw my nomination. --Latebird 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Sr13 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Frasier

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

This page was mistakenly redirected to Kirk Fraser. I reverted the change, but the underlying biography fails WP:BIO. YechielMan 01:27, 20 June 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 Article was redirected. -- Longhair\talk 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Brendan keilar

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Captain panda 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Epic Movie. Prodego talk 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jack Swallows

Captain Jack Swallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short article about a spoof character who appears in a single and relatively minor movie. Unexpandable. No pages link here. dustmite 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nosgoth timeline

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

It's unsourced, contains speculations, is not written in a Neutral Point-of-View, and is overall very unencyclopedic. The Clawed One 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Isis Nile

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:48, 20 June 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. Sr13 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

British industrial mission

British industrial mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The sources linked do not contain the words "British industrial misssion", casting doubt that the topic as presently organized is notable. None of the statements in the article are currently backed up by sources, at it reeks of being written from the point-of-view of the mission itself to the extent that even the facts lurking beneath the pov-y tone and structure are not reported in independent sources. Tagged with {notability} since September 06. Savidan 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment in Delhi

Entertainment in Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a completely unreferenced article on a subject that is probably in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO Number 2, travel guide. I don't see much hope of it being anything but a travel guide. If somebody wants to spinoff an article, then I'd suggest starting from Delhi#Culture instead, which is a section complete with several references and a more encyclopedic focus. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — OcatecirT 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Heidenreich (band)

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

NN band. Also nominating Heidenreich(band) (redirect page). Guroadrunner 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh City Model United Nations

Ho Chi Minh City Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN student group. No claim at notability, no verifiability. Prod removed because location makes it notable. I tend to disagree. Mystache 04:03, 20 June 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Electric Hellfire Club

Electric Hellfire Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

doesn't provide any sources and the only claim to notability in the article is being interviewed by Bob Larson Will (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This band was at one time, the flagship band of, and one of the biggest selling original acts on Cleopatra records, during the early to late 1990's. I hardly think a 16 year old kid (The user who marked this article for deletion) is qualified to determine the band's level "notability", as he was a toddler when the band started, and was in elementary school when the band experienced its peak level of popularity. User:RivetheadX

DELETE for no assertion of Notability as per WP:MUSIC. Reading the article tells me that this is an underground band which has a large myspace presence. RivetheadX, "It was big on Cleopatra Records once," gives me hope that it may meet a notability guideline -- 2, 8, or 11 seem most likely. Has EHC won a major music award, had a single that was in the rotation nationally on a radio network, or charted on ANY national music chart? If not, and there is no assertion of such in the article, it is not a notable band.

Further, a 16-year-old kid who can read the notability requirements is doing just fine by marking this for deletion. For the record, I'm 31 and have never heard of this lot either. Deltopia 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the article says the band went defunct in 2002. Therefore, "being" (present tense) a band with a large presence on MySpace (founded 2003) is not possible. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Zeibura's rationale and cleanup. I didn't follow the Thrill Kill section before, and I (carelessly) assumed Cleopatra was minor because it wasn't linked in the article. I (lazily) failed to look it up myself. A learning experience for me; thanks for the lesson :) Deltopia 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Another note: The band also asserts that it meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC, as Thrill Kill Kult are a notable band. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but there were no citations. What I was being told by that sentence was that the band celebrated violence and mass murder. The most you can say for that is to say the band's lyrical content made references to those things, saying they celebrate them based on their lyrics is an unfair assumption on a controversial issue. Also, I couldn't find any mention of the "I put the 'Kill' back in Thrill Kill Kult" quote anywhere, it gave me 2 google hits, both from Wikipedia. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wendell Fairley

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 20:47, 20 June 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.
More