< October 14	October 16 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treestyle[edit]

Delete. Non-notable "sport"; Wikipedia is not for things made up in the park one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably should have gone to CSD. NN. Ridernyc 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ridernyc, NN. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 00:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ridernyc. Pig^man 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably should have been speedied, possibly hoax candidate. VanTucky ^Talk 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. due to WP:NFT. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I Prodded this as it didn't quite seem to meet CSD criteria. Is NN or NFT on its own sufficient reason to CSD? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim: Absolutely not. CSD requirements are very strict for a very good reason. Prod'ing was the right thing to do with this article. That said, clearly, delete. - Che Nuevara 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Che, I thought that was the case. I use Twinkle when I'm deciding on whether to CSD or not, and use the rule of thumb that if I can't find a Twinkle template to apply then I need to Prod instead. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: as this article cites significant coverage of its subject in multiple, third party reliable sources in Chanel_Petro-Nixon#External_links, this person is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. The only remaining argument for deletion is the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which fails to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. John254 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result modified by DRV to no consensus in light of non-admin closure. Xoloz 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Petro-Nixon[edit]

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the creator of this work so, unless Chanel's family "weighs-in" and says otherwise, I vote to keep this.--MurderWatcher1 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and notability seems strained to non-existent. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgment from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial; Wikipedia is not a random collation of trivia and most murder victims in this world are non-notable - they're just victims of this world. Without something to make a victim stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of US/worldwide murder victims each year (eponymous law, weeks/months of coverage of the disappearance, drama/documentary for a non-minority channel being made, etc) then this is another NN, with WP:BLP concerns for their family to be considered too. Original research on the "impact" of the killing must be ignored. This is an encyclopaedia. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD; nevertheless, I have re-read the article and this AfD before posting and my views have not changed/have been reinforced. This same text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a memorial applies in this instance. There is nothing about this particular murder that distinguishes it from others. Sad though that may be. -- Whpq 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit Looking at the article, there is some distinctive features besides the general age of the victim. This is a case where the question has been raised publicly by prominent public figures about the degree of public and police attention to the murder of people of different races--and widely reported in major news sources. The emphasis on the article on details of crimes, the attitude involved in a sentence that "There was, however, no evidence of any sexual assault, torture or any marks found on Chanel's body. ", and the extensive content about identifying marks that might aid the investigation indicate a degree of soapboxing. But the subject is notable nevertheless, and should be judged on its own distinctive merits independently of the other contributions or motivation of the author. Of the 500 murders or so in NYC, some are notable--the argument that we cant include 500 should not be used to say that we can't include the notable ones that have the most public attention for particular reasons. DGG (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults (all)[edit]

This is a POV fork of List of groups referred to as cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, one is quite tricky enough, 2 sounds like a way for somebody to get round not being able to include an alleged cult in the original article, SqueakBox 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the phrase "This list has no extrinsic or special criteria for inclusion or exclusion" is extremely problematic as it opens up any allegations as long as a legit source can be cited as making the allegation. SkierRMH 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ridernyc 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list makes no allegations as to whether a group any group is a cult, it is simply a list of references as per the title. Neither is it a 'POV fork' as alleged, as it seeks to push no POV. In this it is in stark contrast to List of groups referred to as cults, which through artificial inclusion criteria seeks to push the POV that only groups appearing after 1920 are 'cults', a concept which is not supported by any known definition of the term. -- Really Spooky 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you propose to manage this article with a potential to list thousands of fan cults? (Google { "fan cult" }). Maybe the mentioned POV of this fork is covert — that thousands of entertainment and fashion cults listable will eventually make the NRMs referred to as cults very difficult to find, even if it is possible to manage an article of the eventual size. The older public cares relatively little about fan cults, but worry about new religion groups living next door and want to research them. Note emphasis on the latter in the Cult article. (For those interested, the 1920+ criterion at LOGRTAC is not artificial. It's based on 1920's-onward appearance of new definitions or words also spelled c-u-l-t (homonyms), as discovered through historical research by world-class cult authority Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB. See the detailed references here.) Milo 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - it is a duplicate list. The Transhumanist 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it makes much more sense to have an article which doesn't try and force a point of view by having inclusion criteria, this was presumably created to get around the censorship on List of groups referred to as cults. Conrad.Irwin 12:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list must have inclusion criteria, per WP:SAL. shoy 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This list DOES have clear inclusion criteria - that the listing should identify a reliable source that refers to the group as a cult. Which is a perfectly objective inclusion criteria, unlike that at List of groups referred to as cults, which does not comply with WP:SAL because it is not sourced - it is arbitrary user-created criteria. The fact that there is another article with a more narrow list of groups (and moreover that does not comply with Wikipolicy) is no reason for deleting this one. -- Really Spooky 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You'll note that I didn't !vote anything. The main article has content issues? That's not a reason to fork the article. Go discuss it at the talk page of the original list. shoy 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand you didn't vote, I was just responding to your point. The fact that another article has content issues is not a reason to delete this article, which deals with a wider subject. It is a different list with different criteria and unlike the other article, it seeks to push no POV. An objective article should not be held hostage to a flawed article. If you look at the talk pages on other article, you will see the problem. -- Really Spooky 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if you are correct about POV, you can't keep an unmanageably large list on Wikipedia. So now what? Choose to leave some cults out? Oops, back to POV inclusion criteria. Even if you don't like the current inclusion choices, you do have to make such choices, called editing. Correct size "windowing" of data chunks to fit available retrieval systems (including billboards) is a natural law requirement of information systems. Milo 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no evidence to suggest it would be unmanageably large. That is just your bald assertion. There are plenty of lists much larger. -- Really Spooky 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For evidence to suggest it might be unmanageably large, I provided a Google search showing upward of 17,000 hits. I did say you can't keep an unmanageably large list, but I made no assertion, bald or otherwise, that it would be unmanageably large — you inferred that by not reading carefully. I previously asked you for a management plan. You didn't provide one, so it is reasonable to delete what otherwise might be reasonable to keep, had you made better plans for the article. But, ok, please name those much larger lists? Milo 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When did you supposedly “provide a Google search showing upward of 17,000 hits”? I've never seen it. And did your Google search exclude all references that didn’t refer to groups as cults, that aren’t from sources meeting WP:RS, and multiplicities of references to single groups? If so, please tell me where you obtained this phenomenal new version of Google.
        When did you supposedly ask me for a ‘management plan’? Although it doesn't really matter; if you had, I wouldn’t have given you one because (a) no-one is required to submit a management plan to start a Wikipedia article, (b) no-one is required to obtain prior clearance from you to start a Wikipedia article and (c) no 'management plan' is necessary for this or any other article. Had you sincerely doubted that there were larger lists on Wikipedia, you could have easily found them yourself here. Some examples are List of painters, List of garden plants, List of books by title and List of asteroids, the last of which has over 164,000 entries.
        I’m glad to read, however, that you didn’t say this list would be unmanageably large. If you had some other article in mind, I suggest you take your comments to the talk page of that article, rather than discussing those matters here. This page concerns List of groups referred to as cults (all). -- Really Spooky 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "When did you supposedly "provide a Google search showing upward of 17,000 hits"?" It's here, my second "Comment" sentence under your original "Keep" vote (Spooky 04:15).

• "I've never seen it." I provided the search for you to do, not the results (which for some reason vary by thousands on different days: 17K+ to 19K+). However, here is a link to a Google { "fan cult" } search result with 18,400 hits, but it may stop working or give different results later.

• "And did your Google search exclude all references that didn't refer to ...[exceptions]?" Nope, that's to be part of your management plan, and I'm not going to do your work for you.

• "When did you supposedly ask me for a 'management plan'?" It's here, my first "Comment" sentence under your original "Keep" vote (Spooky 04:15) – "How do you propose to manage this article...".

• "Although it doesn't really matter; if you had, I wouldn't have given you one because ...[reasons presuming entitlement to keep a created article]." Suit yourself. That being your response to my request, then you don't get my keep vote, or the keep votes of other editors who think you have created an article that may become a problem for the community.

• "Had you sincerely doubted" You're saying that I insincerely doubted? Tsk, tsk, that sounds a lot like a personal attack in violation of WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. Perhaps you should re-edit that and apologize to me, or at least provide an alibi.

• "larger lists on Wikipedia, you could have easily found them yourself here" It's you who want help to keep the article with my vote – why should I do your reference work for you?

• "Some examples are ... and List of asteroids, the last of which has over 164,000 entries." You obviously didn't vet all of these for an applicable management example. I vetted the last one first and discovered that its organization method is no longer permitted due to deprecated use of subpages (Talk:List of asteroids#Subpages no longer enabled in article namespace). I didn't check any more because, again, I'm not going to do your work. It's your task to supply me with a valid list of examples if you want my keep vote, and those of other editors who agree that my request for a management plan is reasonable under the awkward circumstances.

• Generally regarding your comment replies: for an AfD supplicant, you are displaying a remarkable amount of attitude. It's possible you are merely inept at vote politics, but it also seems possible that you don't care whether this article is deleted. That possibility underscores the comments of those editors darkly suspecting that your article creation is a WP:Point, with which you may be disruptively wasting time that otherwise could be used to progress the project. Milo 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork. Content decisions should be dealt with at the original location. Dekimasuよ! 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem has been that the decisions that have been made at the original source have been unsuccessful, so unsuccessful that it has been nominated for deletion at least five times - and they are still argued over. Conrad.Irwin 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No – you're confusing success with popularity. LOGRTAC is an official controversial article, so it will always be substantially unpopular and have AfD attempts made by listed group members, and others with unsatisfiable POVs who will never stop arguing. OTOH, as the inclusion criteria evolved the article became more successful. With increasing success, non-NRM visitors to the talk page generally stopped saying things like, "Quakers?? They're not a cult!" This success made listed NRM members redouble their efforts to delete or at least jam the page. Why? Because frequently, though not always, NRM members in denial don't want the public to find out that their leader or group members have become entangled with the law. Yet that is exactly why global citizens, fearing that the NRM next door is destructive or exploitative, want to research them – usually finding nothing, since thousands of local NRMs (see Cult) are statistically harmless. Milo 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of groups referred to as cults and sort out the problems there. POV forking is not an approved solution to a disagreement. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Isn't this a violation of WP:POINT ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- Just a POV fork John Campbell 11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- because this will probably get deleted in the name of making a point, could people please think about the point it is sacrificing itself to make. Namely that the article List of groups referred to as cults is not a list of groups referred to as cults. Conrad.Irwin 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, what I and many other editors see at LOGRTAC does appear to be a list of groups referred to as cults. Milo 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - even though there is a question on which article is the real POV fork. Perhaps a similar article could be created with a different name. Why should arbitrary selection be alright for one article and not another? This stinks of hypocrisy. Sfacets 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - And remove arbitrary inclusion criteria - Why should arbitrary selection be alright for one article and not another? This stinks of hypocrisy. Sfacets 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we continue the discussions on the article's discussion page? They aren't directly relevant to the deletion of this article... Sfacets 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sfacets, changed votes helpfully influence others, so it's customary to strike-add your old-new vote rather than delete-edit them. (However delete-edits are the appropriate way to make incivility and personal attacks invisible.) If you choose to delete-edit a post later, after others have posted, the community requests that you leave some sign of change in posted context. I recommend:

"Re-edited [optional reason here] ~~~~~" The five tildes print only the date.

Milo 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seemingly a POV-fork and an instance of disrupting WP to make a point. Guaranteed to become a wholly worthless mishmash. -- Lonewolf BC 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is no sense in having two lists having essentially the same purpose, and it does seem o be a POV fork. However, I think this article (List of groups referred to as cults (all)) is a better article than List of groups referred to as cults which has some bizarre inclusion criteria. It's the latter list that ought to be deleted. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sort out with RFC on inclusion criteria which is more basic dispute.--Dseer 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been referenced on the talk page for WikiProject Organizations.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic example of a POV-forking and pointmaking. Fix whatever issues exist at the real article instead of this mischief. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot bellied yacht terrier[edit]

One litter of dogs does not a breed make. Corvus cornix 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable litter. Speciate 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It does not say it is a breed, it says it is a variation of a breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 54321 abcde (talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — User:54321 abcde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete As an "unknown variation" - unknown doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria :) SkierRMH 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously failing WP:N VanTucky ^Talk 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Recreate if the breeder managed to make them a recognized breed (which would be years from now). --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Dan Barreiro. KrakatoaKatie 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gerbschmidt[edit]

Likely hoax - the only reliable reference can't confirm existence and article refers to this person as possible fictional character Toddstreat1 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a hoax? It would be a hoax if it was making the claim that everything written was not fictional when it may very well be and is stated as such in the article. The fact is he does exist in some form and is a very popular well known charecter on the radio.--E tac 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dan Barreiro or some other KFAN-related article. Definitely not a hoax, though. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: is it a BLP? If so, then BLP rules apply. If fictional, then others. Maybe hoax isn't the right word. Is this encyclopedic? Toddstreat1 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The newspaper article states that

"While all of the officials strongly suspect Gerbschmidt is a fictitious character created by the radio station to poke fun at Packers fans, they hedged slightly by saying it’s conceivable such a person lives in the rural area outside of the village and still uses an Elk Mound address.

Further research revealed that Gerbschmidt’s authenticity is a widely debated topic in some Internet chat rooms, with some people swearing he’s a persona made up for a radio comedy bit and some insisting they’ve been to Elk Mound and seen his name on a mailbox.

Still others admit they don’t know if Gerbschmidt — like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster before him — is real or imagined."

So as of right now it is up for debate.

Carl Gerbschmidt joins Dan to talk about the Packers.

Carl Gerbschmidt joins Dan to talk Packers football.

Phunn, Roufsie and special guest Carl Gerbschmidt pick week 6 NFL games.

Here is some of his more recent guest appearences.--E tac 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy, per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment After some further research it would appear that it is a bit and he is played by Minneapolis Star Tribune writer Kevein Seifert, although I cannot be 100 percent on that and would like to believe that it is not.--E tac 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia right to life[edit]

Non-notable organization. State organizations are rarely notable in their own rights. Corvus cornix 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - We have New York State Right to Life Party and Colorado Right to Life articles too. I'm not sure if we have any others, but I didn't see them in my quick search. These could all be merged into Right to life or National Right to Life Committee if they are in fact affiliated state-level groups. Torc2 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a long explanation that got lost. *sigh* Server overload, I think. I follow Torc2's reasoning but I think merging would give too much prominence to one or two state chapters over the rest of the state chapters. If there were WP:RS to substantiate the info, maybe. But delete seems the proper course to me. Pig^man 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered the notability issue before creating the article, as I could see Torc2's point for many state affiliates. However GRTL is starting to cause national debate over their amendment, and has made news in Townhall.com, InsiderAdvantage, [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57888 WorldNetDaily.com] and others. The public scrutiny is only going to increase, thus I thought a wikipedia article would be appropriate. This state is what the pro-life debate will be about over the next year or more. Josh brahm 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Little support for keeping this as a standalone article in policy or in popular opinion, as far as I can tell. "Detailed summaries" would seem to just be a euphemism for the kind writing which Speciate probably correctly says is precluded by the "Wikipedia is not journalism" clause. Of course, the summaries in 2006 Chicago Bears season can be expanded if the information is encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with a paragraph or two of encyclopedic information per game, but the key word is encyclopedic. I suppose in this case that means that the information should be geared more towards explaining the importance of the events of the game in the context of the Bear's 2006 season, the 2006 NFL season, and football in general; rather than just a playlog as you'd see in the game's writeup the next day in the paper. This advice is not binding, it's just guidance that will hopefully be helpful. This was a vastly more detailed closing summary than I usually give, but this seemed like a confusing situation. W.marsh 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Chicago Bears season detailed game summaries[edit]

I really hate do to this, but I am concerned that this article is an overlong rewrite of 2006 Chicago Bears season. I know that a lot of work went into making this page, but the real question is; is Wikipedia the place for a play-by-play description of every game of the season? This article could also be the first of similar articles for every season of every major league team in every sport. There are perfectly verifiable sources peppered through the article, I am unsure of notability. Speciate 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it's the product of hard work and I appreciate the level of detail, there's nothing here that isn't in a lot of other websites. I agree that it's a bad precedent to start. This is a case of someone using Wikipedia as a free host for a webpage. Mandsford 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2006 Chicago Bears season – I honestly don't see much of a reason why all of these summaries can't just be added to 2006 Chicago Bears season. I don't see why there is a necessity for two separate articles. The scoring summary might be too much information, but everything else (the game summaries) can just be added to 2006 Chicago Bears season. The extensive game summaries are a great and welcome addition to Wikipedia, but in my opinion, the summaries could just be placed on 2006 Chicago Bears season and have the same effect; it'd be best, in my opinion, for it all to be in the same place. Again, the information is quite appreciated, but it doesn't really need to be in a separate article, does it? Ksy92003(talk) 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as each allegedly notable play has a source that explicitly says the play was amazing, unusual, or otherwise notable, merging the information is acceptable. But the article flirts with violating points 1, 3 and 5 here and points 4 and 5 here. Speciate 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see where this has the potential of becoming a problem. In my opinion, if the game summary can be drastically shortened, then I don't think there should be a problem with that. In its current state, it is close to bordering the WP:NOT points you referred to, but if it could be shortened and merged to 2006 Chicago Bears season then I don't see any severe issue with that then. Ksy92003(talk) 07:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ksy92003. Well-written but violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a game summary/result/statistics guide.--JForget 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided per above and Comment. As the creator of this article, I have an interest in it. It should either be Kept or Merged. I understand the bandwidth concerns. I also realize that WP is not a game summary/etc. guide, but some of the text on this page reports notable occurrences that may be unobtainable without doing extensive research. I originally created this page because the 2006 Chicago Bears season article was running too long for good article status. Most of the game summary text for this article was originally on the 2006 CBs article. It was updated a bit and proofread for this one. I understand that some of the text on the page may not be notable, but some of it is, and further it may not be available on other websites unless research and cross examination with other information is performed. For example, in week five Robbie Gould broke the Bears franchise record for consecutive field goals made in a season. Text such as that should definitely be merged to the 2006 CBS page if this article is not kept. I'm not extremely versed in Wikipedia's rules and standards, but if this is a situation where compromises can be made, I think the best solution would be to have this article merged with the 2006 CBs article as long as those who think it should be deleted believe and agree that such action will not hurt 2006 CBs's chances of achieving good article status. The only reason 2006 CBs has not achieved good or featured article status is that some(questionably) believe it contains fair use violations. If this article is Merged into 2006 CBs, this article should not make 2006 Chicago Bears season article too long for good article consideration. If it does, then this article should be Kept. It would be unfair to hurt 2006 CBs's chances of achieving such status by just flat out deleting this one. RMelon 01:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything notable would have citations, not just be something seen while watching the games on TV. And I think that the GA length rules exclude infoboxes, images and citations. Transfer the information over. Speciate 03:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late Naba Kishore Mohanty[edit]

Almost speedied (sp?) this but there is an assertion of notability in the article. However, G-hits are minimal: 8 for "Naba Kishore Mohanty" (I think the "Late" is just to indicate he is dead, not part of the name.) No WP:RS or WP:V that I can find. Feels a little like a memorial page but others may find more info. Pig^man 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only find 8 Ghits without "Late", and none of them confirm the notability or details of the article. SkierRMH 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, WP:V. I found 2 ghits (using only the first and last name). I found nothing on the company names (except Utkal, not Utkala Distributors, but there's no evidence he was involved in that one.)--Sethacus 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: as this article cites significant coverage of its subject in multiple, third party reliable sources in Ramona Moore#External_links, this person is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. The only remaining argument for deletion is the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which fails to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. John254 01:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result modified by DRV to no consensus in light of non-admin closure. Xoloz 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Moore[edit]

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the crime that was committed was horrific(as are all murders,) the deceased is not notable per WP:BIO and any reference to her would be made in an article about her murderers if they showed notability (which none of them appear to.) Also should the family be reading this I wish to extend the condolences TonyBallioni 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To allow this to remain would be, in a sense, "blaming the victim". Nothing that Ms. Moore did made her noteworthy (she did nothing that would have incited her own murder); apparently she was an innocent victim. It is her murderer who is notable on account of his acts. Ms. Moore does not meet WP:BIO because she was an innocent victim. I would extend this concept to all similar AfD discussions in this area. Accounting4Taste 00:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was never my intention to 'blame the victim', User:Accounting4Taste and you're welcome to edit it to show otherwise.--MurderWatcher1 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate that, and wouldn't suggest that that had been your intention. However, I think the only way to have this information in Wikipedia would be as part of an article about the person who committed the crime (who may or may not be notable), and we're not being asked to discuss that article here; therefore, it's not possible to edit the article about the victim to reflect that. Accounting4Taste 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like it's only here to back up Imette St. Guillen and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgment from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial; Wikipedia is not a random collation of trivia and most murder victims in this world are non-notable - they're just victims of this world. Without something to make a victim stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of US/worldwide murder victims each year (eponymous law, weeks/months of coverage of the disappearance, drama/documentary for a non-minority channel being made, etc) then this is another NN, with WP:BLP concerns for their family to be considered too. Original research on the "impact" of the killing must be ignored. This is an encyclopaedia. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD; nevertheless, I have re-read the article and this AfD before posting and my views have not changed/have been reinforced. This same text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a memorial applies. There isn't anything to distibguish this murder from others. -- Whpq 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it needs to be rewritten somewhat. It meets the requirement some think necessary of coverage over time (3 years). The really extensive newspaper coverage differentiates it from the other NYC murders. WP is not paper, and with 2 million articles, a reasonable umber of the more dramatic and better referenced murders will not damage our credibility or harm further our overall balance. DGG (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porthill park cricket club[edit]

Possibly non-notable cricket club, no reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Tiptoety 22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per CSD A7. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Porthill Park is a legit cricket club in England. I added reference to the official web-site and what jogged my memory on this, the Cardiac Risk in the Young link from 2006 and the death of a young cricketer there. SkierRMH 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We need third-party references, such as news sites. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This appears to be a prominent local club in Staffordshire and was notable enough that its results were once published in The Times [1]. Having said that, given that there is so little here about the club, I think the contents, along with facts for other local clubs, would be better placed in an article about the league in which they play, which is more likely to be notable. There is an article on the BBC website[2] that addresses the league directly and other coverage[3][4][5][6][7][8]. --Malcolmxl5 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skoble[edit]

Neologism The very model of a minor general 22:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hal peridol 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Mykals[edit]

contested prod, unsourced blp, no notability beyond that of any other local on air personality, just not notable (WP:N and WP:BIO), so not notable we don't know when or where she was born - red flags of non-notability among modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7, nn. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Delete - unsourced BLP, NN Toddstreat1 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any secondary info concerning her. Hal peridol 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/No consensus for deletion Feel free to discuss in the talk page of the article about a new title as it needs a rename. --JForget 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British and United States military ranks compared[edit]

I just don't see what this article adds that isn't already covered by Ranks and insignia of NATO and its sub-articles. After all, we don't have Canada and United States military ranks compared or British and Polish military ranks compared nor as far as I can tell articles for any other pair of NATO countries. Besides, the name is problematic, as even if it were kept it would be better off as British and American military ranks compared or United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete We cannot have >10,000 articles that compare military ranks pairwise of all nations in the world. There are standards to compare with, see format of the articles listed in Comparative military ranks. `'Míkka 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared. There is probably a much larger community of interest for this comparison than to any other (barring, perhaps, US/USSR ranks). bd2412 T 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as above. However, much of this info should be moved into the UK rank and insignia articles, which are presently anaemic. Andrew Yong 23:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ranks and insignia of NATO and expand to cover all NATO members. Having a series of tables comparing equivalent NATO countries' ranks would be extraordinarily useful and avoid the redundancy of requiring separate articles for each NATO country. I'd imagine a series of tables going rank-by-rank, comparing each: Privates for Spain/Portugal/Turkey/Italy, etc ... and so on for each NATO country, enlisted rank, and officer rank. It'd be a substantial page, but it's a substantial subject, and given the importance of the subject matter, merely deleting the article doesn't make sense, particularly when there are so many other articles that refer to various NATO ranks. JKBrooks85 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information should be (and usually already is) on the individual pages for each rank. Speciate 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into other, more pertinent articles on the subjects. It's just an odd, odd article to have out there by itself with no precident. --ScreaminEagle 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into other articles. Buckshot06 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - As the to largest primarily-English-speaking countries, and two of the most prominent militaries in the world right now, comparson of their respective ranks should be of great interest to English readers, esp in the two countries. THough the US system is derived from that of the British, there are major differences which warrant some specific comparitive coverage. I'd recommend expanding the article beyond its current for to include more background. Article name is negotiable, and can be discussed if the aritlce is not deleted. - BillCJ 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although possibly rename, 'British' and 'United States' in the title is a little inconsistent). If this was about any two countries picked at random, I would be more sceptical; but the USA and UK have a great deal of shared history, particularly in military matters, and the similarities/differences in their ranking systems relate to that. (i.e.: this page is both a notable and relevant comparison.) I would be cautious, however, about seeing many more 'X and Y military ranks compared' articles created in future; if this becomes a problem, it would probably be best to unite them all into one page. However, we're only dealing with the subject in question, and this one at least is worthy of an article in its own right. Terraxos 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to British and American military ranks compared . The Nato ranks article doesn't have the detail to make this superfluous.Dejvid 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that we're talking about the military rank systems of both the US and the Commonwealth. It does, however, need to be linked to!--Mtnerd 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per the arguments made above about common culture, not an arbitrary one like "Kyrghyzstan-Swaziland military ranks compoared". The title is deficient, and should be United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared, not "British and American...".--victor falk 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. Be wary of other comparative rank articles, though if others make sense, old Soviet and new Russian ranks, for example, deal with them as needed. Though it may be deemed as Anglo-centric fluff graphics, I would rather have this information handy side by side, than say, List of Minor Characters in <insert Springfield cartoon show or teenage wizard book series here>. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic content and arguments that it shouldn't exist because we don't have a similar article comparing the ranks used by Angola and Fiji or whatever are silly. Nick mallory 06:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My argument has nothing to do with the info not being encyclopedic, but with it being redundant to other articles. Any British specific info that isn't already in British specific articles should be moved of course, but do not present a reason to keep this article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. PalawanOz 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename for reasons as detailed above. Alphageekpa 10:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All NATO countries use a standardised rank structure, which is also used by a large number of non-NATO countries, so there's no need for this kind of comparison article as Ranks and insignia of NATO and its sub-articles already covers this ground. They even have the various national job titles so there doesn't seem to be anything to merge. Moreover, just about every national military article has a table showing how the nation's ranks map to the NATO structure, so articles dedicated to direct comparisons between NATO members are redundant and potentially missleading as they imply that there isn't a standardised structure. --Nick Dowling 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:BillCJ, though I am ambivalent about the naming issue. The links between the US and UK armed forces are substantial, both within and outwith the structures of NATO. Given this close relationship a detailed examination of ranks is both useful and, more importantly, encyclopaedic (especially given subsequent development from their shared heritage). --Xdamr^talk 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could perhaps see the point if the article in question actually described the development you ascribe to it, but it doesn't. Even if it did, it would more profitably be located in an article like History of United States military ranks which would detail the development in the United States of military ranks from its origins in the British rank as used during the Revolution, since I am unaware of any cross-fertilization since then. Indeed, there is no historical relationship at all between the ranks used by the respective air forces other than the equivalences established for joint operations (both NATO and pre-NATO). Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lieutenant Commander would be one example of cross-fertilization (USN to RN). I can't remember if there are more, but it's possible. I do see where this article could be expanded and improved as suggested here. However, if it's not done in a relativley short time period, such as a few months, then deletion/merger would be the proper course at that time. - BillCJ 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that's more a case of parallel evolution from the Revolutionary War-era rank of Lieutenant and Commander. In any case, there are still some minor differences between the two. (The RN includes a hyphen and shortens the rank to Lieutenant rather than Commander.) In any case, the parallels are dealt with in the Lieutenant Commander article and aren't even mentioned in this one. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Terraxos et al. -- Chris B • talk 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename, for reasons that have already been explained better than I could put them. --Commander Zulu 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (rename if a better title) The article is far more than the NATO comparison and can be expanded This page (under a different nbame) was the orginal wikipedia Comparative military ranks, as more countries got added it got messy amd others superseded it. However, the current page specific to US/UK gives far more explanation and versions of different ranks than on other comparisons e.g. a US First Sergeant being directly Comparible to a UK Compant Sergeant Major (which is a job title and not rank that a WO2 wan fill). I would also like to see NCOs compared on actual responsibilities which doesn't necessarily reflect their NATO rank codes in different countries. Dainamo 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Original essay. Nothing improved after the prev. nomination last year, but wikipedia policies towards original research had become stricter at the same time. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between the Bible and the Qur'an `'Míkka 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Move to Userfy (as a contributor in the last several months to this article that you say has had "nothing improved"). There's no bias whatsoever in its presentation. I figured this nomination would be coming, however, after you mentioned it in the course of the debate over the opinionated "differences" article. Nor has it ever been an "essay". Essentially, it attempts to be a description of where, in each book, the references can be found to familiar stories (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Jesus, etc.) common to both religions. For example, the "David and Goliath" story can be found in the Book of Samuel, Chapter 17, in the Bible, and in the second Surah (Al-Baqarah) of the Qu'ran starting at verse 251. I agree with you that readers probably should compare it with the "differences article"; there's no comparison. Mandsford 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mansford, I am surprised that such an experienced wikipedian still fails to grasp the notion of WP:NOR. In this particular case it is so very basic: It is you who is doing comparison, hence it is your research, which has no place in wikipedia. `'Míkka 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but quoting from principal sources is not "original research" Mandsford 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quoting is OK, but the article goes way beyond quoting. Wikipedia:Primary sources: "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." `'Míkka 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In response, I've worked at trying to eliminate any opinionated parts in doing edits; although the article is imperfect, the topic is worthwhile, and I think that it can continue to be improved. I'd welcome any suggestions for editing short of a complete deletion. Mandsford 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been looking for such an article for long time. I think this article should be substantiated with references. The similarities/differences between the great books will help followers of each book understand each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.62.250 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'd love to see an article like this on WP, this version is really original research. Sorry but that's what I see. Pig^man 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'd welcome any suggestions on improving it rather than deleting it. This is one that I started cleanup efforts on awhile back, and what I've strived for is to replace paraphrasing with source text. It's a valid topic; how can this type of article be fixed? Again, criticism accepted, suggestions welcome. Mandsford 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a suggestion sift thru comparison+bible+quran and identify which of them may be reliable sources. Hint: the sources must have authors recognized as reputable scholars (called "exegesists" in Christianity and mufassir in Islam, but I guess there are laity scholars of note as well.) Nobody says that this topic is nonnotable, but unfortunately you dived into the improvement of one huge piece of OR. `'Míkka 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are enthusiastic about this topic, I would suggest you to move the current text into your namespace (e.g., User:Mandsford/ B vs Q) to use as a general guideline and start from scratch from the found reliable sources, but please avoid the use of any conclusions from the saved text, because wikipedias are not in a position to validate them, which is the major issue. Please notice that there is a temptation to classify some conclusions as "evident". Please keep in mind that some people were burned on the stake for some "evident" conclusions from the Bible. :-) Jokes aside, these two books do require expertise to read (and more so, to analyze) correctly. `'Míkka 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'm sorry Mandsford, but I can't come up with much better than leaving exegesis to the scholars... sorry mate but delete--victor falk 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being clearly synthesis original research. The article uses an amalgamation of primary sources to create a topic that does not seem to be the subject of any significant coverage in secondary source material. VanTucky ^Talk 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This is WP:SYNTH, even if the conclusions are correct. This needs to have reliable sources discussing these similarities, which was mentioned by several people in the previous AFD, but 10 months later those sources haven't been added. Masaruemoto 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:NOR "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"

I would point out that I didn't create the article, and I've been trying to eliminate anything that had suggested an analysis, a synthesis, or attempted to make an argument. The intent is to refer to the published sources, so that if someone were to claim that "Jesus isn't mentioned in the Koran", a cite could be made to those sections of the Koran that do make a mention. I think Mikka's statement suggests that nearly anything drawn from a book would be "original research", which seems to be the opposite of OR. If I were to refer to page 759 of the Warren Commission report to state that the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone, would that be original research? Under your definition, would I need to quote from another book that "said" that the Warren Commission Report made that conclusion? The point of WP:NOR is to avoid making statements that cannot be attributed to a published source. I don't disagree that additional sources should be cited, and suggestions are welcome. But let's not delete an article that can continue to be improved. Mandsford 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are confusing the notions of "making a summary of a source that states a fact" and "drawing a conclusion about a fact basing on a source" (although the boundary is grayish). Think about what I've just said and analyze the passage from the article I picked with eyes closed: "The Qur'an and Bible have over 50 people in common, typically in the same narratives. The Qur'an identifies Job, Enoch, Imram, and Ishmael as prophets, but they are never given a story. In the Bible, all these men are identified as righteous people but not prophets — except Ishmael who is not written of favorably." `'Míkka 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to say that I didn't write that particular portion, although I hadn't reached it yet in the editing process. The parts I have edited have been those sections that have the Biblical and Qu'ranic names (with Roman and Arabic spelling) in the title. Mikka, I appreciate the suggestion on the userfy, and have moved the article. Anyone looking at the record of the debate will be able to figure it out. It's a fixer-upper, but I think a good concept that can be presented "cold", more as an index than a commentary. I request the closing administrator to close the debate based on the move to a user page. Mandsford 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- agree with above reasoning. OR and an unecessary and POV list. It would need to be based on (heavily sourced) views escape the inherent POV, instead it is almost a personalised essay. Scrap and begin again, preferably in another article.JJJ999 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV and more importantly WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some secondary sources on this subject must exist. I have seen a scholarly book of that kind, but it was more about differences between Muslim and Christian beliefs.Biophys 06:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an excellent religious reference for the abrahamic religions Cokehabit 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same or problems that nobody seems to be able to source. I have had this article on my watchlist for almost a year, and dispite the numerous edits, nobody has been able to add a single reliable source. This article has the same problem as the differences article, and apparently is not verifiable. Yahel Guhan 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it still reads like an essay. It also does not cite any secondary sources, only a handful of Qur'anic passages which certainly equates to original synthesis. Axem Titanium 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation; there's a good article to be written here, but this isn't it. Start over with some WP:RS. shoy 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting article (though the treatment of the two scriptures is arguably facile) but fails as original research and is basically un-sourced. I would like to see a verifiable and sourced article. Springnuts 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This overrides incorrect non-admin closure by John254 (talk · contribs). MaxSem 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Moore[edit]

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just editing this page and adding in a new reference when this Afd tag was affixed. I had earlier put in a few comments to the Administrators' page which was archived earlier. I was not given any resolution on the AfD issue. I had further comments on this and other pages merits. Please read those comments at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive309#User:MurderWatcher1_-_Second_.28and_third.2C_fourth.2C_fifth.29_opinions_needed

Moore's death, along with St. Guillen's, has permanently changed New York City and Boston Nightlife. Other cities even now may be considering nightlife legislation based upon the murders of these two women so this is a notable page, along with the Imette St. Guillen page, which may be an exception to any Wikipedia rules that are in place.--MurderWatcher1 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MW1, AN/I is not the forum to reach "a resolution on the AfD issue" (and certainly not posts added to an archived page); the discussion was to see if anyone could find a way around this without resorting to the soul-destroying (whatever the result) process that is XfD. The result of these AfDs - keep or delete - will be the resolution in each case. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I created this page, and as the page relates to the Imette St. Guillen page with references to Nightlife Legislation, which are also mentioned in detail on this page, I'm voting to keep this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgment from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial; Wikipedia is not a random collation of trivia and most murder victims in this world are non-notable - they're just victims of this world. Without something to make a victim stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of US/worldwide murder victims each year (eponymous law, weeks/months of coverage of the disappearance, drama/documentary for a non-minority channel being made, etc) then this is another NN, with WP:BLP concerns for their family to be considered too. Original research on the "impact" of the killing must be ignored. This is an encyclopaedia. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD; nevertheless, I have re-read the article and this AfD before posting and my views have not changed/have been reinforced. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-work into something just about the nightlife angle if desired. JJL 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a memorial applies. -- Whpq 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle Car Trivia[edit]

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion, but it really doesn't fit there - there's no CSD-NOT. A good-faith contribution that's shaping up to be an indiscriminate list of muscle car appearances in the movies, books, and so on, and it uses the dreaded t-word. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right now. Speciate 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Drdisque 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia sections are discouraged, so I suppose trivia articles should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chixdiggit! II[edit]

Looks like an nn cd OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The CD is from a notable band and has only came out this year. The article is not much worse than the rest of their discography (which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but...eh). Torc2 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with clean up and with additional information added. If the article is not expanded, then delete. If a band is notable then an official release is notable, per Wikipedia:Notability (music).CDaniel 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, patent nonsense. Moreschi ^Talk 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Views of the So Called Armenian Genocide[edit]

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

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

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

Prod removed without comment. WP:SOAP. WP:OR, no WP:RS, and WP:POV. Delete. --Evb-wiki 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object the deletion. Check the Ottoman archives for the historical facts, not one-sided subjective claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.143.26 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — 88.226.143.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per title which of itself hugely violates our NPOV policy, SqueakBox 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced POV original research essay. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than someone using Wikipedia as a soapbox. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up (removing POV) and merge with Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Though I know only little about the background, it seems clear to me that

sources can be found for some points in the article (such as The current Turkish Republic or the current Turkish generation does not bear any legal responsibility for whatever happened during the rule of the former state Ottaman Empire -- I am sure that this is the published point of view of many Turkish politicians)
other points should be deleted as irrelevant, such as With the same token, the Congress should pass resolutions to recognize an Indian genocide in North America, an Irish Genocide because about a million Irish people died during the Irish Famine intentionally watched by the British Empire in a passive mode. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.

The very model of a minor general 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Denial of the Armenian Genocide, doesn't seem to be enough veerifyable distinct information for a true merge. stricken perMr.Z-mans common senseMartijn Hoekstra 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per soapboxing, but there is so much wrong with only the articles title, that this will never work. Martijn Hoekstra 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above Speciate 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really a likely search term for that? If it isn't merged, there is no point in redirecting (if it is merged, the redirect contains the old history of the merged content). Mr.Z-man 23:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can Merge with "National Socialist views of the so-called Holocaust" Mandsford 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly POV. Torc2 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. This title pushes so many taste boundaries it's untrue. Not neutral in the slightest, and a liability for any legal issues. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as POV duplicate of Denial of the Armenian Genocide. VanTucky ^Talk 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Soapboxing POV essay. --Folantin 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object the deletion. The Turkish view cannot be represented by using the term "Armenian Genocide", because it would be accepting genocide claims automatically. Therefore, they cannot be represented under the "Denial of Armenian Genocide". The Turkish view can be only represented with using the terms "So-called Genocide" or "Genocide Claims". It is amazing to see that although there are equally valuable historians on both sides, some people feel like an authority to make judgments on these issues and propose deletions. This page will be improved to include verifiable and reliable sources about the Turkish view of the events. Therefore, it is not any different then the Armenian Genocide page, which reflects the opposite view. There are sources, citations, and references for both views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homersimpson07 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also object the deletion. There is more than one aspect to the events happened almost a century ago. So there is a dispute and if so both sides opinion should be very well published. Armanians are not the sole authority.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.78.252 (talk) 15:39, October 16, 2007

I object the deletion. Check the Ottoman archives for more info. 1915 events Will be translated into English pretty soon at [9]

--The scape goat 15:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— The scape goat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Congratulations on being the lamest sock-puppeteer ever, Mr. Simpson. --Folantin 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please explain. Homersimpson07 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is unacceptable and the content is purely to express a point of view. So egregious is this page that it might be worth using it as an exhibit to demonstrate to other users an example of what a point of view page looks like. Sam Blacketer 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. The intent of the page is not to display my viewpoints but to present verifiable and reliable sources about the Turkish view of events.Homersimpson07 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to formal and civilized expression of ideas. I invite some of the people here to use words more carefully. Saying something is lame does not make it lame. You need to explain with substantial reasoning why the request for deletion is being made. Just like I do. Homersimpson07 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all properly attributed information that is relevant to all view points concerning the events in question should be merged into an article called Turkish-Armenian conflict, as the term genocide is arguably WP:POV as something that is "deliberate and systematic". There is already one called Armenian-Turkish relations.--Evb-wiki 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object deletion, I can't see any logical reason to delete it. People has the right to inform people about the reality.— 198.202.3.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:48, October 16, 2007 (UTC).

I object deletion. Wikipedia is a source where people looks up for anything. If some people have a different point of view on an issue, they should have the right to tell the others why they think differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.116.214 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.77.116.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Acknowledgment of the difficulty Friends, please just recognize how it becomes difficult to give information about a certain viewpoint under these conditions. I think it should not be made this difficult. There is almost a blank check given to the opposite view using the term genocide freely, however, when we want to create an article based on facts, sources, citations, and reliable information about the Turkish view, there is an overwhelming pressure to delete or censor. I find this extremely unfair. Eventually, if one really believes in certain things, why would he/she would try to prevent others. I just don't know.Homersimpson07 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a conspiracy to censor you. I have no view one way or the other on the events this article describes; I'm not even sure what all the views are. However, as it stands, the article is written like an opinion essay and is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe a blog, but not here. Mr.Z-man 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Attributing the verifiable information to reliable sources would go a very long way. For the record, I understand your frustration with the use of the term "genocide". --Evb-wiki 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- We intend to do that however, there is no time to develop this content using the medium as a collaboration tool. Given that I work, I can't put my five days a week to add content, it should build up slowly by contributions of the other people interested in. I know it will build up over time.

Question: What makes you think that we are more biased than the authors of the Armenian Genocide page? I would appreciate your answers.Homersimpson07 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While you attempt to cite only one source to support all claims made, they have cited 127 sources from a large variety of sources. And this article, by design, only allows for Turkish views. --Evb-wiki 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Stand (2008)[edit]

IP removed the PROD with no explanation. Some time ago, somebody went ahead and put in dates for WWE PPV's after WrestleMania XXIV. I have checked WWE's regular website and corporate website and found no mention that these events will even happen, yet alone their dates. Several weeks ago I put Cite tags on each of them and asked on several of the talk pages for the sources and have recieved no responses. With the possible news of WWE already cancelling one of its 2008 PPV's (New Year's Revolution 2008) and WWE going tri-branded with all of its PPVs, I think it is possible that they could choose to not have this event since they already have a June event (Vengeance). TJ Spyke 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —TJ Spyke 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since WWE has no indication that they will hold this event next year, this article is just crystalballing. Even the sole bit of information, the date on which it will be supposedly held, has no sources to confirm it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball. Nikki311 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing we can say with confidence about the PPV right now. DrWarpMind 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, plus my own personal opinion that we shouldn't have any PPV articles about a PPV that won't take place for more than a month. The Hybrid T/C 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone. Darrenhusted 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only reason I created it was because of my "crusade" to expand the One Night Stand series articles, so I had no choice but to split 2008 off. Davnel03 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK KEEP, While I do agree with the AfD i see no point in deleting it just to be recreated when it is officially announced.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we can recreate it when officially announced, but at the moment it has not been officially announced by WWE, and may not happen. This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. It's like creating WrestleMania XXV now even though nothing has been announced regarding the event. Davnel03 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as violating WP:BLP, and not yet a notable actor, subject to re-creation. (Sorry, maybe next year.) Bearian 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rodness[edit]

Prod removed by author. Non-notable actor. Only IMDB credit is the role of "Todd" [10] in a direct to video production that hasn't even premiered yet.[11] IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stumbled across the article a couple of days ago and put a refimprove tag on it. I was tempted to db-bio it, but being a host of BPMTV is a claim of notability ... Corvus cornix 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I plead ignorance on the BPMTV issue, his film (which actually came out last year) doesn't appear notable.--Sethacus 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sethacus. Appears to be a WP:COI in this article too. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a film non notable? it is listed on IMDB. And i do know him from hosting on BPMTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.62.146 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conquering the Fear of Flight[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable band. This article has already been deleted once, but the user recreated it word for word. Since db-repost doesn't apply to speedy-deleted articles, here we are. Corvus cornix 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not even asserted, let alone demonstrated through reliable sources (none of which are cited). -- But|seriously|folks 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Butseriouslyfolks. Google turns up no independent secondary coverage or sources. --Farosdaughter 23:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable band per WP:BAND, which doesn't leave much hope for one of their albums. tomasz. 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to an abstain per Chubbles' request below. i have seen him do unswervingly excellent work on smaller bands in recent weeks and thus the benefit of the doubt lies with him. tomasz. 10:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please reconsider above votes now that the band has an article at Wavorly. The artist page has four reviews of the album which I will add to this page to substantiate it. Chubbles 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 15:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre Party (United States)[edit]

Nonnotable minor party; has never elected a candidate to anything. NawlinWiki 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable party. Corvus cornix 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. While I'm sorely tempted to delete the lot as purely in-universe, lacking any notability, it looks to me like the lack of clear consensus is best served by merging and redirecting these articles into one general article with background info on these playable races. I don't really care about the nmame for such an article, I'll take one name suggested here. The merge may take a while, so please be patient. Fram 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarves (Warcraft)[edit]

Note: several AFDs about Warcraft articles were started at the same time, Melsaran merged the debates for convenience.

Naga (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goblin (Warcraft)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orc (Warcraft)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ogre (Warcraft)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Undead (Warcraft)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gnome (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Human (Warcraft)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blood Elf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tauren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night Elf‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Murloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Murloc[edit]

~~Gamecruft trivial nonsense~~ - The article suffers a complete lack of real world attribution or context, there are no ex-universe references or mention - should be redirected at a very minimum - Tiswas^(t) 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fine article that is not nonsense. If that's nonsense, then pikachu's nonsense too! (It kinda is) no offense. RuneWiki777 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are correct in that the article is not nonsense - it was disingenuous of me to state as much. It's relatively well written fancruft with a complete lack of real world attribution or context, and no ex-universe references or mention - Tiswas^(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, I must have missed something because I see plenty of references to the games themselves and to the Blizzard website. Maybe now that I've pared it down a bit, you'll have an easier time finding them? - User:Awakeandalive1

Those are all in-universe mentions. Linking to the game manual itself would not add any real world attribution - Tiswas^(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major element in a very very very notable game. The fact that it scores 8 current Google news hits (admittedly all minor mentions) suggests that an article should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The gnews hits are trivial mentions of a related topic. They are not mentions of the subject. "Murloc suit" would not warrant an article on the strength of the news hits, and neither should its derivative (or precursor). - Tiswas^(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and I did note that. None of them on their own are enough to carry an article, but they do show that the murlocs are an iconic element of the game with some amount of media recognition. The real sourcing for this should come from the World of Warcraft guides, of which there are quite a few, including a half-dozen or so from BradyGames alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the essence of fancruft - There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the article - The dispute is whether there is any notability to of the subject matter - Is there any attribution of this notability outside of the WoW universe - Tiswas^(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Integral part of the (admittedly fictional) universe. It seems that nearly every Warcraft article written (with the exception of perhaps the "Main Article") is nominated for deletion per cruft at one point or another. The various Races in the Warcraft universe have survived AfDs and this one should be no exception. CredoFromStart ^talk 12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to read a very interesting AfD directly related to this one? check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. This AfD a)had no consensus and b) doesn't necessarily apply here because of the fact that that it covered multiple articles including but not limited to the Murlocs one. However, it does provide a lot of insight into why the article exists and the response it's likely to generate if it's deleted. Also, were major contributors or the Wikiproject notified of the AfD? (see The AfD Guidelines).
CredoFromStart ^talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Entirely my mistake. I've been through the non-spa, non-anon editors and notified them. Hopefuly, that will reduce the number of I like it votes and generaly Fanwankery, and allow at least a chance for consensus - Tiswas^(t) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, giving pejorative terms (like "nonsense" and "fancruft") for the reason for deletion is bad form, you might as well say "delete this article because it sucks". Secondly, the assertion that there are absolutely no ex-universe references is false, as it discusses the fangame Murloc RPG which had some popularity. I wouldn't object to the non-player races of Warcraft being merged into a single article, and this article could be cleaned up, but I think that deletion would be a mistake. - Atamasama 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As such, I have retracted the terms. They are not the reason for the nomination, but a summary of the reasons - that is, non-notability, no real world context, and a lack o attribution and not encyclopaedic - Tiswas^(t) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would say that the article holds up well enough when looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline. It takes an out-of-universe perspective (for the most part, it could be cleaned up a little), it is well-written, it cites its sources, and is notable within the work of fiction it comes from. I see nothing stating that every minor character article must have multiple sources, in fact the Noonien Soong article being shown as a "high quality" example has only one reference aside from the Star Trek Wiki link. This article does not deserve deletion, and is long enough to warrant a seperate article from World of Warcraft. - Atamasama 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would support either decision; on the one hand, it is mostly well-written and -formatted. Maybe it could use some clean-up & sources, but other than that, it's not too bad. On the other hand, Murlocs aren't exactly the most important characters in the Warcraft universe...if there's a page that lists (and briefly describes) the various mobs found in the Warcraft games, then maybe the more key parts of this article should be placed there, and this should redirect to that page. -Rhrad 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) Unless you're going to delete all the other Warcraft-universe race pages, then this choice of deletion seems arbitrary. 2) While i see PLENTY of material in there which is NOT written as though it were in the game universe, I do think that this page needs some editing (eg: is there really a need for the extensive catalogue of unique Murlocs?). Instead of just making a broad, evidently-uninformed proclamation and deleting the whole page, why doesn't somebody go in and edit it? It even references the Blizzard website! -Awakeandalive1 14:00, 8 June 2007 (EST)

Comment - Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep this one article. The reference to the blizzard site doesn't confer any value, except that of accuracy. I agree that a redirect to a meta article would be a good compromise, rather than a delete.- Tiswas^(t) 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "other stuff existing" point is more of a statement. The choice of this article simply seems arbitrary. I hope that you'll direct the same attention to the other related articles if you're going to lobby so hard for this one to be removed. Awakeandalive1, 14:28, 11 June 2007 (EST)

I'm not so much lobbying to see it removed, but to see that reasons given in this AfD are robust. The choice is neither arbitrary nor calculated - I can across the article in isolation, and am giving it the dues considereation that any article deserves. - Tiswas^(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Murlocs to Warcraft are like Koopa Troopas to Mario. They are both notable enemies that have appeared in many games in their universe. Since each game in the series is notable, it wouldn't be hard to suggest that a recurring enemy is notable too.--Kylohk 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable race from notable video game Cyclone49 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused - what makes them notable?- Tiswas^(t) 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something is noteable when lots of people know about it. For instance Lord of the Rings is noteable while something such as Dogs don't tell Jokes isn't. RuneWiki777 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - By that logic, the login sequence for WoW would be considered notable, in that every player knows about it. Possibly more so than Murlocs. - Tiswas^(t) 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Murlocs are notable for a variety of reasons. They are fairly ubiquitous within the game world; I doubt that any player can advance very far without encountering them, they seem to be just about everywhere. They are very distinctive, in that they look, sound, move, and act in a unique way unlike other species of monster. They also have distinctive dwellings where ever they appear, special primitive huts and tents unique to them at their spawn points (you can always tell murlocs are nearby when you see their villages). Even Blizzard has considered them notable, offering a murloc pet as a special reward for Blizzcon attendees one year, and a different pet for European customers who purchased the collector's edition of the Burning Crusade expansion. They have as solid a presence in the game as any of the playable races. -Atamasama 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world? Are there multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions of murlocs from third party reliable sources? Are there any press articles, news stories, or published research for example? What makes this article more than gamecruft? - Tiswas^(t) 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a requirement for an article's existence. The fact that this is a notable topic in the largest MMORPG in existence is enough. Again, you continue to use pejorative terms, it seems as if your reason for deletion is simply "I don't like it". Notability is a subjective term. -Atamasama 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is indeed subjective, but it does have some fairly basic, minimal requirements - that of multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions from independent, third party, reliable sources. A good example would be a news article (even a byline in a niche publication), possibly title "Murlocs, the Scource of Azeroth". Not a fansite, or game community article that mentions Murlocs in passing. I neither like it or dislike it - I'm focusing on the quality of the article, the notability of the subject matter, and established Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and have stated as much as to back of my nomination for deletion (or, rather, merge and redirect). Continuing to focus on the inferential pejorative nature of the cruft suffix is counterproductive. - Tiswas^(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry everybody! I have a back-up just in case it is deleted. RuneWiki777

You could just refer to the game manual instead. If you have to keep the article for reference, it means that the article contains original research. - Tiswas^(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies. JJL 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pokemon precedent is an essay, and not a valid test. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that. - Tiswas^(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Murlocs. Murlocs are probably the most hated mobs in the game. In fact, I'm sure if you interviewed 100 people that played they would probably agree to be murlocs. Blizzard has capitalized on this by actually promoting events giving out Murloc pets, and many of the featured fan art has contained murlocs. Murlocs to me, are the Mickey Mouse of WoW. Murlocs are still widely joked about within the game, and who can forget "Rawgrlgrlgrlgrlgrrgle!!!!" Gah! That sound still haunts me. "But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world"? Yes and no. There are plenty of sites, even an fan made RPG about them. Were they mentioned on the news? No. Should this be considered a stub from the World of Warcraft? Yes. I'd rather this not be deleted myself.Anywho, it's a vote so it's not a matter of whether or not the people nominated it for deletion have never played the game, and wouldn't get it. /shrug

Fr0 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Tauren Shaman main char might disagree with you on that. - Tiswas^(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, considering above comments, it seems to be notable enough for me. The article has good references, so I can't think of any reason to delete it. *Cremepuff 222* 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavellian(Hip-Hop artist)[edit]

Strange grafting of an existing article about Chris Brown (album) onto an otherwise unknown individual. No GHits found. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Ramalho Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I listed Danny Ramalho for deletion here and this article is linked with the same hallmarks -- strange bits of the Chris Brown article added into what seems to be an imaginary career of a 14-year-old. I mean, usually they bother to change the name when they do the vanity/fantasy bio... Accounting4Taste 00:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Accounting4Taste. See also an AfD for another apparent hoax by the same user, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport Clube Ramalho, which I've just started. Deor 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What the hell is this? A vanity bio? Straight up bullshit? Or both?--Sethacus 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as painful eyesorin' content-forkin' hoaxin' madness. tomasz. 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, probable hoax. Funny, however. Bearian 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, and redirect to Python (programming language) as a plausible search term.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Python philosophy[edit]

This article contains no information that is not in the main Python (programming language) article. The article merely copies verbatim the text available at the Python website, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. I attempted to "be bold" and redirect this article to the appropriate section of the "Python Programming Language" article, but was met with resistance by this page's creator. I would suggest merging this article with "Python (programming language)"; however, seeing as there is nothing of value in "Python philosophy", there is nothing to merge; therefore I suggest this belongs in the AfD process. Massysett 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls even short of essay--victor falk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And here was I thinking this was going to contain philosophical thoughts like "Always look on the bright side of life", or at least some reference to a certain song about philosophers. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a speedy delete, though, since this is in the public domain. Link the essay in Python (programming language) and be done with it. --Phirazo 02:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand with more information on background or context of "Zen of Python". LotLE×talk 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete put it at the lang. page. JJL 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. – Mipadi 14:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information in a stylistic fashion to Python (programming language) (don't merely copy and paste it.) Do not delete. - Chardish 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Python (programming language). Violates rules against original research, forks based on a point of view, and notability. Bearian 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without consensus as director and/or editor of several movies, thus passing notability in his own right. Bearian 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Booth[edit]

Non notable director. Only claim to fame is his friendship to Bill Hicks and producing two of his albums. Most of his movies are non notable. See also his IMDB page for further details Delete. WriterListener 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I concur with WriterListener just above. Martial BACQUET 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Kevin Booth was an important part of Bill Hicks' success.

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.199.95 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable director; article fails to meet WP:V. --Agüeybaná 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMG lists him as the producer for three of Hicks's studio albums, plus a greatest hits-type collection. Since Booth appears to have received a reasonable amount of media attention for working with Hicks (news links, books), I'd be inclined to Keep and tag for cleanup, though I could also see a case for a Merge to Bill Hicks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or at worst, merge/redirect to Sacred Cow Productions). Booth didn't just produce Hicks albums and films, he also appeared in front of the camera on some of them. The connection to Alex Jones is another notability boost, even though there is a large contingent of Jones detractors on Wikipedia who would be more inclined to delete because of it. --WacoKid 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. A conversation about merging and renaming can happen on the article talk page. Certainly the article seems redundant with other history articles, but that's easily dealt with. Chick Bowen 03:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of West Eurasia[edit]

West Eurasia is not a notable geographic nomenclature, and does not even have an article in Wikipedia

I would like to add that much of this content is lovely, and therefore could and should be merged into other articles with recognized geographic titles. Libertyvalley 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is appropriate for case where a small article could form a section in another more general article. It is not appropriate for a case like this where a general article would have to be split up into more specific articles. Unraveling it would be a nightmare. The real options are keep or delete.Dejvid 08:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest you merge and then afd, at present the articles is excellent and well sourced but if the material were merged into other articles but not removed from the encyclopedia I would reconsider, SqueakBox 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "well sourced"? There are 8 reference notes, 7 of which point to the same author. Also, I know there is a tool where you can graphically see which editors have contributed the most to an article. I'd like to see that for this article. It appears 90%+ of the content has been installed by one Wikipedia editor. He also helped to "define" West Eurasia in the Simple English Wikipedia article about Eurasia. Isn't that clearly someone pushing a POV, which has little basis in fact? "West Eurasia" is not a notable way of defining any of the parts of the world claimed included in this article. Libertyvalley 20:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:Libertyvalley refers to the Wikidashboard from the Palo Alto Research Center, and in User:Dejvid's defense, he has "only" made 75% of the edits on the article. Not that that's not showing WP:OWN, either. Yeeesh. Hilarity Clinton 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The entire article (all 36kb of it, and it appears to be well-written) cites ONE BOOK that uses this term. I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't qualify as "well sourced" in my book. I have to do more research before I give my opinion, but there's something missing here, and the prettiest prose in the world can't cover it up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even so sure that McEvedy ever used the term "West Eurasia"! Libertyvalley 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He uses the term Europe-Near East Area. By all means propose a move if it is the tittle you object to.Dejvid 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep McEvedy's atlas's sell well and I don't feel additional sources are needed to establish the notability of the region he based his atlases on. The arguments that he put in favor of the Arctic, Atlantic, Sahara, Indian Ocean, Hindu Kush making the region sufficiently isolated to justify treating its history separately are IMO strong and I recommend people reading the intro of either his (New) Penguin Atlas of Medieval History or the Ancient one before making their mind up. I'm not sure whether merging the content into other pages (History of Europe, History of the Mediterranean region, History of Asia etc) is workable. While I personally would like to see it continue to the present day there are arguments for saying with the discovery of the Atlantic route to America etc the region became far less distinct Dejvid 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The article combines some of the most notable events in history into a continuous story. It lends itself to a treatment that is verifiable and avoids original research (those two are the real basis of notability concerns).Dejvid 09:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete I think many of us do object to the ridiculous title, which seems peculiar to the Penguin Atlas. Although the Eurasian landmass would, technically, cover all of Europe and all of Asia, this version of Eurasia includes North Africa, but for whatever reason, Africa gets left out of the name. Non-Penguins seem to describe this as the "Mediterranean area". Mandsford 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would not object to a renaming depending on what the new name were but that could (should?) have been either done or discussed on the talk page before bringing to afd, its the content deletion I object to, SqueakBox 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read the objections raised by User:John5Russell3Finley on the article's talk page before making your objection? It would seem that this very point was raised months ago, in February 2007. User:Dejvid seemed to begin to agree that the naming convention could and should be reworked, but then he continued on with the existing, and seemingly very incongruous, naming convention. His mistake is not Wikipedia's reason to carry on with this mistake in such dramatic form. He is the author of most of the content, it should be his responsibility to merge it where possible [with existing regional articles. There is barely a thread of academic agreement that "West Eurasia" constitutes a thematic geography. Please, tell us, how often in the course of history have people from Lithuania interacted with people from Egypt? People from Portugal with people from the shores of the Caspian Sea? This is a discredited way of amalgamating land masses, and I think the continued discussion here will bear that out. I may invite some members of the Geography community to weigh in on this, if their insight would be respected. Enjoyexist 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ofter has Lithuania interacted with Portugal? Yet we have a history of Europe page. On the other hand neither the Carthaginians or the Arabs found much problem crossing from Africa to Spain not the German Vandals in the other direction. Did Richard the first of England bother much about crossing into a different continent? I continued with the current name because I didn't think the proposed alternative was better. If you believe there is a better name by all means propose it.Dejvid 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That Europe, Western Asia and North Africa constitute a distinct geographical and historical entity is a notable concept, used by, among others, Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse--victor falk 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is salvageable, or just Delete. There is no indication that Jared Diamond used the term "West Eurasia" in Guns, Germs, and Steel or in Collapse. He used the term "western Eurasia" as an identifier (not a place name) only once -- in the index. These are really weak (and erroneous) defenses of a completely misnamed article. It might as well say "History of the Lands Northwest of the Indian Ocean". There are already articles about History of Europe, History of North Africa, and History of the Middle East -- all of which are common, accepted geographic place-names. Why would we confound the average Wikipedia reader with this practically imaginary location of "West Eurasia"? Per nominator, there isn't even a Wikipedia article about West Eurasia! Enjoyexist 00:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "concept", not "term". Have you read those books?--victor falk 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond doesn't just use western Eurasia in the index see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejvid (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another use of western Eurasia in the sense used in the articleThe first great divergence : China and Europe, 500-800 CE. This article is not a one off but intended to initiate a seminar the first part of which invoves inviting "four leading regional experts – two focusing on Eastern Eurasia and two on Western – to Stanford" It really isn't difficult to find refs for use of the concept in academic circlesDejvid 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename in response to SqueakBox—Europe sounds just fine. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is an example of "excellent" material: During this period of Roman expansionism arqueological evidence points ou to a great increase of the volume of trade in the Mediterranean sea, with increased by 200% to 300%, from the 3th century Bc to the 1st century. This appears to indicate that the political unification of the Mediterranean sea estimulated economic progress. Please, make it stop. Datagoal 01:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history you will find that the editor is not a native speaker of English - the point he is trying to make is valid. Deletion seems an odd response.Dejvid 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the phrase "the editor" suggests a WP:OWN problem here. This is not "your" article. Datagoal 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I wrote. It wasn't my edit. "The editor" refers to the person who made the edit complained about. I think you were being a little tough on him that's all.Dejvid 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: This article should mainly be merged into History of the Mediterranean region (which has a similar scope), while some of the information on non-Mediterranean regions should be merged into History of Europe and History of the Middle East. This article doesn't need to be deleted, but could simply redirect to History of the Mediterranean region. Jagged 85 06:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with Ecumene This thing is simply an attempt to find a better way of translating the greek word than "known world", but falls flat with the title, since if it is not part of Europe or Asia you really can't just annex it to a thing called "WesternEurasia" and still have the concept work properly, it takes too much explantion and makes folks like me want to pull their hair out.John5Russell3Finley 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd be happy if the page was merged into Ecumene -it would keep it intact. However, I'm less sure that those working on that page would be happy with all 34 k being merged into that page. The key problem is that Ecumene can have several meanings and the History of West Eurasia page takes as its focus only one of those definitions.Dejvid 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Almost all of the objections to this page concern the notability of the term used in the tittle. It is not, however, the notability of tittle that needs to be established but of the topic, that is, of the focus of the article. This page takes its focus strictly from Colin McEvedy's atlases. It was those atlases dealing with the Europe-Near East that his reputation was based on. No he doesn't use the term West Eurasia. None of us who are voting "keep" have any hang ups about the term. If the term is the problem let it be History of Europe and the Near East which is how McEvedy describes the area. McEvedy, in his introductions, puts forward arguments in favor of his focus. He is by no means alone in making this area their focus. I read Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire as background for this article. It covers both Germany and North Africa, Persia and Spain, along with the European Steppes, the Balkans Italy and Gaul. Pretty much he covers the entire geographical area of this article even though that wasn't his aim. That's because that focus comes from hard geographical facts on the ground. Please would those voting merge/delete look beyond the term and unprejudiced look at the topic of the article.Dejvid 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging this article's own grave, Dejvid. Clearly, you are treating Wikipedia as some sort of personal "book review" space, which we believe Wikipedia is not. An article of this length shouldn't be based on the work of two authors (McEvedy and Heather), as interpreted by one editor (Dejvid) for 75% of the article's edits. Especially when the content of the article is mostly redundant with content at more frequently edited venues like History of Europe, History of North Africa, and History of the Middle East, it is showing understandable but unfortunate bad judgment to recommend yet another location called History of Europe and the Near East. No, the objections to this article are not centered on its "tittle" (sic). Datagoal 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least I now understand the disagreement. The value of all those pages, to me, are that they provide overviews. All of those pages have information that exists on other pages. Their value is that these pages allow you to step back a bit and show the whole jigsaw instead of the individual pieces. It is especially valuable for something like wikipedia because it allows users, having seen the bigger picture, home into more detailed pages that catch their interest. This, incidentally, has got nothing to do with any book review. it is just that both McEvedy and Heather find the focus of the article useful. Almost all the regions mentioned only have value if they useful in organizing events. The exception being History of Europe and that is precisely because it is sufficiently "imagined" to have the power to be the basis of the EU. None of the others have much reality in the real world. Their value depends on the basic need to cut up information into digestible chunks. You assume that people are interested in some entity and then think that they would like know the history of it. My starting point is to assume that people are interested in history for itself and history, by its nature, only makes sense if you can see the connections. Both types of people exist. Wikipedia should cater for both.

BTW how many authors that write using the focus of this page do you require?Dejvid 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoo-whee... this is getting long-winded. Obviously, there is no "requirement" for a certain number of authors or academics to embrace a certain construct for it to be valid in Wikipedia. What people are saying is that if only a couple of authors have ever gathered up the Near East, North Africa, and Greater Europe (to the exclusion of sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and even North America) into a theoretical construct for discussion, then there's little reason for Wikipedia to devote nearly this much space to such a flimsy arrangement. Articles have formed around the smaller jigsaw pieces, because that is how people have mentally constructed these smaller regions for many centuries. The notion of aggregating "West Eurasia" is apparently an avant-garde movement, and as such, it merits perhaps a paragraph or two, not this meandering treatise. This article is headed for Delete, that much is clear. Datagoal 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "avant garde movement", it's just an overview article to give a convenient perspective on the history of Europe, Western Asia, the Middle East and North Africa in a single place.--victor falk 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then Wikipedia should look forward to similar articles about the history of Australia and South America, about North America and Scandinavia, and about Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, Japan, and the Hawaiian Islands? Wikipedia will be much improved to have those overview articles to give a convenient perspective in a single place. Datagoal 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to look forward, you can already go and enjoy reading history of East Asia for learning about Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea and Japan. That's because they constitute a geohistorical area, like western Eurasia, and unlike Scandinavia, Australia and America.--victor falk 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to history of western Eurasia. Note the non-capital "w". Searches with "western Eurasia" yields also considerably more material about the subject.--victor falk 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly Rename. There is ample evidence for historical, cultural, trade, migratory, epidemiological, geopolitical, and other mass-population interactions between Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and also the West Asian steppes. An article giving a framing overview of these interactions and inter-dependencies is of value; and the subject has clearly attracted enough academic publication to satisfy WP:Notability. History of western Eurasia, as recently suggested, might be a slightly better title. Possibly, still better titles could also be found. Jheald 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is everyone agreed that North Africa (note, on the continent of Africa) is certainly a part of "western Eurasia" (Eurasia being the continents of Europe and Asia, but not Africa). Thus, Eurasia does not include any of Africa, but western Eurasia will be defined to include North Africa. This is a correct resolution to the problem? - Areateeth 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more that the use of western Eurasia to include north Africa is most common among historians. It isn't an exact term. If an historian is talking about trade or are concerned with political integration then they are likely to have in mind a region that includes north Africa. In some other contexts this would be a far less safe an assumption. On the other hand, some historians will take the focus of study that the current article does while describing the region with a different term. That the concept is used in academic circles can be supported better than an exact definition. Dejvid 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought - it might make those opponents of the page a little less concerned if the intro made it clear that the page was using a definition rather than the definition.Dejvid 19:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better thought -- Take a look at a Google search for "'western eurasia' 'north africa'", which yields over 9,000 hits. Then, take away the word Wikipedia, watch 8,000 of those hits disappear. Some pages left behind seem to tie in with seismic studies of the Earth's mantle. So, take away those. What are we left with? Seems like examinations of pre-historic migrations, species of small mice, Pleistocene skulls, migration of air-breathing fishes, and bryophytes. To me, it would seem there is very little historical discussion of "western Eurasia" as it includes "North Africa", outside of Wikipedia. - Areateeth 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Google searches are difficult to interpret for this case if you want to determine the frequency of a specific definitions. For example [www.esteri.it/mae/doc_dossier/dossier_euromed/mediterraneo_en.pdf this link] doesn't mention north Africa but clearly conceives western Eurasia as including the southern shores of the Med. In any case the topic of the page is the History of the Region and not on how west/western Eurasia should be defined. The topic of the article is the history of a very large and significant region of the world. As such its contents are indisputably notable and (more important) highly verifiable. Whether Carthage lies in Western Eurasia or not will depend on the working definition of the author concerned but it is easy to check that it was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BCE. That verifiability is the essence of notability.Dejvid 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, would I be at liberty to create a new article entitled History of northern Indochina, and include the histories of Hainan, Macao, and Hong Kong in that article, being that there are commercial and topographical links between Hainan, Macao, and Hong Kong and the northern portions of Indochina? How would this be helping the encyclopedia? By the way, the link you provide to the Italian paper is highly charged politically and even states, "global Mediterranean security is a concept equal to that of European security". I should think that those cultures located on the southern shores of the Mediterranean would object to being claimed as part of the European security system. If that paper is the best support for this concept, then it's even more clear that this article contains unwanted POV in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. - Areateeth 14:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other refs I've given which were academic, that link was political. However, when the Italian ministry of foreign affairs starts using the term it is clearly notable. "global Mediterranean security is a concept equal to that of European security" is indeed a POV statement. I don't think it means what you take it to mean nor do I think you can assume that everyone south of the med would be offended by but that is irrelevant to whether this page should be kept - it is clearly off topic for such an article. (As an aside, NPOV does not exclude POVs provided they are sourced explained in a neutral way and significant counter POVs are also given space).Dejvid 20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well-sourced start of an article. No great by any sense, but a good start. Am I missing some POV? Bearian 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs cited These are almost all cited above but brought together in one place for sake of readability:

The first great divergence : China and Europe, 500-800 CE (uses term western Eurasia to mean the area that is the focus of article)
The divergent evolution of coinage in eastern and western Eurasia
[www.esteri.it/mae/doc_dossier/dossier_euromed/mediterraneo_en.pdf] Italy and Euro-Mediteranian] (uses term western Eurasia to mean the area that is the focus of article)
Thompson, William R. 1999. “The Military Superiority Thesis and he Ascendancy of Western Eurasia in the World System.” Journal of World History 10:143–178.
The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History,(+ Medieval +two later ones) Colin McEvedy Gives reasons why the area as a sutible focus for historical study though he doesn't use the term West Eurasia
Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel Does use western Eurasia in the text despite what was stated above.
The Fall of the Roman Empire: Peter Heather (not really a strong ref but an example of how authors end up taking the geographical focus of article because of the logic of the geography)Dejvid 22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — since this is a complicated closure, I will add some closing comments.

While there are legitimate concerns over the timing of this discussion, given that the last one was only a month ago, I must note that both of the prior discussions closed without a consensus; not, as some users in this discussion believe as a "keep". When a discussion is closed as "no consensus" that means there was not a consensus to do anything; keep, or delete. In most cases, this leads to a default keep, since the default is inclusion except in extraordinary cases. Thus, the fact that it survived previous AfDs is not a endorsement of this article's status, nor is re-nominating it "another spin at the AfD roulette wheel" (since roulette ends in a clear win/lose outcome). While the timing might be a little soon, it is not disruptively so, and I don't believe that it prejudiced the discussion in such a way that I cannot determine a consensus from it.

Now, with that said, there were a number of arguments brought forward here — discounting rationales addressed by the above, there remain an number of arguments which do not present a clear rationale supported. Simply commenting "game cruft" or "Why this and not that" does not help us determine consensus, though the former is more useful than the latter. While there were good arguments made on both sides, the consensus of the debate tends towards a belief that the external notability of the subject is not well-established by reliable sources. While it is clear that World of Warcraft is notable, consensus appears that it is not clear that these classes are sufficiently notable to provide a useful and encyclopedic sub-article. Most of the keep articles centered around it being a legitimate daughter page of a larger, more notable article — however, this does not address the concerns with respect to notability in a way which gained consensus here.

Since there are merger concerns, I'm taking the advice noted in the discussion and redirecting to World of Warcraft, in order to allow for these concerns to be addressed. --Haemo 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in World of Warcraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stricken Withdrawn Yng varr 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this supposed to be called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)? I hope the nominator read the two other discussions before nominating this article. I fear the rationale for deletion here is a bit concise. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a month and 4 days after the last AfD closed. What has changed since then to warrant this article being deleted? Raoul 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What's wrong with the reason given for deletion? There are no reliable sources to assert notability in the real world. (Disclosure: I have not edited this article at all). shoy 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Vote struck for now. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can be (and is) reliably sourced to the game documentation, Blizzard's official website, and reasonably trustworthy sites made by players. "Cruft" is not a reason to delete this, and boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The information here is extensive enough that it should not be merged into the article in chief on World of Warcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Video Games article guidelines:

"A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

"Content that may be moved to gaming wikis:

Lists of statistics, items, or other minutiae"

In short, Wikipedia is not a game guide. shoy 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking some comments. Some sections need a sledgehammer taken to them for getting too much into gameplay mechanics. It should be noted as well that a wiki is generally not a reliable source. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Smerdis. If it can only be sourced from primary or unreliable sources, then that's a pretty good indication we should not have an article. Per policy we are supposed to work from reliable secondary sources and not be a directory or just a collection of information - sure we can use primary sources sometimes, but not if they are all that exist. I tend to draw a distinction between facts and knowledge; this is facts not knowledge. Cruftbane 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is not already one someone needs to make a WOW wiki, that would be where this stuff belongs.Ridernyc 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Millions of books have specifically been written about history. Millions of books have not been specifically written about "classes in World of Warcraft". shoy 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're oversimplifying to prove your point. Comparing "classes in World of Warcraft" to "history" is like comparing apples to orange plantations. Let's level the playing field: The article Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya is currently featured in the "Did You Know..." section of the main page. Searching for "Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya" in Google yields 10 results. On the other hand, searching for Medivh warcraft yields 1,590,000 results. I think it's safe to say that "millions of books" have not been written about Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya, or even that anyone without an interest in obscure entomological textbooks written in Bengali cares about who he was. Meanwhile, there seems to be a significant amount of interest in Medivh, a character from World of Warcraft. It's looking more and more like your various reasons for supporting these AfDs can all be boiled down to a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with WP:WHOCARES. -Rhrad 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't the one who brought up history in general as an example. And I rather dislike the suggestion that I'm making these points on the basis of some personal vendetta against WoW. I just happen to dislike the misuse of policy. shoy 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last discussion was only about a month ago. The game is notable enough that there will be an interest inthis kind of material and we shouldn't be exclusive of our readers and potential editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as last time. The article does not violate WP:NOT. The volume of information on the subject and the amount of press coverage suggests, to me at least, that the topic is notable. Primary sources are reliable in this sort of article, and I really can't understand Cruftbane's opinion that the article should be removed because it is all facts. It is true that it has no real world relevance outside of the subject and the people who would be interested in it, but that is true of any article from Google to water. My reasons may seem a bit concise and poorly argued, but having participated in the two previous deletion discussions I cannot be bothered to go over all of it again, so you can look in those topics for clearer arguments. Raoul 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like another spin at the AfD roulette wheel. I found persusasive looking at how many articles needed to link here and also considering that somewhere upwards of 8 million people play/have-played as these classes. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 15 October 2007 (GMT)

It still fails WP:N, as despite that 8 million players are within these classes, they are still only notable to World of Warcraft players. Having survived the previous AfDs does not justify its survival in this one. IAmSasori 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close Nuisance nom way too soon after the last one. Artw 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WoWwiki and redirect to Warcraft. I feel that it would be better for all parties if game help and in-universe articles were found there, and that it would improve the encyclopedic quality of WoW articles on wikipedia.--victor falk 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as this is clearly a plot or character summary. For clear guidance on this issue, see the Video games guidelines which state that articles "should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". --Gavin Collins 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long, and as WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the #Gameplay section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article. Melsaran (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The main article provides real world influence of the game, but this article is of a completely different nature. Whereas Poker Gameplay provides context, analysis and a history of the development of the game, this article does not provide any useful content as it comprises entirely of game guide and plot or character summary. The video guidlines go on to state "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. This guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a game guide." This article contravenes these guidelines. Also there are insufficient footnotes to demonstrate the notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 12:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much so overly detailed game guide information. Not notable otherwise.--SeizureDog 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: there is no reason to delete this and not the individual articles for D&D classes. It might be overly long, but certainly if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes. C mon 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The individual DnD class articles of which you speak should also be deleted. Also, "if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes" is a bad point to make at this point considering the races are also going through afd.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We went through it several times, each time with "keep" result. And this nomination by a clearly disruptive user should probably not change much. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's been kept before" is not a valid reason to continue to keep the article. This is not a vote, support your case.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defaulting to keep In all honesty I don't know exactly where to stand, in the lights of the Runescape AfD. My guts tell me that this subarticle of World of Warcraft is notable per the notability of its parent. I think it avoids being a gameguide (read the first AfD for my rationale). I agree that it fails in adressing its own notability, but I am not sure how much to ponder both arguments. I am therefore defaulting to keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. My opinion is that it is in this case (it's really a subarticle that can't fit the main article (when for example PvP and Reputation articles can be merged)). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. We're not a game guide. As to having survived before — mistakes happen; learn from them, don't repeat them. --Jack Merridew 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salted Article were made twice by same possibly same editor with two different accounts including User:Machiavellian07--JForget 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ramalho[edit]

Apparently a complete hoax by a 14-year-old. I removed a large amount of material that was about Chris Brown -- name not even changed. The record label has no listing for this person and I can find no reference on any chart to his "number one hit". Also this page was created with a "semi-protected" tag already in place, which may indicate sufficient familiarity with deletion policy that this may require SALT. Accounting4Taste 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The material about Chris Brown has been returned by the creator, without explanation. Accounting4Taste 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to prove that he is notable
Delete as a hoax. If there's any doubt that it's a hoax, Justin Timberlake was actually the 2007 "Favorite Male Singer" Kids Choice winner. - Che Nuevara 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machiavellian(Hip-Hop artist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport Clube Ramalho. Perhaps it's time to indef block this hoaxer. Deor 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- but applaud the hoaxes he's tried for at least being mildly amusing and readable, I would guess his age at closer to 17.JJJ999 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fantasy. can't particularly find the "mildly amusing and readable" qualities. tomasz. 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Kesteven Sports Centre[edit]

Non-notable sports complex, no claims of notability. I would have merged it with the school article, except that doesn't exist. There doesn't appear to be any speedy deletion criterion for buildings. Corvus cornix 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not provide secondary, verifiable sources. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there's a school article, but there isn't much there. No claims of notability for the school, either, so I think this AfD should stand. Corvus cornix 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No sources, no dice.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation 2 internal display clock[edit]

Subject does not seem to comply with the notability guideline, and cites no published sources whatsoever, failing to meet verifiability policy and probably also "no original research" policy. Dancter 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to PlayStation 2 this is totally unotable, wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dancter 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Dancter 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought I'd hear (well, read, I guess) myself saying this about a video game clock, but ... original research? The really amazing part is that somebody actually timed these things out. Delete. - Che Nuevara 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this does not meet the Verifiability policy. Anyone can flick on a PS2 and obviously "verify" what has been written in the article. Do you need some professional editor or author to publish something in order to tell you that? You also can't assume "original research" as this article can be based on casual observation. So it becomes indescriminate just because no one else decided to take the time to write about it? That doesn't make it unotable. You're saying in theory, an editor from some random gaming site could publish an article about the clock, or some random person from GameFAQ could list the specifics in their FAQs and all of a sudden it makes it "verifiable?" Someone at Sony obviously designed the internal software of the PS2 with the hopes that someone would notice. I have received messages from several people complimenting my article because they found something new in the system software to observe. It seems the group who doesn't like it automatically gets a "Delete this crap" attitude. Kinda lame if you ask me... Keep Kinless 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need some professional editor or author to publish something in order to tell you that? - Yes, please see our WP:Verifiability policy. Marasmusine 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PlayStation 2 if we can find a reliable reference. But if we can't find any, delete as this article has no references and it is not notable. Cool200 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can't believe that this article was made. Not notable at all. Cannot be verified...I think. Indiscriminate. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the general info in the article can be verified by just turning the ps2 on, however when it comes to the finer details that border on obsessive I dont think they are needed. Perhaps since it is about half completed why not rename the article to Ps2 operating system and add the relevant info for a decent article.Atirage 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fallen and I can't get up[edit]

Although a widely known catchphrase, I'm not sure this trademark is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I have nothing against merging pertinent information with Lifecall/ Lifealert. Also fails WP:V and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. There aren't reliable sources specifically about the phrase but this definitely warrants some space in the article, along with a sentence or two about the commercials, the star and the mockumentary about the star. Otto4711 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There isn't really much to say about this. - Che Nuevara 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge There are about 5 nursing articles in scholar that reference this and at least one patent. --Buridan 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge, no redirect. As with "Today is the first day of the rest of your life", the catchphrase took on a life of its own well beyond the Life Alert company. Cultural historians will note that at the turn of the century, this was used as a humorous euphemism for time when life was not going well. Mandsford 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I venture to say that the line is more notable than the company -Drdisque 00:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia purposes is established by showing there are reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Are there sources that are substantially about this phrase? Otto4711 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article, there's several -Drdisque 06:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there aren't. There are links to external sources, yes, but they are not substantially about the catchphrase. Otto4711 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't merge. The notability of this phrase is independent of the far-less-notable product it advertised. To those of who weren't born yet or were very young in the early 1990s, I can tell you this was a very popular catchphrase. I even remember hearing a news report about legal troubles involving the makers of LifeCall. The news anchor opened the report by saying, "The 'I've fallen and I can't get up' people are in big trouble". szyslak 10:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because if Wikipedia can have detailed entries for individual episodes of anime series, "I've fallen and I can't get up" should have an entry too. Chris Buckey 17:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. JJL 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge. Notable-- there's even an I've Fallen and I Can't Get up dance remix on youtube with clips from the original advertisement. Voyager640 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece EURO 2004 triumph[edit]

Topic is already covered at the main Euro 2004 page, this article is unneccessary. Simon KHFC 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, SqueakBox 19:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Simon KHFC 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Peanut4 19:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is essentially a combination of the Euro 2004 section on Greece national football team and UEFA Euro 2004 and it should stay that way. Peanut4 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't you mean each article should stay separate? Your statement could be construed as supportive of the nominated article, instead of supporting your own Delete vote! Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was merely an additional comment that even if I supported the entry, it includes nothing new anyway. I realise a lot of articles start by pasting other sections, but this entry has nothing at all new. And I support deletion because it's unneccessary and unencycoplaedic. Peanut4 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - celebrationist, even triumphalist, article which adds nothing to the information already found in the Euro 2004 article (in fact it blatantly plagiarises the main article). The whole exercise is non-NPOV, as it covers only one perspective, that of the Greek team. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Euro 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly the Supermodel (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why merge something which is admittedly already covered in the main article (as nominated)? Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as fork/copy & paste of other articles, POV title. Would not be acceptable as redirect, pointless merging. Qwghlm 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless duplication. Robotforaday 17:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes: The Best of the Best Pictures[edit]

This is a list of Rotten Tomatoes %s for each winner of the best picture oscar. There is no reason these should be collected in this list instead of on the individual movie pages--essentially, an unnecessary intersection to have an article for. Calliopejen1 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, SqueakBox 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is it called? WP#NOTSTAT? Another example of tossing out someone's statistics or ratings with no clue whatsoever as to how the measurement was calculated. The intent seems to be to have something that can be updated annually. Mandsford 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 00:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was a frustrating AfD to try to close, not only because of the name-calling and arguing about the difference between the perfect and past tenses. Given that "merge" and "delete" both had a number of proponents, it was striking that very little attention was paid to the question that would distinguish between them: whether the article contains useful, NPOV information that is not found elsewhere. Since those arguing for deletion did not make a claim that it does not, but object primarily to the title, I don't see how their arguments justify deleting the content. Can be renamed or merged at editorial discretion, but the consensus, insofar as there is any, is that the content is worth saving. Chick Bowen 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex[edit]

POV fork, we already have an article that covers this topic perfectly and it is called child sexual abuse, there is nothing to this article not covered there and looks like POV pushing by those who believe there is such a thing as adult-child sex which is not child sexual abuse whereas the reality is we do not need 2 identical articles on the subject of child sexual abuse. if there is new and useful material here it can be merged into child sex abuse, SqueakBox 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first few sentences notes this article is "commonly known as child sexual abuse". Please delete at your eariliest convenience. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People involved in this discussion might be interested to know that the editors of this page are currently involved in a content dispute (see here). I strongly suggestion deletion. However, given the dispute, deletion won't solve the larger problem -- I can see some merit in a protected redirect to "child sexual abuse", otherwise salting. - Che Nuevara 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've made significant edits to this article. For the record, I am not involved in editing pro-pedophile activism nor am I involved in the mediation case concerning that article. Now, if you want to talk about POV forking, have a look at pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism. Each one exists to some extent to defend a POV with regard to the other. --Ssbohio 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was originally a redirect and subject to this discussion, SqueakBox 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scholarly article which generalises from pederasty seems to be what's wanted and the title seems a good start, being NPOV in tone. Colonel Warden 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because adult-child sex is "commonly known as child sexual abuse" does not deny its being uncommonly known another way. There is a clear difference between denying the existence of a view and agreeing that it exists but refuting it. The term child sexual abuse is a term that inherently denies that there is any other perspective on the issue. That even one person believes that adult-child sex isn't abuse is simply not a germane topic for that article. The term adult-child sex allows for the existence of the minority view that not all adult-child sex is abusive. pro-pedophile activists exist, but their views are completely out of place in an article on child sexual abuse. To be sure, I agree that adult-child sex is child abuse, but to deny that there is an opposition populated by people like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault is simply counterfactual. The term adult-child sex, because it focuses on the objective act, allows both views to come in contact with one another, where child sexual abuse does not. This article makes clear which is the majority view and which is the view of a small minority, but it would be dangerous to pretend that that minority doesn't exist. Giving due weight to the views on a topic (rather than denying their existence) is what we're supposed to do. --Ssbohio 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are arguing it is a POV fork, which is a deletionist argument, SqueakBox 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hardly sporting to tell me what I'm arguing for, is it? Actually, I'm arguing that covering the topic only from the perspective of child sexual abuse denies that any other perspective exists. That is, inherently, a prevention of any effort to incorporate any other view into the article, itself a denial of NPOV. An NPOV on the topic of adult-child sex would include the existence of an alternative view, if for no other reason than to illuminate it so that the reader can compare it to the mainstream view (and, presumably, find the pro-pedophile argument wanting). Prohibiting its mention by keeping it entirely under the heading of child sexual abuse doesn't give the reader the opportunity to even know that there is a minority perspective on the issue. --Ssbohio 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is incorrect to suggest that Wikipedia denies there is an opposition to the abuse interpretation of adult-child relations. Notably there is Pro-pedophile activism. Other articles include Age disparity in sexual relationships, age of consent reform, Ephebophilia, Nepiophilia, nymphet, lolita (term), genital play, and many more. Even within child sexual abuse the minority POV is expressed. -Jmh123 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Creating segmented articles where we discuss this aspect or that aspect of the general topic doesn't serve the same informative purpose as having a single article (perhaps in summary style) that presents the information in an integrated manner. I've never suggested that Wikipedia denies there is an opposition to the abuse interpretation of adult-child relations. What I've suggested is that if we keep "pro" arguments over in this article and "con" arguments over in that article, then we're doing a disservice to the reader. Adult-child sex should be a part of all the articles you mention, but the entirety of the subject doesn't fit into any of those articles. --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable sourced content to Child sexuality. Speciate 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the original rationale. A.Z. 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who say it's a POV fork didn't consider that, even if today suddenly a proof appeared and unanimity emerged that it's impossible to exist consensual adult-child sex, there still would have been many people who thought it to be possible, and their opinions are notable. I had posted the following post here before, then removed it because I didn't think it was important: "The topic is notable and no other article deals with it. Although my personal opinion is that adult-child sex should not automatically be labeled child sexual abuse, I have no intention of hiding the fact that the scientific consensus is different from that, and I certainly have no intention of hiding any arguments that psychologists use to back up their opinion. The arguments don't convince me anyway. I also have no intention of hiding that 81% of Canadians think that pedophilia is immoral, nor any other verifiable facts about the matter. This is not intended as a POV article. Nevertheless, I won't accept that the article say, as it used to say some versions ago, that "A very small number of pro-pedophile activists disagree." "Very small number" is not encyclopedic. It's also unverifiable that all people who disagree with the consensus are pro-pedophile activists." Since other people who voted saying "POV fork" didn't offer a rationale, I'll respond to SqueakBox's explanation ("POV pushing by those who believe there is such a thing as adult-child sex which is not child sexual abuse whereas the reality is we do not need 2 identical articles on the subject of child sexual abuse"): this article is not about child sexual abuse. There is no verifiable proof that it is impossible for children and adults to have consensual sex, and there's also no verifiable proof that it is possible. That's the only reason why this article doesn't say "consensual adult-child sex doesn't exist" nor "consensual adult-child sex exists". If there were such a proof, then this article would still have to exist, to show that there's an eccentric theory according to which something impossible is possible. In this case, the article about "adult-child sex" would say "it has been proved that there can be no such thing as consensual sex between children and adults". The article about child sexual abuse does not say that one of the views is correct, nor could it. Yes, there are studies showing the effects of child sexual abuse, but there are no studies showing the impossibility of sex without abuse. If we delete this article, then we will have to write somewhere, possibly on the article called child sexual abuse, that there are people who believe that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, and that there are people who believe otherwise (such as 10% of Canadians, Sartre, et al.). Wikipedia readers will ask "Really? So how many people have either view? What are their arguments to back up their claim? Which studies have happened about this?", and the article will have to discuss this matter anyway, only that it will have a wrong title. A.Z. 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Child sexuality per Speciate. Due weight is easier to maintain in a neutral context, which is the reason for discouraging POV forks. It is far too likely that the view of the small minority will come to carry undue weight in an article which is explicitly designed to carry that minority view (per Ssbohio). -Jmh123 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement about what I argued doesn't accurately represent the point I was trying to make. Adult-child sex is a neutral description of the activity in question, such that the majority and (tiny) minority views can each be given due weight. The article is not designed to carry the minority view, it's designed to be neutral. --Ssbohio 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that this isn't your expectation of the article; I believe the current version is already problematic in a variety of ways, thus I am skeptical that it can be NPOV as you argue. Its design, with "pro" and "con" sections, invites endless battles of the sort that are already characteristic of many pedophilia-related pages. -Jmh123 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It kind of gets philosophical here. Do we delete articles with difficult content problems, or keep and improve them? It's a larger question than just this one article. The pro-con structure is a problem, I'll agree; In this case, I think it would be better to rewrite the article to organize it along other lines, like sectioning it by the issues raised (child sexual abuse, age of consent, etc.), perhaps even as a summary style article. --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Speciate. Though I can understand the wish to have this topic at Child sexual abuse, the points raised by Ssbohio WRT the inability to present minority views at such a title are valid. Keeping it as a stand-alone article does present the danger of POV-forking, though. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork of Child sexual abuse. VanTucky ^Talk 04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of Child sexual abuse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork. Jtrainor 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Article child says(uncited) it is human before puberty. But cambridge says "it is non-adult"[13] and oxford says [14] "human till full physical development"(both conensus). While Pedophilia referes 'only' to pre-pubertal child. This article title looks justified, also the phrase is used if not widely. Lara_bran 10:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:I changed article child definition as said above. Full growth is 18-20 years of age. Lara_bran 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Ephebophilia, this is for adolescent children, and different from Pedophilia which is 'only' for prepubescent children. Lara_bran 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's important also to recognize that denotatively, ephebophilia and pedophilia focus on the attraction on the part of the adult for the adolescent or prepubescent child. The activity of adult-child sex isn't the focus of either topic. That's why it makes sense to me that we have an article on the central topic that many articles touch tangentially, but none currently deal with as a whole. --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this is not an article about the phenomenon of adults having sexual contact with children. It's an article about arguments against and for the legality or morality of adults having sexual contact with children. It's clearly POV. There is nothing "central" about this article. - Che Nuevara 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we find information about the phenomenon of adults having sexual contact with children, we will add it to this article. Meanwhile, it focuses on the arguments against and for the possible morality of adults and children having sexual contact, like the article on abortion debate. (I really wish I didn't have to appeal to linking to this article, as I would prefer that people realized by other means that adult-child sex should not be deleted, regardless of whether Wikipedia currently happens to have an article on abortion debate or not.) A.Z. 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that the "abortion debate" is an actual debate, and a quite high-profile one with massive influence and consequences. To say that there is a debate about whether adults should be having sexual contact with children is to invoke an awfully liberal definition of the word "debate". The hugely overwhelming percentage of the population conforms to what this article calls the "widely accepted view", and to represent the "dissenting views" as anything other than a small fringe group is to give massively undue weight. The controversy here is marginal at best. Yes, I can see the potential merit in an article about the historical phenomenon. This, however, is not that article, and Wikipedia has a long and proud history of deleting the wrong article with the right title. - Che Nuevara 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say it was an ongoing massive public debate like there is on abortion. If you have a reference saying that the dissenting views are nothing but a small fringe group, then just add that to the article. But I don't think you have. If you have verifiable evidence that there's almost no controversy in the scientific community regarding whether all adult-child sex should be labeled child sexual abuse or not, then you can add that to the article. But I don't think you do. I think there is controversy in the scientific community, otherwise people wouldn't be writing so many papers on the subject. This is not just about two opposing views, by the way: I think the debate has many nuances. I have added information about someone who thinks that the argument that children are harmed by adult-child sex is not a good argument because there's not enough empirical evidence of that. This person nonetheless supports the view that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, on the basis that children can't give informed consent.
        
        Anyway, even if no one thought that there is the possibility of non-abusive adult-child sex, the fact is that there's no proof that there's no such possibility, and this article would need to exist with this same title anyway, although it would have only the arguments backing up the view that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. In such a situation, if we deleted the article adult-child sex, it would be weird to add to the article called child sexual abuse that "All people think that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. This article has some of their arguments". This would be like saying on the article baby murder (in a world in which everyone agreed that abortion is baby murder), "All people think that all voluntary abortions are baby murders. This article has some of their arguments". A.Z. 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Again, your abortion comparison is way off base. You said so yourself: "I didn't say it was an ongoing massive public debate like there is on abortion." Any "debate" about sexual contact involving an adult and a child is in no way comparable to debate on abortion. To suggest otherwise is inflammatory and misleading. There is constant public discussion of the morality and ramifications of abortion and abortion laws. Politicians talk about it on the stump every single day. Where is the debate on having sex with children? I'm not talking about 19-year-olds who get locked up for hooking up with 16-year-olds. That's a gray area. And it's amply covered in under AoC. Your assertion that "the fact is that there's no proof that there's no such possibility, and this article would need to exist with the same title anyway" is truly puzzling. Since when is lack of verifiability a satisfactory requirement for inclusion? It is, of course, not. - Che Nuevara 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who argue that non-abusive adult-child sex is impossible, and this is a notable opinion. Since it is verifiable that there is such an opinion, and it is unverfiable that this opinion is the correct one, the article about this opinion would need to make it clear that it is just an opinion, and one way of doing this would be creating an article on adult-child sex saying that trying to have adult-child sex is seen a form of abuse by those people. It's like creating an article called abortion, which says that the practice of abortion is considered to be murder by many people. My point when I said this was merely that, regardless of the number of people who believe a certain view is right, Wikipedia cannot say nor imply that this view is right unless this is verifiable. A.Z. 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - I dont think it is onesided, there will be consensus from both sides, but consensus from child is considered immature. Another fact about laws is that it is extremely hard to control, unless rigorous laws, this kind of acts especially if parents wont guard. This would be a nice summary article about all those articles. I seriously dont understand how its POV, all i fear is OR, that we maybe floating some new phrase. Add to that deletion is not solution for POV. Lara_bran 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV article. Chris Buckey 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re POV There seems to be a significant pile-on of !votes due to perceived POV issues. First, what POV issues are in the article? Simply saying POV doesn't actually identify any specific problem with the article. Second, since the term adult-child sex is a neutral description of the act, wouldn't POV problems be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it? --Ssbohio 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I can explain my problem with the current article with anything other than an analogy, so let me try that. Suppose I'm editing an article about an actor, and a review says something very flattering about that actor. If a fan comes and inserts that quotation, normally that edit would be removed, although one might include a statement that the actor received a good review from X publication, with a link, but an award acknowledging the quality of the performance would be more appropriate content. This situation is comparable to the use of a quotation in the article under debate here, the quotation about little girls "blooming" and "happy" under the ministrations of a pedophile. It's an opinion, not fact, but it's rhetorically powerful. Or see Welland's recent additions to Pro-pedophile activism, again quotations with an emotional punch from a controversial article in support of pedophilia. The rhetorical power of this kind of writing is great, but Wikipedia isn't about who can come up with the most powerful and persuasive rhetoric, or who can argue with the most passion about a topic. It should be about NPOV. The fact is that most little girls do NOT bloom and thrive from sexual experiences with an adult male, and while Foucault and Sartre may be brilliant philosophers, they are not experts on the topic of adult-child sex. The structure of this article under debate, with a pro and a con section, makes directly addressing that quotation quite difficult. Con statements "belong" in the other section--and yet, such a quotation shouldn't go uncountered. An impassioned quotation from some abused child or parent of such a child, or a grizzly account of a post-coital murder would be rhetorically effective as a response, but would no doubt be rejected as POV.
- Which leads to your second question, wouldn't editing resolve the problem: It could be resolved this way if editing such an article weren't a constant battleground. Personally, I can't be involved in that level of conflict every day. I tried, but it was too much. The fact is that there are some editors who have an in-depth knowledge of any and all material supporting what I'll call for simplicity's sake a pro-pedophile POV, and others with strong feelings supporting that POV. There are also some individuals who edit these articles with highly effective rhetorical skills. Editing will not solve the problem, if it is ineffective.
- If it were a significant topic not covered elsewhere, we'd have to deal with these difficulties, but (and I simply disagree with the comment below) this topic is well-covered in other articles, as I have already stated above. -Jmh123 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - There’s a lot of substance to what you’ve said, so let me take your main points individually:

1. 1. 1. 1. I see your point regarding the “blooming” and “happy” quote. I actually added that with the view that such an idea is so patently unrealistic as to fail all by itself, with no help needed; just as some quotes from Mein Kampf are so beyond the pale as to need no explanation.
      2. The pro-con structure is a problem. My intent was to create a quick way to label the pro-pedophile information in the article as such and label the dominant view as well. I’d rather see separate sections (history, psychology, law, etc.) done in summary style to integrate the information scattered among several articles.
      3. I think we agree that the article could be edited into better shape, but we disagree about whether the will exists to do it. All I can say is: trust the Wiki. There are tools and processes available to prevent edit warring and preserve NPOV. AfD isn’t the way to resolve a content dispute. Given the notable topic, let the article live for a few months, then delete it if it becomes the kind of screed that you and others rightly fear. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It looks to me that everything except your last paragraph is basically saying that Wikipedia doesn't work. As for your last paragraph, Ssbohio has already responded to your concerns, but you didn't reply to him. Please, address his concerns. What I think Ssbohio means -and I agree- is that he acknowledges that Wikipedia already has articles on Rind et al, Harmful to Minors, child sexual abuse, French petitions against age of consent laws, pro-pedophile activism, anti-pedophile activism, child sexuality, human sexual behavior, informed consent, pedophilia, Sexual Morality and the Law, etc, but we need to have a summary, an article about a notable topic (i.e., views regarding adult-child sex) which is common to all those mentioned studies, people, events, etc. There's also information that wouldn't be appropriate for any of the existing articles, such as the Canadian poll results regarding adult-child sex. A.Z. 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My position is that we have almost all the information that would belong in this article on the Wikipedia already, but parceled out among several articles such that there is no article squarely dealing with the topic in a holistic manner. Saying this article isn't necessary would be like saying that same-sex marriage isn't necessary because it's covered at homosexuality & marriage. Having the pieces isn't the same as having the puzzle put together. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Child sexuality Merging into child sexuality has the same problems as merging into child sexual abuse: Namely, it covers part (but not all) of the topic. My view is that adult-child sex has much more to do with the sexuality of the adult than the sexuality of the child, as well as potentially involving nonsexual issues common to child abuse. The whole topic doesn't fit under child sexuality or any other existing article that I can find. --Ssbohio 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on definition of child. I also changed the definition of child in the Child article, except back to meaning a boy or girl who has not reached puberty, which is now cited, and I stated that that is what it primarily means, as well as having added additional information on the term. It was too unclear and not the true definition of a child in the way that Lara_bran changed it to, considering that defining a child as a boy or girl that has not reached full growth can apply to 17 to 21-year-olds; though they are not children, many are still growing at those ages. Flyer22 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This definition is of importance here, because if it includes adolescents then it will be 17-21years, but puberty is 10-14years(not sure, our article does not give clue). You kept oxford, in citation which is contradiction. This should be fixed, i think oxford def is correct. Lara_bran 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another way of looking at child definition, that is wrt. child labour laws, which is normally 14 years of age. I dont think "child" has nothing to do with puberty, its all about physical growth. Lara_bran 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Puberty is normally about physical growth. But as for Child, a child is not an adolescent in the true sense of what a child is, and certainly is not a 17 to 21-year-old, which is why the other definition was quite unclear, considering that human beings can keep growing until they are age 21. A 21-year-old is not a child. I don't feel that the Oxford definition contradicts anything that isn't already contradicted, since most people state an adult as someone of full growth, and yet an 18 to 21-year-old may still be growing, while they are adults. What a child is in its true definition has to do with puberty, as well as psychology. Every definition I have found in my dictionaries at home mention pre-pubescent, as well as the two citations over Oxford's in the Child article. If a child was defined as "full growth", then people would be calling 20-year-olds children, considering that many 20-year-olds are still growing, and that is quite off to call a 20-year-old a child. I will remove the Oxford citation, but I don't feel that it put the article in any kind of less condition by having remained. Flyer22 06:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If child = boy + girl, again it leaves out puberty thing. Adolescent and prepubescent etc are biological terms and hardly used in common usage. As for physical growth it lasts early for a girl than a boy. Would like a third opinion here. Lara_bran 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If Child = boy + girl, it does not leave out the puberty thing, especially when it mentions the puberty thing. Sure, a woman is often times called a girl, but that 20-year-old woman is not a child. The puberty thing is all about what takes a child from childhood into entering adulthood, of course. I disagree that adolescent and pre-pubescent are not common usage terms, and even if they aren't, that has no bearing on what a child truly is. I don't mean to sound egotistical, but I have a great deal of knowledge in the scientific/psychological/sexual field. I am definitely not all about screenwriting and soap operas. Yes, a 10-year-old who goes into puberty is still a child — psychologically and chronologically, but not biologically. I consider a 10-year-old a child for many reasons, whether they have hit puberty or not. But puberty is a factor in what is a true child (biological sense), an adolescent, and an adult, even though an adult (an 18-year-old) may still be going through puberty. Though an adult can be adolescent, I surely don't believe that that same 20-year-old adult can be considered a child (unless due to some mental problems, and I say "mental problems" as a serious psychological issue, of course). A 20-year-old is not a child, and is not called a child. It makes no sense to have an article on the definition of Child state "full growth", as if adolescents and 21-year-old adults should either be mentioned in that article or considered children as well, especially when the articles adolesence and adulthood point out the differences. If I'm going to consider a 17 to 21-year-old a child, it would be because they are their parents children, not because they are truly children. I have a library at home, with several books of science, biological, and sexual-related topics, definitions (that I already know most of)...and all define a child as pre-pubescent, but also address the fact that the mind plays a big part in what a child is. A 12-year-old who has hit puberty is (usually) still a child, based on the fact of his or her mental growth, which is (usually) far different than that of a 16 or 17-year-old, as 16 to 17-year-olds think more like adults than actual children do, needless to say. So with this, we have a 12-year-old with the biology of a woman, but a mind that can be described as a child's mind. The psychological, chronological, and biological age of a child is noted on in the Child article. And I can always expand that article to further elaborate on these things. But the main thing that needs to be known in the lead of that article is...no, a child is not a person who has not reached full growth, not unless we consider 20-year-olds as children as well. Flyer22 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Child is a term that means multiple things: minor, prepubescent, even an adult son or daughter, depending on context. Each definition is right in its context. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And the article on Child addresses how it "means" mutiple things, though used colloquially for the others. Even my above statements address this, but the true definition of a child is not an adult. The article should first address what a child really is, then address such things as the fact that a person is their parents' child, no matter their age, which it does. Flyer22 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your nose and Keep because, face it, logically Child sexual abuse would be the POV fork here. "Adult-child sex" is a neutral title; it's not like the article is called Man-boy love. Not all notable POV's (maybe not even a majority?) agree that sex between minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances. Merging this information to Child sexual abuse would be inherently POV. <eleland/talkedits> 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's essentially my point, put more succinctly than I ever could have. Kudos. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't agree with that. While I can reason that most people don't see a 17-year-old (a minor in some states and countries) with an older legal adult sexually as inherently sexual abuse, I certainly don't believe that anywhere close to the majority believe that "sex between" minors and adults isn't inherently abusive...when that minor is an actual child, such as a 7-year-old. Flyer22 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That it’s inherently abusive is, to me & most others, a given. A small, vocal minority dissent from that view. The existence of this article doesn’t depend on the minority having a valid point, but on the fact that that minority’s words and actions are notable enough to be covered in terms of a distinct subject, adult-child sex, rather than the fragments . We can watch ‘’To Catch a Predator’’, we can read any number of online & offline sources that detail what the pro-pedophile activists believe and how they operate. They’ve even been lampooned on Saturday Night Live and South Park. Like the Flat Earthers, the speciousness of the claim doesn’t diminish its notability. And for what it’s worth, the age of consent is 21 in some places. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that the Age Of Consent is 21 in some places, rare places. And I find it absolutely ridiculous that Age Of Consent would be that high. Anyway, my comment concerning that nowhere close to the majority view "sex between" minors and adults as not inherently abusive was more so a reply to what was stated about that. Flyer22 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term adult-child sex was recommended by American scientists who found that a half of adult-child sexual relations were not abusive but consensual and even experienced as beneficial (gay singer Mark Medlock who seduced a 32-year-old in the natatorium when he was 8 is a prominent example) and that it is important to differentiate. A modern encyclopedia should follow this differentiation. The supporters of a deletion are lacking insight into this. Merging into child sexual abuse is not an option as the word abuse is value-laden. Merging into child sexuality is not an option since child sexuality is mainly directed towards oneself and other children and adults play a lesser role. Merging into pedophilia is not an option since pedophilia only describes the sexual orientation and not the sexual act. WP:NPOV problems should be fixed in the article and not worsened through unjustified deletion. Roman Czyborra 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some facts: 1) The study you reference was not recommended by American scientists as a group, but written by three American scientists and the subject of a great deal of professional dissent. 2) The story of Mark Medlock's "seduction" of an adult at age 8 has garnered no Ghits, so saying it's prominent appears to be a stretch. 3) Every argument about the supposed appropriateness of adult-child sex is irrelevent to the question of whather to keep this article. We're not here to debate the morality of the activity, but only to debate whether to write an article about it. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not in this form. This article title seems to me to be the most reasonably NPOV target that we are likely to produce for a wide discussion of the material. This could incorporate and relate to the myriad other, similar pages listed variously above. There is a lot of historical and cross-cultural material to present. While the article should make clear that the vastly predominate modern view equates adult-child sex in any form with child sexual abuse, that has not been universally the case. Pederasty includes some historical perspective regarding male homosexual activity; other forms of this behavior probably have mention in anthropology literature. Precisely how much of what material is discussed on this page versus the other topics ... I cannot determine. However, if this is not the approach used for this article, then disregard my keep comment; its current form is little more than a fork of better content elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An adult having sex with a child is recognized as a crime in almost every jurisdiction in the world (or should be). How can committing a crime against someone be considered anything other than abuse? Obvious POV fork. Ronnotel 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my country, hardly a medieval society, the age of consent for most purposes is 14. A recent move to change it by the Conservative government was opposed by most mainstream child-protection groups, on the grounds that such sexual relationships are generally harmful, but making them illegal does not serve to prevent them, and actually makes the problems associated with them worse. <eleland/talkedits> 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment sounds like adult-teenage sex or even more so teenage-teenage sex but Ronno is rightt hat no jurisdiction allow sex between adults and pre-pubescent children, and Canada is clearly no exception, SqueakBox 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blind (first post). The article itself says it's just another term for the same thing. I didn't read all the above, but I don't believe anyone thinks the article is POV. The issue isn't how it's written, the issue is: why is there a content fork? WP:POV or WP:POINT are the most likely answers. If the extremely common and excepted labeling of "adult-child sex" as child sexual abuse is being protested here, Wikipedia is not the place. This type of political correctness is not NPOV, as it goes against commonly excepted views. These views may be wrong, but we are not to judge. We merely reflect the world, not try to change it, even if it's for the better, because whose to say what "better" is. Rocket000 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is certainly not the place to say that the "extremely commmon labeling" is correct: this would be a judgement as well. You can add all the sources you know with the opinions of people who think this is an "extremely common labeling", or even polls showing that it is (such as the Canadian poll that is already mentioned), but this article is the appropriate place to do it. To which other article would you be able to add the notable results from that poll? They are not about pedophilia (the sexual attraction), nor about child sexual abuse (unless 10% of Canadians don't think that child sexual abuse is immoral): they are about adult-child sex. The opinions that adult-child sex is inherently abusive are also opinions about adult-child sex. A.Z. 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - POV is not a reason to delete. Being a fork of another article is. --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? A.Z. 04:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Child Sexuality per Speciate. Child Sexual Abuse is a recognized term, and we certainly need an article on that. Adult-Child Sex, in colloquial usage, refers to sex between legal adults and legal minors, which can be non-abusive, and information about that would be tainted by association if it were inserted into an article on Child Sexual Abuse. The description of non-harmful sex in the abuse article will look to some like pedophilia advocacy. The amount of verifiable sourced information in the Adult-Child Sex article is small, and it can easily be made a section of Child Sexuality. Enrico Dirac 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article isn't focusing that much on sex between legal adults and legal minors, but is rather focusing on the topic of "sex between" adults and children who are not usually of legal age. I do, however, see your point about this article being merged into the Child sexuality article instead. Flyer22 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Child Sexuality- Change due to def prob. phase def is OR, they say sex = all sexual relationships. Lara_bran 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name has been changed now to "sexual relationships between adults and children". The new name is not a neologism and it makes it clear that the article is not about penetrative sex. A.Z. 18:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No ~~it has not been changed~~ it was changed and I reverted back as non-consensual. Please stop acting as if you own the article without seeking consensus, SqueakBox 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously has been changed. The edit history records these things, SqueakBox. You changed it back, though. Please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing. I think you are trying to manipulate people to think that I am a disruptive person. I don't own any article. I personally don't think the number of accounts that support something matters at all. A.Z. 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it had been changed, has would imply the change is current (I appreciate you are still only learning English), SqueakBox 18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it would necessarily imply that the change is current if you said "it has been changed, but I changed it again". A.Z. 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment definitely implied the change was current but as I said I am happy to accept I misunderstood your English (I know very well what it is like to be the foreigner, language wise), SqueakBox 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my comment implied that the change was current. What I'm saying is that your comment implied that the change never happened. A.Z. 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have modified my comment, SqueakBox 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very disturbing to have this apprently civil conversation on this page while on the other talk page you are threatening to block me. A.Z. 19:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To report you actually, I have no blocking powers as I am not an admin. For me it is important to remain civil and the fact that we can do so here is hopeful to me, SqueakBox 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know it's a threat. A.Z. 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a warning and should be taken as such, SqueakBox 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make a suggestion: Since this dialogue doesn't seem to directly bear on the deletion question, perhaps it would be better to move it elsewhere, such as to SqueakBox's or A.Z.'s user talk pages. --Ssbohio 13:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently article content is not worth more than section in article, and "no notability ref for phrase" in lead section for separate article, which i feel is OR. When it is properly developed(properly structured), separate article can be spinned out from child sexuality. Lara_bran 06:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't actually about the phrase, the way I see it, so the phrase's notability as a phrase doesn't come into play. It's there to identify the concept of Adult-child sex, which is is sex between adults and children. The definition is inherent in the title. A speed limit is a limit on speed. A pellet gun is a gun that fires pellets. Water is wet. Some things logically follow by their intrinsic properties and by deduction. On what basis do you claim that this is OR?--Ssbohio 13:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such case dont write def at all. See Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal, they dont write def at all(in lead). But if you write def(or def of a phrase) in an article, it should be cited(at least when demanded), otherwise OR. Thanks. Lara_bran 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument above, the article Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal shouldn't exist at all, since the term Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal isn't itself notable. Titles don't need to be notable; only their subjects do. As an aside, shouldn't sources be cited for describing the Taj Mahal as the finest and most sophisticated example of Mughal architecture?

To answer you directly: you say that article titles themselves need to be notable & that anything that isn't cited is original research; Both are misunderstandings of the underlying policies. Some things are inherent and require no citations (see the examples above). --Ssbohio 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. No problem with recreation if reliable sources are found in the future.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flood of Red[edit]

An article on a seemingly non-notable band. Referenced by links to YouTube and MySpace, this BBC interview is the only reliable source on the band. I don't think this band passes our notability guideline. Rejected PROD. I'll add Lost in the Light to this as well, the article on their debut EP. John 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the coverage in Kerrang, Metal Hammer and Music Week? Surely these are reliable sources, despite not being available on the web? Thomjakobsen 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an argument. The trouble is I am not finding anything about FoR on any of those three sources' websites. The lack of any apparent great depth of coverage seems to suggest mere mentions rather than the sort of serious discussion that would satisfy our standards. --John 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As print magazines, I wouldn't expect to find any mentions on their websites — they generally only carry material promoting the current issue. Actually, reading the article more closely, they're only "planning" a debut album, so it would be surprising if there were substantial coverage, so I'll say delete, no problems with a new article should they merit a new round of press attention in the future. Thomjakobsen 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have toured with band such as enter shikari and the blackout to name a few. the reviews section in the article is about notability, given that the reviews are all from pretty well known magazines/reviewers.Andrew22k 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The trouble is that, when the article says, for example that they "appeared in an article in Kerrang magazine", does that mean a mention? An interview? The cover story? Being mentioned in passing would not satisfy our notability guidelines. Some more reliable sources indicating the band's notability are required. MySpace and YouTube do not count towards that. --John 19:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the BBC ref with the reviews for the EP and the band themselfs has to count as notability. Image:Flood of red kerrang.jpg is a screenshot off of one of their pictures on myspace from the kerrang interview and even though it is not entirely practical to the article it is evidence that the band are notable.Andrew22k 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having listened to the BBC interview, that is definitely a mere mention which does not meet our standard. My dad, for example, has also had a brief mention on BBC radio and a short interview on local radio. This does not make him notable for Wikipedia's purposes. The Kerrang scan (while it is undoubtedly a copyvio) is more intriguing. I would argue that as it refers to the future possibility of the band "making it", and per Thomjakobsen above, they still fail our notability standard. In the future (after a charted hit or some more comprehensive media coverage) we can revisit this. For now, I think no. --John 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bbc interview has calum - the guitarist - speaking on how the have a large fanbase on how they promoted their music using myspace and the internet? and id say the scan is a good solid piece of evidence that convey's how the band are notable and then goes on to say how they band are 'making it'.Andrew22k 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It calls them 'sturdy enough to "make it"', which implies they have not yet "made it". As I said I just listened to the BBC interview and it is a short interview. Neither, in my view, confers notability, quite. Others may differ of course. --John 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it talks about how internet/myspace can help promote music and how flood of red have had this experance and note that the interview was in 2005 from which they have progressed. also this review which does talk about how they will/might 'make it' but gives some information about notability on them (the interview was before their EP was released). They also were on rockworld TV a couple of weeks ago.Andrew22k 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've got an AMG link, but no reviews or description. That's kind of a push, as far as notability is concerned. Nothing in Pitchfork. If the UK tour mentioned in the article could be documented as being exhaustive, that would meet C4 of WP:BAND. They were mentioned as fairly important within their (fairly minor) genre of music in this article in the Belfast Telegraph. There's also some discussion of them in this (PPV) article in the Evening Times. Bottom line: hell if I know. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AMG listing just reflects that their label have submitted it, as per this policy. Thomjakobsen 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. TerriersFan 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no evidence of a full-length CD or International tour, etc., to satisfy the musical notability guidelines. Sorry, dudes. Bearian 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action Hobson[edit]

The fact that a political party has been unelected should not determine whether or not its Wikipedia page is deleted. To my knowledge Action Hobson is still alive and well and recent post-election newspaper interviews with its leaders have confirmed this. This page must be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm afraid I disagree. The question is one of relevancy, which this organisation now lacks. FriendlySam 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the October 2007 Auckland City elections, this organisation was not successful at being elected in any role and is likely to wind up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlySam (talk • contribs)

This article must not be deleted as it is provides an important record of a political party which is prominent and influential in Auckland's political scene. Its proposed deletion is an attempt by political opposition to discredit Action Hobson. This article is also under investigation so it is imperative that Wikipedia keeps it active.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs)

A small single ward only based political ticket is no longer prominent or influential if they have been completely removed from office. FriendlySam 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are completely gone, then they probably should be removed. After all, they are just a one precinct based political ticket - that's hardly worthy of a Wikipedia entry to begin with. Barzini 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a significant part of the history of Auckland local body politics. The article was reduced to a stub recently, but I've restored much of the former content.-gadfium 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would hardly suggest they were significant. It would be fairer to say they were involved in stopping the Eastern Transport Corridor initiative through their district, but they really weren't known for much else. FriendlySam 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice strong article. I've heard of Action Hobson, and I'm not particularly interested in local body politics, nor a resident of their district. Highly notable for past actions, if not for their current electoral status. --Dom 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concept-oriented programming[edit]

This article was deleted from ru-wiki as original research. the only author of the subject is the author of the article. his name is Savinov. The sources is - personal portal of Savinov, references - his books. I think, that this article must be deleted with all category Concept-oriented programming as original research--FearChild 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If this had been written by an uninterested person, I think this would be a keep - since there seem to be published sources (although I don't know whether the listed journals and technical report are misleadingly vanity kind of things); but the concept doesn't seem particularly original or innovative to me and the self-interestedness of it completely taints the article for me. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Comment Two refs, one at Dr Dobbs, which is without a doubt reliable [15], and another at IEEE Internet Computing, but requires payment [16] (citation reads "Elsewhere," IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 03, no. 4, pp. 16-18, Jul/Aug, 1999). Not knowing enough about the concepts involved, I don't know if these are related to the article at hand. Yng varr 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and vanity. The term 'Concept-oriented programming' has been referred to in respected journals such as Dr. Dobbs, [17] but seemingly meaning something entirely different to Savinov's definition. If the author of the article could provide independent authoritative sources for the article, it could be saved, though.--Michig 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. The fact that the references are all to the creators papers and the external link doesn't list a single paper by any other author speaks to the notability of the subject. Cosmo0 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destrucionado[edit]

Claims to have a hit single (and thus shouldn't be speedied), but I couldn't find independent reference to it on Google (has had citation tag for some time); if that can't be established then they don't meet notability requirements. Rigadoun (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the guitarist, who is "best known" for playing in this band:

Note the bassist Craig D. Phillips was speedy'd per A7 on September 4. Rigadoun (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The first does not seem to meet MUSIC, and the second is questionable on notability grounds but more so because of sourcing and verifiability issues. --Gwern (contribs) 17:38 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete pretty easy since no death metal band has ever had a hit single. If there other claims to notability none are mentioned in the article. Ridernyc 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax? Fails notability in any case. Lugnuts 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vsevolod Holubovych[edit]

This article is a long and rambling biographical essay, not an encyclopedia article - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Non-neutral. It's impossible to see how it could be edited into anything suitable for Wikipedia.Nom withdrawn andy 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After reading through a good portion of it, I am more confused than before. Is this a copyvio, an essay, a biography, or what? If someone can edit it into something sensible, then consider this vote struck, but as it is... --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 15 October 2007 (GMT)
- Keep. I don't know too much about the Ukraine, but now he seems notable. --Gwern (contribs) 12:59 16 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep and stubify. I tagged this with the ((essay-like)) template because the article itself is a mess, but the subject of the article appears to be a notable Ukranian historical figure. For example, this reference indicates that he was a foreign minister. Since the current text issuch a mess, it might be a better idea to stubify the article and start over. -- Whpq 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree, and I've done that. He definitely appears to have been notable. Hal peridol 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stubified version. Goochelaar 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll go along with the stubification (is that a real word?) unless the author objects. Give it another day or so and I'll withdraw the nomination. Glad someone was able to find a nugget of sense in the article! andy 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It really doesn't matter if the author objects to the stubification, the article is about a notable figure, and other wiki policies and guidelines would end trimming almost all of that article away. -- Whpq 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I withdraw the nomination in favour of stubification. andy 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stubified version. Edward321 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve.Biophys 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be notable in the future, but not there yet.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lavie[edit]

"Singer-songwriter" with releases on Youtube only. Fails to meet WP:N. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable. --Kyoko 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete, even if improved with ~~news~~ press release of her sparking an internet phenomenon. --Evb-wiki 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murshad kareem peer syed feroze shah qasmi[edit]

No assertion of notability, no sources, unencyclopedic writing. This might even be a duplicate of Murshad karim peer syed feroz shah qasmi which I've also nominated for deletion, below. Yilloslime (t) 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does seem to be an assertion of notability. However, I can imagine that ref's might be hard to find based on a presumably large number of spelling permutations. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs sources for claiming to have a significant number of followers, though. --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete. Apparently this guy. Only a few webpages reference this site, none of them reliable sources. Just a non-notable Sufi master. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations or sourcing (article states that the subject "requires no introduction"), definitely not neutral. The author describes "his illustrious majesty" as "the most clairvoyant, sacred, religious and spiritual of this age", a "successor of devout saints", and a person who has "sensible and meditative followers". This is identical to the other article, except for spelling variations (kareem/karim, feroz/feroze) Mandsford 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this page brought up by Dhartung. I'm going to mark both as such. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--JForget 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ringtone Artists[edit]

An WP:OR-y article which attempts to define "Ringtone artists" as those whose ringtones outsell albums. While "Ringtone artists" has a number of ghits, none appear to be reliable sources, leading me to classify this as a non- notable neologism. It seems unverifiable, and in violation of what what wikipedia is not. Also, a prod was removed by an IP editor. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom for the above. Wikipedia is not for non-notable neologisms that were made up. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN neo at best. --Evb-wiki 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's at least as useful as a list of imaginary Jedis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.187.105 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — 24.211.187.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete It's just someone rambling their original research. Spellcast 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree strongly with spellcast Carter | Talk to me 18:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Also, not to be a pedant, but I'm pretty sure most neologisms are made up. - Che Nuevara 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - point taken :) I'll file that phrase with the Department of Redundancy Department. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete it already. I guess I'm not 1337 enough for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.45.25 (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's not that you're not 1337 enough. All you have to do is read WP:V and WP:NEO next time. Spellcast 07:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Austin and Philly (the source found for that one was underwhelming to later participants), keep Muddy and Gotham. The only real issue was sourcing/verification--retention or deletion of other gay rugby articles is not relevant. Please add the sources listed here to the articles in question. Chick Bowen 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, and at the request of an editor, I've decided to delete Muddy York, too. I think this one is a closer call, though, because of the article from the National Post linked below. If anyone can provide another couple of good, independent sources that specifically speak to notability, I will undelete it without a DRV. Chick Bowen 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lonestars[edit]

No 3rd party sources. Should be merged and redirect to International Gay Rugby Association and Board as was what happened to another IGRAB team Malmö Devilants per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malmö Devilants and per discussion regarding Malmö Devilants with closing admin at User_talk:Jreferee#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMalm.C3.B6_Devilants

Keep all Please note that as nominator of this AfD, I have requested this AfD be withdrawn. However I have been denied that right. I no longer support this AfD as it was based on the fact that if Malmö Devilants were to be deleted, then so should these articles. Malmö Devilants was deleted as the result of its own AfD however it was put up for Deletion Review. After the DRV, Malmö Devilants was un-deleted and so these should stay as well. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It WAS no consensus to delete Malmö Devilants, whats a lie. A second lie is that it was no 3rd party source, it was 3-party source about Malmö Devilants. Even IGRAB are a third-party source. --81.236.190.174 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What are the criteria for playing in Division III of the US Rugby Union? Corvus cornix 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Austin Lonestars (rugby)since there is a lack of reliable source material. There is an Austin Lone Stars team that played in the U.S. Interregional Soccer League back in the 1990s, which sometimes is spelled "Austin Lonestars (soccer)." Delete Muddy York Rugby Football Club (Toronto) since there is a lack of reliable source material. Muddy York RFC does have a mention in Matthews, Karen. (May 26, 2006) Canadian Press Gay rugby players gather for tournament named after 9/11 victim. (republished by Guelph Mercury). Keep Philadelphia Gryphons since there is enough for a Wikipedia article in Philadelphia City Paper (March 18, 2004) Scrum as You Are; Philadelphia's first gay rugby team is headed for the big game. Page 45. Keep Gotham Knights since there is an overwhelming amount of reliable source material.[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. -- Jreferee t/c 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Austin Lonestars and Muddy York due to lack of info specifically on these clubs (no arguments of notability necessary when the subject lacks possible sourcing). I've found a possible source ([31]) for Muddy York, but I don't think it establishes any useful info. Keep the other two as Jreferee appears to have shown sufficient sources exists for those. Wouldn't be surprised if these individual teams are eventually written about by independent sources, but they haven't been yet Wickethewok 13:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source Muddy York: http://muddyyork.ca/Download/NationalPost-2007-02-24.pdf. See National Post.--81.236.190.174 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Austin, Muddy as no sources, and Phily as one source in a altativtive weekly newspapers doesn't indicate an article, keep Gotham. Jbeach ^sup 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article deleted by User:Bbatsell--JForget 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murshad karim peer syed feroz shah qasmi[edit]

No assertion of notability, No sources, Unencyclopedic prose. Yilloslime (t) 15:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently this guy. Only a few webpages reference this site, none of them reliable sources. Just a non-notable Sufi master. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person (isn't it also a possible copyvio?). Goochelaar 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations or sourcing (article states that the subject "requires no introduction"), definitely not neutral. The author describes "his illustrious majesty" as "the most clairvoyant, sacred, religious and spiritual of this age", a "successor of devout saints", and a person who has "sensible and meditative followers". This is identical to the other article, except for spelling variations (kareem/karim, feroz/feroze) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [32]. Marking as such Bfigura ^(talk) 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Sting[edit]

PROD notice was removed without comment, listing here for discussion instead. A team that played in a TV show is not notable in itself. At best, the team could be mentioned in a page about the game, if it existed. Schutz 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (if an article on the show/game ever exists...) --Gwern (contribs) 17:42 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Strong delete. You were rather kind not to speedy as non notable group or as having no context. J Milburn 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because it had been prodded before... but maybe I should not have been so kind indeed. Schutz 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and due to it not even being close to meeting WP:N Carter | Talk to me 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I prodded it originally along with Team Claw. --NeilN 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. non-notable group of people. Corvus cornix 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon J Lovie[edit]

Non-notable musician/songwriter. Speedy tag was removed because the article "attempted to assert notability", but I don't see it. No claims of hit songs, media coverage, touring, far-reaching influence, etc. Precious Roy 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local notability. One article in a local paper. A mention in the newsletter for the (again) local Salvation Army. Won a not-terribly notable song contest.--Sethacus 15:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I've won several not terribly notable singing contests and I don't have a page except my user page. Delete delete delete Carter | Talk to me 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above -Drdisque 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 2110[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Reads like an advert; just a list of specs and no substantial sources. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Was prodded, then prod was 2nded, then both were removed without comment or discussion. Mikeblas 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Repeating my PROD-2 rationale: Some vague claims towards notability are made, but these go completely unsourced. --B. Wolterding 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agree with WP:PRODUCT, besides Nokia has a page of their own. Just put on there Carter | Talk to me 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "James Lowell (fiction)" isn't really a plausible search term. Jim lowell and James Lowell (As the World Turns) redirect to As the World Turns#Deceased cast members, so I think we are covered for possible search terms. James Lowell already redirects elsewhere.--Kubigula (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Lowell (fiction)[edit]

~~Character is made up by originator of page.~~ Character is minor with no notability or could be a different character entirely. I have done due diligence verifying character ~~never~~ existed on show only in a minor capacity. Nominate for speedy deletion.IrishLass0128 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether he's actually a character on As the World Turns or not, there's nothing that indicates that this is at all noteworthy. Mandsford 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete While there was a Judge Jim Lowell in the '50's, I'm hard-pressed to find any evidence of a son named Jim. If not a hoax, NN.--Sethacus 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to As The World Turns. We have an article on ATWT that states: "Judge Lowell's son Jim (Les Damon), also an attorney, would eventually tear his family apart by entering into an ill-fated adulterous affair with Chris Hughes's free-spirited sister Edith (Ruth Warrick). Judge Lowell was in hospital being treated for a heart attack and told Jim that Chris Hughes would be a junior partner in the family law firm.The affair even caused the Hughes family to be involved, Nancy urged Claire Lowell not to dissolve her marriage, Chris' knowledge of the Lowell's problems caused problems between him and Nancy. In the midst of the situation, Jim's estranged wife Claire, consulted Dr.Douglas Cassen about her headaches that were concerning her,and later began treatment for her an illness.Claire considered divorce but then refused Jim this request, Jim ultimately decided to leave Oakdale for a holiday in Florids, pending a finalised divorce from his wife, Claire so he could be with soulmate Edith, but Jim died soon after in a boating accident, causing a heartbroken Edith to leave town. The divorce and death also had a profound effect on Jim's daughter Ellen, who would propel many traumatic storylines in the 60's." Not sure if it deserves a standalone.--Sethacus 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've checked with historians about that and they couldn't find anything other than the Wikipedia article that states this person ever existed. These are people who live for soaps and ATWT particularly. I also checked Soap Central (SC) and they have no knowledge of the character. I also took the time to check the additional characters named and SC has no listing for them either. I don't think "having another article" on Wikipedia shows validity of the character, no outside sources indicate he existed. I will, however, remove the hoax tag based on the above. IrishLass0128 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize if my comment smacked of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, I myself took a look at Soap Central and found this and this. The first is a family tree of Judge Lowell, asserting that he did have a son named Jim, who was married to Claire. The second, Claire's bio, asserts pretty much everything mentioned in the Wiki article I cited. As I stated, I'm still unsure whether this deserves a standalone. The Lowells were an important part of the early history of the soap, but, as Jim's story is found elsewhere on Wiki, I'm just not sure of the importance of having the article vs. a delete vs. a delete and redirect.--Sethacus 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~ thanks for finding that stuff. I couldn't and at the time of nomination I did believe it to be inaccurate information because I checked the character bios and with people who have watched the show forever. I do still think there is little to no need for this and notibility is in question. So I do stand by my nomination, only the circumstances have changed. I looked at the pages and it says Claire was Judge Lowell's wife, not Jimmy Lowell's. It also says Jimmy Lowell changed his name to something entirely different. Now the question becomes, "who's page is this?" IrishLass0128 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Claire bio states that at the time of her death, she was living with her "father-in-law", Judge Lowell. To answer your 2nd question, that's another Jim Lowell altogether. Jimmy Lowell (aka Dan Stewart) was Tim Cole and Ellen Lowell's son, who was put up for adoption. The article here is about his uncle.--Sethacus 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good look at the article just makes you scratch your head and then the history by its creator, blanking the warning and what not, indicates that even the person who created the page doesn't exactly know what they are doing. If you see date of birth and death, they are a year apart while there is also an age listed and a link to a real person who was born in the 1800s. We, those who work on the soap projects, are trying to clean messes like this up but unnecessary creation just makes it harder to do so effectively.IrishLass0128 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is beguiling, to say the least. The user seems to have started with a different character, then changed their mind and went with this one. The user is a newbie (as you're well aware), but being new isn't grounds to delete the article. However, I do think you're missing my point. I'm not voting to keep the article. I do believe, as a plausible search term for ATWT fans, soap fans and soap historians, it should be deleted and redirected, and, actually, I've changed my mind on the redirect destination to History of As the World Turns (1956-1959). I'm also going to drop a line to Soapfan91, to get more input than just two people.--Sethacus 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do see that he's new and while that doesn't automatically constitute deletion of a page he's created, it seems that just adding a page and then vandalizing it by removing warnings should constitute something. I'm fine with a redirect but who are we redirecting is the question at this time. I was not missing your point, just addressing the non-sensicality of the page. He's seemingly made his input by deleting the page for deletion box but I agree, he needs to speak up. IrishLass0128 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as redirect to Definitely Maybe. KrakatoaKatie 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slide Away[edit]

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Unreferenced fancruft about an album track which was never released as a single. John 14:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. --Gwern (contribs) 17:42 15 October 2007 (GMT)

Comment I have made this article a redirect to Definitely Maybe. I withdraw the AfD. --John 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmah's Fifth Studio Album[edit]

Crystal ballery. Only source is the band's own site. No bias against later recreation, when an actual title is known and sourcing is availible, but for now, this is IMHO just not useful. TexasAndroid 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information belongs on the Kalmah article (though it is questionable as to whether or not it should even appear there as it is surely promotional). Renee 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle William's third studio album[edit]

Unsourced crystal-ballery. TexasAndroid 14:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute nothingness. Renee 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Untitled album that is poorly sourced. --Alessandro 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudvayne's fourth studio album[edit]

Nothing against have an article under the real name once such is known and can be sourced, but for now there is almost nothing here, and what is here is very much Crystal-ballery. TexasAndroid 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information belongs on the Mudvayne article (though it is questionable as to whether or not it should even appear there as it is surely promotional). Renee 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion requested by author. W.marsh 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salavat/Uploaded Video Game Covers (page 2)[edit]

Accidental creation (article instead of a userpage), please delete Salavat 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you can go ahead and tag it with ((db-author)), which is author-requested speedy deletion. shoy 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alice Academy characters[edit]

Completely in-universe catalog of characters. Extremely long and full of unnecessary detail. We already have a perfectly good article on Alice Academy that contains character detail. Tony Sidaway 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this cruftmungous agglomeration of fair use images and in-universe description sourced from personal observations of the subject. Substantially in excess of any provable independent significance of these individual characters. Cruftbane 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't put it any better than Cruftbane did! Cruftmungous agglomeration indeed. Renee 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into Alice Academy, which lists only a handful of the main characters (as it should per WP:SS, given the list article). The list is indeed overlong and -detailed, but some secondary characters who affect the story in significant ways should be retained by someone with sufficient knowledge of the series. (Which is, yes, arguing for saving some information based on in-universe notability, but as WP:FICT says, out-of-universe notability is a guideline limiting the existence of the article, not of sections within it.) —Quasirandom 16:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this extremely long and full of unnecessary detail? There's like 10 sentences total - for the protagonist! A list of this length is perfectly normal for an anime as heavily character-based as Alice Academy seems to be, and a slash-and-burn-merge would not seem to be tenable - any description of the story detailed enough to not be total crap would need to link to this list anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 17:49 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep but redo. I haven't seen this show or read the manga, but it looks like there are more characters than should be covered (though I could be wrong). Considering how many ((Main)) templates I keep seeing on this page, it looks like a prime location to rebuild and cleanup. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, I would like to agree with Gwern. A slash-and-burn-merge would not seem to be tenable - true, the detailed information would be gone. However, as Ned Scott says, it needs to be rebuild and cleanup - I agree with that. Then, lets use both users suggestions - Don't merge but rebuild (using all the information that we have on the page and try to verify them) and cleanup. Furthermore, I think it's perfectly normal for a series like Alice Academy to have such a long list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Lim88 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Each character is not extremely long, but I could do without the character profile (the blood type, nickname, ect...). Why is the questioned article itself not tagged that it is up for AfD? (Duane543 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- An anon removed it and I guess no one noticed. [33] I have since restored the tag. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as serious violations of WP:BLP and WP:POV. Bearian 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mette Marit’s controversial past[edit]

Irreparable WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. MER-C 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOT - Myanw 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something less tabloid-ish and clean-up. This was well-covered in the intl. news and merits its own article. JJL 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced gossip and possible violation of BLP. Plus, there's already an article on Mette Marit and any of this information should appear there, if sourced. Renee 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Mette Marit article already mentions some of this with due weight (although no sources). This is a POV fork that only mentions negative incidents and does not show why any of them are important. --Dhartung | Talk 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like the Norwegian Fergie. No need for ANY article about "___'s controversial past" whether it's George W. Bush or Pope Benedict XVI or Tom Cruise. Mandsford 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant violation of WP:BLP, should not be included in an encyclopedia. --Kyoko 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. Punkmorten 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extreme BLP violation, all of the necessary information can be properly sourced and included in her main article. Corvus cornix 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageable. --John 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yancey's Fancy[edit]

Reason Toddstreat1 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, single source, not independent Toddstreat1 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several references, and will throw them into the discussion: [34] [35] [36] Yng varr 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for bringing them up. I saw them too, but they looked like press releases. No authors, just dates posted. I could be wrong. There was no press release section on the company website. Toddstreat1 13:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure, but the third one I gave is some sort of award they won. If that's worthy enough to be called "notable", I'm not sure, but just wanted to bring it up and see what discussion brings. Yng varr 14:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A half-century and older artisanal cheese maker has probably won more than a few awards and been written about; the references may not have materialized just yet, but when they seem likely to, I think it's a good thing to err on the side of caution. It's not like anyone will be offended or outraged by this kind of article... --Gwern (contribs) 17:47 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete until reliable sources are provided. WP:V is policy, people. We don't keep things on the off chance that maybe, someday, somebody might come up with a source. Corvus cornix 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [37], many of those aren't press releases, as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sgsmun[edit]

Per WP:BOLLOCKS Although the event may be real (no Ghits except some obscure forums and the article itself), it's more likely something made up in school. Myanw 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, essentially unsourceable, and reads like something just made up. Cruftbane 14:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G1, nonsense. I could understand treating it as a hoax until the second big paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Valley Museum[edit]

This article was originally speedy deleted as CSD A7. DRV determined that an assertion of notability did exist, so the article is submitted for AfD. This version is currently unsourced, but the DRV uncovered possible sources, which commenters here may wish to review. Deletion is on the table, given continued notability concerns. Xoloz 12:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Durant, Oklahoma. The museum has little or no independent coverage, and looks like the run-of-the-mill small town museum which are common throughout the United States. Nonetheless, the city of Durant confirms its existence [38] and I have no reason to doubt the museum's webpage when it says it has the artifacts listed in the article [39]. Information on cultural life in a small town is welcome, and this museum should fit neatly into the article we have on the town. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, a sentence or two will do. All but the tiniest towns have a museum or two of this type, and they generally have no particular notability outside being a small collection of artifacts of local interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick google search yields 2,100+ hits, including some coverage in major and minor regional papers. As per a civic site and this (not a source), it's in a stand-alone building, two stories, and open daily. It's been open for 30+ years. Not sure I understand the comment about small towns and every town having one. At just under 40,000 people Durant is not a small town by Oklahoma standards. That puts it somewhere around the 800th largest city in the US. It appears to be one of the significant civic institutions in the town. Even if it's true that every town has one, we already have 2 million + articles; surely there is room in a fully built out Wikipedia for several hundred city museums articles if they are otherwise notable. Wikidemo 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneycomb[edit]

Wikipedia is not for games made up in school one day. About 25 unique ghits, zero reliable sources. MER-C 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it does not appear to be made up in school, it is WP:NN and provides no WP:RS. It is also WP:OR and WP:POV. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Evb-wiki 13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:SOURCES, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV Rackabello 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because there are no other articles on the moneycomb game either on Wikipedia or the entire WWW. It has a source (myself) and edited by others so it is a neutral point of view. It wasnt made up in school, it is a popular game on the itbox machine which is played regularly. I dont really see what the problem of having it on is, there are some awful pages on wikipedia and this is not one of them. Cliff 18th October 2007 23:50

Delete - Should have a paragraph like similiar games, but not significant enough for its own article. Also, Wikipedia articles need published sources to verify information, which aren't available here. shoeofdeath 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — since this is a complicated closure, I will add some closing comments.

While there are legitimate concerns over the timing of this discussion, given that the last one was only a month ago, I must note that both of the prior discussions closed without a consensus; not, as some users in this discussion believe as a "keep". When a discussion is closed as "no consensus" that means there was not a consensus to do anything; keep, or delete. In most cases, this leads to a default keep, since the default is inclusion except in extraordinary cases. Thus, the fact that it survived previous AfDs is not a endorsement of this article's status, nor is re-nominating it "another spin at the AfD roulette wheel" (since roulette ends in a clear win/lose outcome). While the timing might be a little soon, it is not disruptively so, and I don't believe that it prejudiced the discussion in such a way that I cannot determine a consensus from it.

Now, with that said, there were a number of arguments brought forward here — discounting rationales addressed by the above, there remain an number of arguments which do not present a clear rationale supported. Simply commenting "game cruft" or "Why this and not that" does not help us determine consensus, though the former is more useful than the latter. While there were good arguments made on both sides, the consensus of the debate tends towards a belief that the external notability of the subject is not well-established by reliable sources. While it is clear that World of Warcraft is notable, consensus appears that it is not clear that these classes are sufficiently notable to provide a useful and encyclopedic sub-article. Most of the keep articles centered around it being a legitimate daughter page of a larger, more notable article — however, this does not address the concerns with respect to notability in a way which gained consensus here.

Since there are merger concerns, I'm taking the advice noted in the discussion and redirecting to World of Warcraft, in order to allow for these concerns to be addressed. --Haemo 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in World of Warcraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stricken Withdrawn Yng varr 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this supposed to be called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)? I hope the nominator read the two other discussions before nominating this article. I fear the rationale for deletion here is a bit concise. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a month and 4 days after the last AfD closed. What has changed since then to warrant this article being deleted? Raoul 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What's wrong with the reason given for deletion? There are no reliable sources to assert notability in the real world. (Disclosure: I have not edited this article at all). shoy 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Vote struck for now. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can be (and is) reliably sourced to the game documentation, Blizzard's official website, and reasonably trustworthy sites made by players. "Cruft" is not a reason to delete this, and boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The information here is extensive enough that it should not be merged into the article in chief on World of Warcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Video Games article guidelines:

"A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

"Content that may be moved to gaming wikis:

Lists of statistics, items, or other minutiae"

In short, Wikipedia is not a game guide. shoy 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking some comments. Some sections need a sledgehammer taken to them for getting too much into gameplay mechanics. It should be noted as well that a wiki is generally not a reliable source. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Smerdis. If it can only be sourced from primary or unreliable sources, then that's a pretty good indication we should not have an article. Per policy we are supposed to work from reliable secondary sources and not be a directory or just a collection of information - sure we can use primary sources sometimes, but not if they are all that exist. I tend to draw a distinction between facts and knowledge; this is facts not knowledge. Cruftbane 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is not already one someone needs to make a WOW wiki, that would be where this stuff belongs.Ridernyc 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Millions of books have specifically been written about history. Millions of books have not been specifically written about "classes in World of Warcraft". shoy 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're oversimplifying to prove your point. Comparing "classes in World of Warcraft" to "history" is like comparing apples to orange plantations. Let's level the playing field: The article Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya is currently featured in the "Did You Know..." section of the main page. Searching for "Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya" in Google yields 10 results. On the other hand, searching for Medivh warcraft yields 1,590,000 results. I think it's safe to say that "millions of books" have not been written about Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya, or even that anyone without an interest in obscure entomological textbooks written in Bengali cares about who he was. Meanwhile, there seems to be a significant amount of interest in Medivh, a character from World of Warcraft. It's looking more and more like your various reasons for supporting these AfDs can all be boiled down to a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with WP:WHOCARES. -Rhrad 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't the one who brought up history in general as an example. And I rather dislike the suggestion that I'm making these points on the basis of some personal vendetta against WoW. I just happen to dislike the misuse of policy. shoy 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last discussion was only about a month ago. The game is notable enough that there will be an interest inthis kind of material and we shouldn't be exclusive of our readers and potential editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as last time. The article does not violate WP:NOT. The volume of information on the subject and the amount of press coverage suggests, to me at least, that the topic is notable. Primary sources are reliable in this sort of article, and I really can't understand Cruftbane's opinion that the article should be removed because it is all facts. It is true that it has no real world relevance outside of the subject and the people who would be interested in it, but that is true of any article from Google to water. My reasons may seem a bit concise and poorly argued, but having participated in the two previous deletion discussions I cannot be bothered to go over all of it again, so you can look in those topics for clearer arguments. Raoul 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like another spin at the AfD roulette wheel. I found persusasive looking at how many articles needed to link here and also considering that somewhere upwards of 8 million people play/have-played as these classes. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 15 October 2007 (GMT)

It still fails WP:N, as despite that 8 million players are within these classes, they are still only notable to World of Warcraft players. Having survived the previous AfDs does not justify its survival in this one. IAmSasori 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close Nuisance nom way too soon after the last one. Artw 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WoWwiki and redirect to Warcraft. I feel that it would be better for all parties if game help and in-universe articles were found there, and that it would improve the encyclopedic quality of WoW articles on wikipedia.--victor falk 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as this is clearly a plot or character summary. For clear guidance on this issue, see the Video games guidelines which state that articles "should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". --Gavin Collins 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long, and as WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the #Gameplay section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article. Melsaran (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The main article provides real world influence of the game, but this article is of a completely different nature. Whereas Poker Gameplay provides context, analysis and a history of the development of the game, this article does not provide any useful content as it comprises entirely of game guide and plot or character summary. The video guidlines go on to state "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. This guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a game guide." This article contravenes these guidelines. Also there are insufficient footnotes to demonstrate the notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 12:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much so overly detailed game guide information. Not notable otherwise.--SeizureDog 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: there is no reason to delete this and not the individual articles for D&D classes. It might be overly long, but certainly if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes. C mon 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The individual DnD class articles of which you speak should also be deleted. Also, "if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes" is a bad point to make at this point considering the races are also going through afd.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We went through it several times, each time with "keep" result. And this nomination by a clearly disruptive user should probably not change much. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's been kept before" is not a valid reason to continue to keep the article. This is not a vote, support your case.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defaulting to keep In all honesty I don't know exactly where to stand, in the lights of the Runescape AfD. My guts tell me that this subarticle of World of Warcraft is notable per the notability of its parent. I think it avoids being a gameguide (read the first AfD for my rationale). I agree that it fails in adressing its own notability, but I am not sure how much to ponder both arguments. I am therefore defaulting to keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. My opinion is that it is in this case (it's really a subarticle that can't fit the main article (when for example PvP and Reputation articles can be merged)). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. We're not a game guide. As to having survived before — mistakes happen; learn from them, don't repeat them. --Jack Merridew 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. This AFD is longer than the article itself at this point. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family guy episode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Family guy episode

An overall bad page, plus it is unneeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrisbara (talk • contribs) 2007/10/13 23:29:28

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, possibly speedy. We already have List of Family Guy episodes for this. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an incomplete starter for a list of Family Guy episodes. The problem is that there is already a complete List of Family Guy episodes, so there's nothing new here. I wouldn't redirect, just delete. Yng varr 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yeah a redirect wouldn't make sense either since no pages link to it. *Cremepuff 222* 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pages in the article namespace at least. *Cremepuff 222* 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of search terms, but this article has no future either way. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Evidently a test to see if this is worthy of an article, turns out to be redundant, go no further. Mandsford 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely, per above. Not even worth redirecting. --Gwern (contribs) 17:51 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Speedy delete for all the reasons mentioned above. CG 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete already have page for this text. Carter | Talk to me 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above comments. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Family Guy episodes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the article doesn't make much sense, but there's no reason not to redirect. 96T 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not redirect. The name is not even good as a redirection page. -- Magioladitis 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a stub version of List of Family Guy episodes. As pointed out above, a redirect wouldn't be necessary as there's no pages linking to it. Spellcast 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge back. W.marsh 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant[edit]

This issue was raised at a similar page page, so it might as well be raised here as well. Delete per WP:IINFO#IINFO Zodiiak 12:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Kobe Bryant. If someone says that the Kobe Bryant article is already too large, do like Kobe does and make it more muscle and less fat. Mandsford 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the important stuff is already in the Kobe Bryant article, and anything else worth mentioning can be merged there. Like Mandsford says, the Bryant page can always be trimmed down. For example, is the flagrant foul on Kyle Korver really that important? Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Remove most of the trivial/obscure things, and put the basics back in the main article. Dannycali 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Per policy it should be deleted. Rememeber Wikipedia is not a list. :) Thanks ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just by being a list doesn't mean it "fails WP:NOT#DIR". Perhaps the nom should become acquainted with WP:LISTS, not to mention the text of WP:NOT#DIR that clearly states lists are permitted per policy. Franz Liszt (no pun intended) was one of the most prolific and popular composers of the Romantic era and certainly a list of his compositions, which are far too great in number to be included in the Franz Liszt main article, is both 100% encyclopedic and verifiable. --Oakshade 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm less than certain about what procedure I'm supposed to use here, but I'd like to point out that WP:NOT#DIR says that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." Certainly as long as Bach's compositions or Chopin's or Debussy's are considered relevant information, Liszt's should be as well.--Sermesara 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with a Liszt list. One of the great composers, as anyone who's ever played 'Consolation' will attest. This information is obviously encyclopedic but equally can't go into his main biographical article, it seems an obvious thing to have and a strange thing to want to delete. Many of these individual pieces could have their own articles and this list might turn into a useful repository of red links still to do. Nick mallory 12:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator seems to have misunderstood the guidelines.--Michig 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Liszt's contributions are prolific enough that this is not an unnecessary article. Yng varr 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I will assume good faith but this easily passes WP:LISZT. --Dhartung | Talk 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sometimes I'm glad punnery is not a bannable offense. Even for megaton-warhead classes of puns. ARGH! —Quasirandom 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure why this was nominated. Ridernyc 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a list - that's spelled out in WP:NOT#DIR. This item up for deletion is a list. NO brainer - it fails WP:NOT#DIR. 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

Comment, to quote the WP:NOT#DIR policy that you keep referring to, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". Perhaps you should have another read of the guidelines (including WP:LISTS) and reconsider this nomination.--Michig 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kosh Volrlon, if you want WP:NOT#DIR to mean that no lists are allowed, you have to make your case at the talk page of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, not attempt to delete an article based only on standards you wish WP:NOT#DIR had. Otherwise this AfD appears a case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having lists of works in this encyclopedia of ours, especially when we're talking such famous artists as Liszt. 96T 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This complements the Franz Liszt article, in the same way that many important writers or composers have a separate article to list their works. Goochelaar 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not a directory. A list of a composer's notable compositions, or an actor's film appearances, a sculptor's sculptures, etc. does not constitute a directory. Especially considering that the vast majority are links to Wikipedia articles. If a person has so many accomplishments that an expansion list is called for, then it's a legitimate list, and not a directory. The Transhumanist 06:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Goochelaar Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Angelo 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Fans[edit]

Merge with main page, previously contested prod WikiGull 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already mentioned on Retired numbers in football (soccer), but Reading Fans isn't really a suitable redirect for it. If the bit about them being the first club to retire a number for their fans can be verified by a third party source then that could be merged, though I'm doubtful of the accuracy of the claim. Oldelpaso 09:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The exact same information appears in Reading F.C. (the citations weren't there, but I've just copied them across). Not notable enough to break out into its own article. --Jameboy 14:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oldelpaso and Jameboy. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not valid as a standalone article, already merged with main article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and duplicates the paragraph in the Reading F.C. article. --Malcolmxl5 07:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oldelpaso and Refsworldlee. Qwghlm 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never made an appearance in a fully professional league, despite having had a squad number for 6 years :-) ChrisTheDude 06:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (Imogen Heap song)[edit]

The Walk Votes Opptain Or Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoopdaddy (talk • contribs) 2007/10/14 18:22:04

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no reason for nomination is given ChrisTheDude 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete song article with no information that makes no claims to notability.Ridernyc 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One would conceivably link to this and there might one day be an article there. --Gwern (contribs) 17:51 15 October 2007 (GMT)
Redirect to the album article (Speak for Yourself), as is done with non-notable songs. --Agüeybaná 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot, article was speedily deleted as copyvio by User:W.marsh. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ageing workers[edit]

ProD template removed without discussion. This seems to be speculation and WP:OR with no sources cited. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio from http://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus.html . Tagged. MER-C 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mint popping[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable drinking game. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. Delete. Evb-wiki 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete made up in school one long drunken week. JJL 14:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed-D. While it may not clearly fall into the standard WP:CSD categories, it should under WP:SNOW assuming no significant (and reasonably argued) objection is raised on some proper grounds. Non-notable local frat or party game, not reliably sourced, no assertion of notability, an original-thought and made up how-to guide for getting drunker. No realistic hope of improving article - clearly made up by the boys - Stevo, Kiwi, Teeps, Big D, Si Man the Man Man and Irish, bless their hearts. If it becomes a notably national or global trend, like Beer pong has, then maybe we can talk. In fact a merge/redirect to Beer Pong might be an alternative solution, if there is a significant and a well-reasoned desire to keep the contents - especially if this game is in the process of spreading far beyond the creators. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of optimal completeness, an argument to keep was made within the article when the prod was removed. --Evb-wiki 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good heads-up. I also added that "Why this should stay" commentary verbatim into the article's talk page for easy reference by others. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per common sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Bamford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Biography and Obituary without meeting notability requirements Creslyn 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a memorial service. JJL 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - LB was an outstanding pioneer in Numismatics and this is an excellent summary of his life and times. No doubt Spink would verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney500asc (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — Sydney500asc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP - Laurie Bamford's legacy, British coin collecting, is one for all to cherish. His skills and help offered were second-to-none and he certainly must remain in British numismatic

history. Comment added by Mandtplatt 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — Mandtplatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics --victor falk 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage of this guy outside of a handful of message board posts and blogs. -Drdisque 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 11:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Does not fail WP:BIO or WP:N. Check Mr Bamford's history and achievements in the British numismatic arena. All 'deletes' are appearing from USA users of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.226.234 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be happy to change my vote if WP:RS was satisfied. But the article's author should ensure that it proves notability rather than suggesting others must dis-prove it. JJL 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He reprisented the British bronze penny collecting market and must not be forgotten! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiseon (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC) "KEEP".....A true gentleman who was happy to share his considerable knowledge of Victorian bronze pennies. Nice to be able to learn more about this man too. Good article![reply]

Comment JJL's approach appears to suggest that because Laurie Bamford has 'no claim to fame in his eyes' that the well-written article attributed to Mr Bamford in Wikipedia should be deleted. According to other comments made, he clearly possessed notability in the British Numismatic world. However, we must thank JJL for offering to 'change his vote' and allow him time to familiarise himself with what Bamford had achieved in the world of British numismatics. References can be checked with Spink and Son in London as well as Dix, Noonan and Webb and, of course, Croydon Coin Auctions which he helped to run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.226.234 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. KrakatoaKatie 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British School[edit]

This is a semi-procedural nom; please see Talk:The British School#Requested move for the details. To summarize:

According to the discussion, there is no umbrella organization for "(The) British Schools" abroad whatsoever. The article does say that IGCSE has something to do with it, but does not offer any proof. There's some directory of schools at the British Council website, but it matches the one in the article only partially: some schools are in both, some are only in the article, some only at the website, and some have changed names.
Thus, all the schools listed have only one thing in common: they're named "British School" for one reason or another. They don't form any kind of organization or union. This appears to be a trivial intersection.
The article thus serves only a list of external links, violating WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
There's no evidence of notability of the individual entries. Duja► 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several existing articles for these schools, which are now linked within this list, and there seem to be several more with articles. The article makes no claim that there is a central organization for "The British School", other than offering the IGCSE curriculum. WP:NOT#DIR, one of the most abused and selectively misinterpreted policies in Wikipedia, provides no category that would fit this clearly-defined and unambiguous list. Theis list, organized and categorized by location, fits the textbook definition of lists covered by WP:LIST. Alansohn 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly-defined" in this case means "has words 'British' and 'school' in the title". Not exactly my favorite list criteria. Duja► 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a mere repository of links, albeit divided neatly into country sections. Although there is no claim in the article that any educational body calling itself 'The British School of ...' is officially recognized as the official British representative school in any country, a casual reader of the article would be inclined wrongly to such a misleading and implicit conclusion. To leave the page in existence would foster this misunderstanding. The many quality British international schools without 'The British School' in their title have missed the cut here. The flipside of this statement could well be true. Artdesigns2006 04:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though there may be an article here somewhere this is not it. Springnuts 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus School of Primary Education[edit]

Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Twenty Years 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted, and does not appear to be notable. Lankiveil 09:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Userfy so as to fulfil WP:LOCAL in the near future. JRG 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mockingboid[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day! (It's not a typo, it's spelt the same way in the lead.) 10 ghits. MER-C 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NN with no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. I don't care what Miss Maudie says. Ichormosquito 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(giving a air-rifle) Now kill the bluejays. SYSS Mouse 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability of any kind established. Can't find any independent sources. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
summarily Execution - just in case it escapes from the prison. SYSS Mouse 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to kill a mockingbird? Delete it. Claims to fame are in no way true. - Che Nuevara 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lame comic made by a 5th grader. Also anyone else notice the "book" section that has says there is no book foreverDEAD 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Inn Tennis Courts[edit]

"New Inn Tennis Courts is a small, all weather multi use sport facility found in Pontypool, Torfaen, South Wales." And that's about it, nothing more worthwhile can be said about the place. Article is unverifiable with 3 ghits. MER-C 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That pretty much sums it up, there are no refs, any searches really turn up no refs, and the article doesn't make much of an argument for notability other than the statement Although the facility is not anything that would make the area proud and draw in viewers, it is home to the legendary local tennis courts team: N.I.T.C. F.C (New Inn Tennis Courts Football Club). Yng varr 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk article, just some random tennis court. Keb25 11:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spray with Windex-- I mean Delete junk JuJube 06:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nery saenz[edit]

Non-notable comedian. Article is unverifiable - there's about 42 unique ghits and zero reliable third party coverage. MER-C 10:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. (No, he isn't Horatio Sanz's brother.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, again, this was already deleted per CSD A7 here a few months ago. Still no evidence of notability. shoeofdeath 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of BitTorrent[edit]

This page is vague and has no clear purpose. I don't see any way it can be saved, so I'm nominating it for deletion. The first point that must be made is that BitTorrent itself, as a protocol, is no more illegal than FTP or HTTP are. All can be used to do illegal things, but so can common items such as knives and cars. Therefore, the very title is intentionally misleading, as nobody credible is claiming that the BitTorrent protocol is illegal. Now let me go into more depth. The 3 main sections of the article all seem to cover separate topics.

The first is pretty much a summary of websites which distribute .torrent files to copyrighted material, and description of legal action taken against those websites. This content belongs on the articles for the websites themselves, there is no need for a separate article about them. Maybe make a list or category of websites that had legal action taken against them due to copyright claims?

The second section is a brief description of an agreement made by BitTorrent Inc. and the MPAA. This belongs in the article for BitTorrent Inc.

The third section is a brief explanation about how the BitTorrent protocol may not allow for anonymity. This belongs in the article about the BitTorrent protocol, and it should be there, possibly under a different heading. There is no evidence that the facts stated in this section have any bearing on the legality of BitTorrent.

In conclusion, this article has no place in Wikipedia, it is merely a collection of disparate information that is better placed elsewhere in the encyclopedia, under a misleading title. Icestryke 09:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was split from BitTorrent for being largely useless to the protocol article; if nobody is stepping up to make it a better article it's not doing the encyclopedia any good. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information is valid and verifiable, and there are plenty of refs in the article (I haven't looked at all of them, there's 20 of them). It might be worthwhile to consider renaming this something like Legal cases involving BitTorrent trackers or something, so that it's clear this is not claiming that the BT protocol itself is illegal. Yng varr 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Question & comments What is the size of the original article? If it was split due to being over 50 kb, then there is on reason for it to be kept. Long articles can loose their focus. A makor keep point would be regarding the legality of the file swapping services in general. It is a major, notable issue in the media, content creation and computer/networking industries. Maybe this article could be moved to or merged into a general article addressing the legal issues for the peer-to-peer sharing companies.- Jeremy (Jerem43 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, more than notable enough to justify its size and existence, merging into bittorent would make that article too large and unfocused--victor falk 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keeping as a standalone article or merging could be further discussed, but that doesn't require an AFD. W.marsh 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munchkin (role-playing game)[edit]

This article provides no context, analysis or secondary sources as evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 09:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game. Keb25 09:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Steve Jackson (U.S.) game, based on the Munchkin (card game) game. Steve Jackson is notable for several reasons, which is detailed in his article, as are his games. Yng varr 10:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this article, I have no knowledge of whether the game sold well or is otherwise notable. Just wanted to note that if consensus is to remove this article, then a redirect to Munchkin (role-playing games) would be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to the very notable Munchkin (card game). Chunky Rice 13:12, 15 October 2007 Change to redirect, as almost the entire content of this article is already present in the card game article. -Chunky Rice 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and fix, or Merge The subject matter is notable enough for inclusion, even if the article hasn't included references yet. Rray 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Chunky Rice's suggestion. A quick online search earlier didn't seem to turn up much (your results may vary). Of course this doesn't hit all possible print sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. This has already been effectively merged, as this is mentioned in the article for Munchkin (card game) already. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Munchkin (card game) unless reliable sources are found to establish the notability of the RPG. While Steve Jackson Games is a notable publisher, that does not confer automatic notability on each of their games enough for an article. I would vote for a merge if it weren't already in the article on the (more widely noted) card game. Barno 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Munchkin (card game) (or is all the material already there?). Goochelaar 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rray. Highly notable game and I'm surprised it's got to here. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per above. — RJH (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Due to low participation, I will reconsider if anyone presents some evidence to me of coverage by reliable sources. W.marsh 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubdef.net[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, vaguely asserts notability. Alexa rank is 2785377. MER-C 08:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Struggle[edit]

The only thing that stopped me from tagging this for speedy deletion (criteria A7 for web content) is the claim that it has been played more than 40 million times, which I suppose is some form of assertion of importance. However, this is not the same as notability, which the article does not show, nor are there any references other than the official website. Google search reveals no reliable sources. Propose deletion on the grounds of our notability guidelines (WP:N) and verifiability policy WP:V. Marasmusine 07:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forty million's a lot, but nothing turns up on Google to prove notability. Miremare 13:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to demonstrate notability and none found by a quick search - just plenty of 'stumble upon's etc. Someone another 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilf Cox[edit]

Notable only in death, single event biography. Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a memorial. MER-C 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons stated above, does not link anywhere, is not categorized, lacks any Wikilinks, and as mentioned the person is not notable excluding his death.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person, even his death. It's sad when a cop gets killed, but WP is not a memorial. TJ Spyke 05:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- per above, not a memorialJJJ999 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination statement. It's sad when everyone passes away, but we aren't a memorial. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants the text to merge into some of these other character pages, it can be provided. KrakatoaKatie 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Universe characters on Smallville[edit]

This article is completely redundant to Smallville characters (season 1), Smallville characters (season 2), Smallville characters (season 3), Smallville characters (season 4), Smallville characters (season 5), Smallville characters (season 6), Smallville characters (season 7). We don't need a separate list just for the ones from the comics. Simply linking their names on the appropriate season page will do the trick. Most importantly, it's a show about Superman, technically they are all DC universe characters. We shouldn't confuse "comic universe" with DC universe. Regardless, there does not need to be a separate page that links and describes characters in an in-universe way, when we have other pages that alreadly do exactly what this one does. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just for being a stupid list, but also redundant.JJJ999 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid title and a redundant article. Alientraveller 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting this comprehensive and well-presented article with other similar articles mentioned above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not comprehensive: it is just fiction. Alientraveller 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just fiction? DUH. This is more effective an arrangement than the lists of "season 1 characters", "season 2 characters," etc. The Smallville series has, over the last six years, managed to incorporate various aspects of the mythos into its retelling of the Superman saga, but only by some major revisions. The significance of this is that the television drama takes poetic license in adapting the kid's comic to a more adult version. Thus, Mr. Mxyzptlk becomes a foreign exchange student rather than a mischievious imp; Lex Luthor is a wealthy man in his 20s rather than Clark's friend, Pete Ross is African-American instead of a blond headed white kid with a crewcut, etc. Even the continuing characters are different than the Silver Age version of Superboy, with more steamy romance than could ever be featured in the 12 cent comic books. Lana was fooled by his glasses, and definitely never went to bed with him, on the comic book pages. Mandsford 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, characters are mentioned on their respective seasons, we don't need a separate list for that. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for fictional character biographies. Comparing comic to television would be considered original research, and you still have to follow the guideline for writing about fiction. Redundant page to what already exists and covers for all these characters. It's all expanded plot descriptions. All these characters are not only mentioned in other lists, but have their own articles as well. No need for this list to repeat what is said on various other pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there even needs to be lists of characters?17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot list them all on the main article, heck, the list itself would be too much for the season articles. There are far too many main guest stars, hence why it is better to have a list for the characters than create 100+ separate character articles which do not meet WP:FICT. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to edit and not mention 100 Characters. Not every chaacter needs to be mentioned. Ridernyc 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the pages, and the characters that are there are generally ones that have something to do with the plot of their respective episodes. It isn't "Joe Schmoe walking down the street", it's the particular Freak of the Week, or what have you. Again, the issues with those pages (if you have them, take them there) are not the problem with this page. This is redundant to those and the main page. "Kara" is on the main page, as are Jimmy and Pete, as they are main cast members. We couldn't possibly list all of the actual DC Comics characters that appear on the show on the main page, it would make the page far too long (and since there are more important matters in regards to the show itself) that is why they there all split in the first place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly redundant. Says nothing which can't be said on a "List of Smallville characters" page, or on the characters' own pages. If there is significant changes from the source material, it can be mentioned in a "In mass media" section of that character's page. Some, such as Aquaman, even have "In mass media" articles to themselves. There is no need whatsoever for this article to exist. What does it tell us that can't be found elsewhere? Oh, and covering fictional information in explicit detail and pointing out differences between medias without sources isn't comprehensiveness. Paul730 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these should be small references in the main article. Ridernyc 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Cruft and can easily be merged into list of smallville characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to redundancy of list -- guest stars are adequately covered in seasonal pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Torres[edit]

Non-notable person. Being a distinguished scholar does not make a person notable - it just suggests that someone thinks they might be notable at some point. I also can't find any evidence on the web that a 'Torres' has published the article attributed to him - not that one article published and two in the pipeline = notable.Anarchia 04:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be an extremely literate hoax (the meaning of the meaning of meaning?). Google Scholar gives zero hits for this name, either as Philip or Phillip, and Harvard.edu doesn't return anything for either name, let alone as a distinguished scholar. Google and Google News return zero relevant hits for the name, with or without "the meaning of meaning". I can't accept that this meets WP:Verifiable unless I've really been misled, which is possible. If there was a citation for this "influential paper", I might be more convinced.Accounting4Taste 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the editor who removed the speedy deletion tag as the article asserts the notability of the topic, I searched for net clues on this person and couldn't find anything on anybody with this name related to Harvard. Unless somebody shows this isn't a hoax, I'll have to say delete. --Oakshade 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per reasons stated by Accounting4Taste and my own search found nothing that proves this person even exists, let alone is a "Distinguished Scholar."
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Suspect this may be a hoax of some sort. I couldn't verify that this person has any affiliation with Harvard. There seem to be multiple people named Phillip Torres, which is unsurprising given the wide use of the name Torres, but none of them seem to be the person described in this article, and none of them seem to be distinguished philosophers. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, two users beat me to it after an edit conflict. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a Phillip Torres who presented a paper on the philosophy of science involving Kuhn this year, but the program is for undergraduates. Seems like a fantasy CV. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Without references to go on, the name "Phillip J. Torres" is too vague per XDanielx. A Google Scholar search with Hilary Putnam brings up 1 Philip J. Torres paper at a different university and no longer online. • Gene93k 12:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Fox[edit]

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability (being on one writer's list of 10 cool clones hardly counts). The article is entirely in-universe plot summary; the lack of reliable sources makes it impossible for it to pass WP:WAF. --EEMeltonIV 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sergeant Fox=awesome=notable. Bobsbasement 04:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notable=independent sources with real-world context. --B. Wolterding 14:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, cruft. Keb25 05:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks any real secondary sources and isn't notable in anyway; if we allow this character we might as well allow every single character from every fiction piece to have their own biography.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in universe cruftJJJ999 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is comparable to how Wikipedia used to have articles on every single Pokemon. This is the very definition of fancruft. At the very least, this should be redirected to a more appropriate article. Life, Liberty, Property 06:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable figure, doesn't deserve its own article. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. Isn't there a list of clonetroopers this could be merged into? Based on the Wookieepedia article, he certainly seems a relatively important clonetrooper. --Gwern (contribs) 17:55 15 October 2007 (GMT)

Answer - The list of clone troopers and the list of clone trooper commanders were deleted as unsourced and non-notable. --EEMeltonIV 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to low participation, I will reconsider if anyone presents some evidence to me of coverage by reliable sources W.marsh 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woopbug[edit]

Non-notable computer bug; Google hits for "Woopbug" number just over one hundred, most of them forums of some kind. Not positive on inclusion, so I'm bringing it here for consensus. GlassCobra 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep It meets WP:CORP but improvements are needed though.--JForget 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play It Again Sports[edit]

notability, and advertisemnt Marlith ^T/C 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks okay to me, and Google gives back 240,000 hits. Tag it with ((advert)) if you want. GlassCobra 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe needs a rewrite and more info, but is notable enough. See Big 5 Sporting Goods and REI. You can also tag it with ((expand)) if you want.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmmm. i think that this is notable enough.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Torc2 07:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable as one of the first successful used goods reseller concepts back in the late 80's-early 90's. Needs serious expansion, however. Nate 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Adler[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Besides that it is unreferenced, it is badly written. After slogging through the article, one should realize that it is the subject's brother that might be notable. Brewcrewer 04:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Baffling to me why this wasn't written about the brother, who seems potentially notable, but this individual has no notability, asserted or cited, and doesn't meet WP:BIO. If this was re-written so as to be about the brother, and better referenced, it might be useable. Accounting4Taste 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN crime figure. The creator Dudeaaro (talk · contribs) apparently has not returned after a one-month block, in part for creating too many copyvio/NN articles. --Dhartung | Talk 11:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hall High School[edit]

This is a newer school and lacks the notability of older schools, no sources were given and no hits were found on Google News. Marlith ^T/C 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's non-notable because it's "newer"? No valid criteria has been given for deletion. Besides, it's actually an affiliate of the historic Convent of the Sacred Heart High School, but this wing was created for boys (the former is girls). ~~Giving some WP:OR here, I know personally the buildings are attached.~~ WP:OUTCOMES shows that WP:CONSENSUS has stipulated that high/secondary schools are notable and the nom has given no reason to single this one out to delete. --Oakshade 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHHS and Convent are ten blocks away from each other actually. Convent is a notable school, but not SHHS. Marlith ^T/C 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it on the 10 blocks, but they are affiliated. --Oakshade 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Marlith ^T/C 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Oakshade. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about notability, but kudos to whoever decided to name a school after Stuart Hall :-) ChrisTheDude 11:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody loved It's a knockout, even in San Fransisco. Presumably everyone dresses up as twenty foot tall knights at break time and tries to pour coloured water into huge tubes on roundabouts while throwing jelly at each other. Nick mallory 12:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if my hours spent on Wikipedia will look good when I apply here. Marlith ^T/C 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a complete lack of source material verifying notability. VanTucky ^Talk 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This school is too small to meet by personal criteria, and shows no other evidence of significance. — RJH (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. VivianDarkbloom 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is correct in what it says. If you want more state what you need I actually go there, so adding factual info would be no problem. --Fiyero554 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Fiyero554[reply]
Weak Keep as extension of existing notable school system and based on WP:OUTCOMES consensus that such schools are notable. Alansohn 18:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parti Populaire des Putes[edit]

Non-notable group. People held a press conference in 2000 announcing their intention to create a political party by this name. The political party was never created or registered, and my survey of secondary sources suggests that the group had little or no activity after the press conference, other than creating a simple website which was last updated in Sept. 2000, one week after it was created. Whatever one's views on prostitution (and most of this article is simply POV thoughts on what some people think about prostitution), this group simply did not do anything significant. This group fails the factors suggested in WP:ORG: longevity, membership and major accomplishments. Galteglise 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- woah there, slow down, this looks like something that needs editing, not deletion yet.JJJ999 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, it is usually better to edit than to delete. But this political party never existed. People merely announced a plan to create a political party, but never followed through. How could a non-existent group be notable, and what could meaningfully be written about it? Galteglise 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Will notify concerned Wikiproject about the Afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec also--Victor falk 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinstod[edit]

"Presumed to be" a game. That and the Youtube link and I've got almost the entire article in this AfD. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. — Coren ^(talk) 03:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete based on the A1 rationale. Erechtheus 03:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC) In light of the changes, this is no longer speedy material. Delete due to lack of notability per WP:WEB. Erechtheus 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --TeaDrinker 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE KEEP I have worked considerably on the entry. --EnochHeath 01:15, 17 October 2007 (GMT)

Comment This is really not a wishlist discussion. While the effort you took to make a good article is really appreciated, it's still unclear what this really is, and thus it fails WP:N Additionally, lots of the stuff in the article is OR. You might want to consider copying the article to your user page, and once it is confirmed that this is an ARG, it can be put back and expanded (and all the OR cruft removed). Note that I follow the unfolding of the mystery myself, but this has no place on WP --Darkstar 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that due to content of video 2, and its use on Unfiction that this can be confirmed as an ARG. Under the guidelines for notibility, its states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Does its coverage on Unfiction not fulfill this requirement; Unfiction is an established forum for ARG content, reputable also. The non biased style of the article surely is documenting part of a growing trend among thousands of internet users. ARG's and Virals seem to be taking off and surely any entry helping to document that rise is useful. Please forgive my ignorance as this is my first 'real' attempt at WP. I would be happy to edit/remove the 'OR Cruft' if you could let me know what OR is.--EnochHeath 19:48, 17 October 2007 (GMT)

OR means Original Research. See WP:OR for the guideline. And as I said, if it really turns out to be an ARG, you can always add the article back later (with the relevant links to sites confirming the ARG status). --Darkstar 09:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TeaDrinker, WP:NOT#INFO, and as likely OR. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of ARG's I have begun following this game. It seems due to content on the second video that this 'is' an ARG and so I worked hard to compile a good Wiki for it. Many thanks, Enoch Heath.

DELETE: However real this "game" might be, it is not notable. It appears to have existed for one week. -Tux256ac 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - not notable. KrakatoaKatie 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Geography University of Canterbury[edit]

non notable university department; no claim of notability that I can see. I will also nominate one other department article from this university. Brianyoumans 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Canterbury is included in this AFD. Brianyoumans 02:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both. Except in rare cases, it's hard to see notability for an individual department. --Dhartung | Talk 11:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not complete and if you keep an eys on it over the next couple of days there will be a number of notable things about the department which will show that this page is worth storing. For example one of the Professors has just received NZ's highest award for contributions to Geography - this is a big deal and will be one of many things that will appear shortly on this page. Watch this space! Chopperxs 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that might mean that the professor deserves an article - possibly - but not the department (or not based solely on that, anyways.) I would say that an academic department could be notable if it was the first such department worldwide, or perhaps in a large country; if it had been in the news due to controversy (say, the African-American Studies program at Harvard); or if it had been a special center for significant research, the home of a number of prominent scholars. Otherwise... it's a university department. There are bound to be a few good professors in every department, but that doesn't make the department itself interesting enough, imho, to deserve an article. Brianyoumans 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that you have, in your description above, listed the main reason why you should remove your objection to this page. The Department of Geography at the University of Canterbury was the first Department of Geography in NZ formed in 1937 by George Jobberns, who was responsible for attracting a young Kenneth Coumberland to NZ in 1938. This is described in the extract from Cumberland's memoir published in the NZ Geographer in April 2007. I am about to add this and other notable facts about the department so I assume you will now support the saving of this page.Chopperxs 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I considered NZ a large country, I might. If you told me it was the first such department in the Asia-Pacific region, that would be more impressive. Brianyoumans 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what country are you from? Try to remember this is an international wikipedia and is not just for people in "big countries". What might not be notable for you in your "big country" may be notable for those of us in "small countries" like NZ. Chopperxs 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am (of course) an American. NZ has a smaller population than the American state of Wisconsin. Would it be an impressive claim to say "this was the first geography department in Wisconsin"? I don't think so. But really, my objection is not that this article related to NZ, it is that in general, I don't believe academic departments are notable. By my criteria above, I would imagine that very few departments would have articles, in the US or elsewhere. Brianyoumans 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both - and I say that as a New Zealander. The vast majority of university departments are not worth separate articles, even those which are the first of their type in the country. Stand-alone departments, such as medical schools, may be worthy of separate articles, but departments such as these are not. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you say no stand alone departments should have a page then you say medical departments should - what is you reasoning behind why a medical department is more important then a Geography department It is also worth noting that the GeoHealth laboratory, a UC geography research centre as referred to in the Department of Geography page is a medical research centre and is part of the Geography Department. Does this mean we fit your criteria for inclusion as we have a medical component? Chopperxs 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it interesting that you completely misread what I said. I said that stand-alone departments are often worth articles. The UC Geography department is not a stand-alone department, however, but has exactly the same administration as other departments at the university. I did not say that medical departments should - I said that medical schools should - these are sections of universities which have their own separate administration, largely autonomous from the rest of the university structure. And I also only used those as an example in that they are often the best-known type of semi-autonomous sections of universities. Let's face it, this is simply a department - it's not even a faculty, let alone a semi-autonomous school. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Department of Geography @ University of Canterbury is one of the only true GEOGRAPHY Departments left in the world - it is one of the only 2 Departments of Geography in Australasia (corrected thanks to comment below). Most others have been split (with physical geographers going into Geosciences or Earth Science, and human geographers going into planning or sociology type schools) or the geographers have been merged into bigger schools (with planning, architecture, geology, environmental science etc). Who cares? Why is this significant? Due to its Department structure, UC GEOG is able to generate valuable insight into many geographic issues today via physical and human geographers working together to critique and contribute to each others' work. This allows science to inform culture and culture to inform science in a way that rarely happens in our siloised research society today.Cerpha 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — User:Cerpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sure they'd be interested to hear all that at the University of Otago's Geography Department - it's only 300 kilometres down the road from UC. And though it likes to think it's in another country, Auckland University has a Geography Department too - neither is outside new Zealand, let alone outside Australasia. Either you should check you facts or be aware that people here can easily check them for you. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your link to Auckland university shows this is not a department and is as Cerpha suggests a merged school of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science (SGGES). I will let Cerpha defend their statement with regard to the University of Otago.Chopperxs 04:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some conflict of views here. Either a first department in a country is deemed good enough or it isn't. I don't think the size of the country or whether it is a 'medical school' is relevant. I personally think if it is the first Geography Dept in the country then it is significant and should be included. Also how do we define "in the news due to controversy" or arguably more controversially in academic circles "a special center for significant research" or "the home of a number of prominent scholars". It strikes me that this page is under construction, and we should wait till it is complete before having it deleted. Siphd 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— User:Siphd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I suppose it should be noted that the two preceding comments are the first and only edits by each account. Brianyoumans 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it good to see more people getting involved Siphd 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also my first go at wikipedia - does that make my opinions worth less than yours? I think its quite good that new people are getting involved. The fact that they are choosing to make their first comments in this discussion makes me think even more that this page is worth keeping. I look forward to seeing what else will be said.Chopperxs 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's good that new people are involved, and no, it doesn't matter whether you've edited 10 or 10,000 articles. However, it is worth noting that, as newcomers, you may have a little less knowledge of what qualifies as a notable subject for a separate article. Also - with regard to Siphd and Cerpha's edits - there is usually severe suspicion when a new editor's first edits are to a process page; most Wikipedians take a considerable time before they find their way around Wikipedia enough to know that such pages even exist - let alone have the knowledge of Wikipedia's protocols and standards well enough to be able to make pertinent comments on such a page. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- News travels fast in "little countries" and with 100s of Geography students at UC and 17000 odd students in the University word is bound to get out and students are very good at helping each other in the technicalities of such sites. I myself as mentioned am new to Wikipedia (I have spent around 2 hours in wikipedia in total) and I seem to have figured most things out. I think you are over complicating wikipedia a bit. It is a tool for the masses and is designed with that in mind.Chopperxs 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete content ~~and redirect to gun violence~~--JForget 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guns and crime[edit]

Unredeemable article than consists of an essay which is entirely original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -Halo 02:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR Captain panda 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay and almost certainly overlaps with an existing article. Pavel Vozenilek 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making an article out of bothing, really. OR -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- per above reasoning. Unsavable probably.JJJ999 06:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above user's reasoning; we aren't a publisher of original thought. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. --Evb-wiki 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to gun violence - Che Nuevara 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Eric Taylor (football player). There's no need to keep this discussion open, as the article was a verbatim copy. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Taylor (NFL Player)[edit]

This article is a duplicate of Eric Taylor (football player) and should be deleted. Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it is a duplicate. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really strikes me as non-controversial deletion. Might consiter using a WP:PROD next time? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that in the future. Thanks. --Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but leave a redirect to the correct article. Redirects are cheap, right? Erechtheus 02:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jbeach ^sup 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutate (Gargoyles)[edit]

I nominated this article via prod for the reason: "cruft - no assertion that the subject has any importance outside of the context of the tv-show."[40] The prod was removed by an annon a few hours latter.[41]. I assert that this article is indeed unsourced, unverifiable and irredeemable fancruft. I believe this article violates one of the principles of wikipedia: We are not TV guide. In addition, it contains a lot of original research and speculation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful info. JJL 01:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count exactly one out-of-universe sentence that isn't about voice actors (which totals to one sentence, and part of two other sentences). The rest is an in-world plot summary with no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. This does not inherit notability from Gargoyles (TV series). --Phirazo 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep- arguable, so I can see the deletion side, but they are notable enough as popular cartoon villains... maybe a sub page would be better, and some editing.JJJ999 06:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any secondary sources to support the fact that they are notable villains? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's just original research. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is probably not notable beyond the context of the television series, and it is mostly plot summary, but I do not believe that the information is unverifiable. Information not from the TV series or current comic book series was revealed by creator Greg Weisman and is taken from his website AskGreg (www.s8.org/gargolyes/askgreg/). That website was blacklisted after editors linkspammed several Wikipedia pages, and even the appropriate references were removed (the blacklisting may have been reversed since, but I am not certain). Information from this site may still count as original research within Wikipedia's guidelines (I suspect this could be argued either way), but even if that is so I would prefer to remove only the offending material and perhaps merge into another page (e.g. List of Gargoyles characters) than delete the page entirely. -- Supermorff 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source (perhapses) and not a secondary source. If content can't be sourced by a secondary source and it's beyond background details then often it's a sign we shouldn't be hosting the content. Adding a short mention to List of Gargoyles characters is fine... but we really shouldn't be getting into this much in-universe detail. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I think I was slightly confused as to the definition of "secondary source". But my suggestion remains: trim offending material, then at a later date merge into another appropriate article. Considering the comment below by 71.115.192.199, the appropriate article might be Gargoyle clan. -- Supermorff 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we trimmed offending material there would be nothing left. Thats my point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is the suggestion to move the description of the clones to the Mutates section. Maybe rename the whole page Labyrinth Clan, since it consists of the Clones and Mutates. 71.115.192.199 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per improvements to prove notability, based on winning the top prize in the top dog show in the world. Bearian 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Felicity's Diamond Jim (James)[edit]

Contested prod. No sources cited which offer independent coverage of this dog. One of the sources is run by the dog's owner, and the other is an AKC page which merely proves that the dog won the award. The dog doesn't appear to be possibly notable for any reason other than having won this award, and I'm pretty sure that even that doesn't confer immediate notability. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we have articles for Category:Famous dogs — for example Blondi, Nipper and er.. the Taco Bell chihuahua, these are actually famous and have generated the kind of coverage that lets us write a useful article. Winning a dog show, even a highly respected one, does not confer any kind of notability outside of the extremely small circle of people who pay heed to such results — presumably, the other entrants. Little coverage in the wider media is generated, and the only information we have is its breed, owner, and the fact that it won that year. There will never be any in-depth coverage around which to base a useful article; we'll never have sources for the struggles this dog has overcome, the great romances of his life, his formative experiences. Should there be a less favourable side to "Jim", we'll never get that kind of balanced coverage from his owner — illegitimate puppies, ankle injuries to the mailman, and fouled pavements will all go unnoticed. In short, this article should be swiftly put to sleep, lest it sire a litter of hundreds of equally unwelcome "winning dog biographies." Thomjakobsen 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious WP:COI issues, especially since these championships increase his stud fees. No other dogs in either Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show or AKC National Championship have their own articles. Although I'm an English Springer Spaniel fan, did rescue for a number of years, and even have an obedience title on my rescue dog, and I've heard from several sources that James excels in areas such as disposition that are often overlooked in the breed ring, the history of the article is one of advertisement, and it decreases my respect for his owners.--Curtis Clark 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to warrant its own article and reads like an advertisement. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been given, i.e. independent of the dog's owner and of the organization which awards the prizes he won. Hence the subject fails the WP:N guideline. If there was significant coverage about the dog in the mainstream press, one might consider it notable; but that does not seem very probable. --B. Wolterding 12:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Three articles in the New York Times alone [42]. A nationally televised competition. The winner is better known and more widely covered in professional media than, say, the winner of the "best blowjob" awards that supposedly confers notability on porno performers. VivianDarkbloom 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thomjakobsen said it best. Trying to write "biographies" of show dogs simply isn't a job for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - While I don't often find myself agreeing with Vivian, her provision of refs, including this one which indicates that the dog has appeared in major media venues does support notability, albeit quite possibly quickly fading. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above obviously. Showing up in the NYT does not automatically mandate an encyclopedia entry. Obviously. Gah. Eusebeus 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Eusebeus is stalking me, as to he regularly does to other users who challenge his overzealous deletionism. VivianDarkbloom 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1)this isn't the place for a complaint like that...take it to WP:AN/I and 2) I looked briefly at his contribution history, and I see no evidence of that...it's a pretty serious accusation, so please take it to the appropriate place. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Won the most notable competition in his field, and 50 others apparently, well documented by reliable sources... 3 of which I have added to the article. Closer should take into account the unfortunate lateness of my comment/improvement of the article, and the fact that this article now clearly meets WP:N. Most comments were complaints that sources weren't cited yet in the article, or that it should be deleted as a punishment because of who created the article... which are weak and moot arguments at this point anyway. --W.marsh 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are definite potential uses for sources from this article in other articles, but the arguments to delete here, praticularly with regards to the various WP:BLP issues and the fact this is sourced off one DOD list, are very strong. Most (not all) of the "keeps" seem based on the list being notable, but fail to address many of the concerns raised by those arguing "delete". Neil ☎ 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda[edit]

This article is about a list ~~made up~~ compiled not by the Defense Department but by a group of ~~law professors~~ legal scholars. The article doesn't cite any secondary sources that mention the list or tell why it is important. Most of the article ~~is made up~~ consists of repeating the names of groups mentioned on the list. Steve Dufour 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia contributor, calling on the authority of ((blp)) has commented out 80% of this article.
I strongly dispute their reasoning. And I encourge those who wish to view this article to view this version. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC) List now restored to the article.[reply]

Note There is an edit war deleting and undeleting the list and the sources [43] [44] [45]--victor falk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator's justification is factually incorrect. A team of legal scholars read through the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for the Guantanamo captives' Combatant Status Review Tribunals. They found that the allegations used to justify the captives' continued detention included alleged associations with dozens of organizations that are not on either the State Department's list of organizations proscribed due to suspected ties to terrorism, or on the Department of Homeland Security's list. The team of legal scholars did not make up this list, as nominator contends. They merely gathered the organizations listed in the allegations against the captives. Geo Swan 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like making up a list to me.(I do stand corrected on the point that the list makers were "legal scholars", not "law professors" as I said. )Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus, it's all primary sources and functionally a hit piece/attack article. • Lawrence Cohen 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we all make an effort to be civil here?
I'd like to remind everyone that a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think calling the compiling of a list, based on a methodical analysis "making up a list" is highly misleading. I believe the phrase "making up a list" implies it is being made up out of thin air, not based on any research at all. Geo Swan 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable info. that should not be lost even if it's moved. JJL 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The list should be used as a primary source for other articles. It does not seem to be notable enough for its own article however. Besides that, how is anyone going to find it under its present title? Steve Dufour 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be careful about how I say this. Prior to initiating this ((|tl|afd)) our nominator discussed this article over on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Where he called the captives "bad guys". I am very concerned this nomination is another instance of a phenomenon I have discovered before.
I am concerned that the nominator has accepted the DoD's allegations at face value. There is an ongoing controversy over the credibility of the allegations. There is an ongoing controversy over how many of the captives actually merit the descriptions "worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield", "very bad men", "terrorist". I have encountered other correspondents who discount the notability of the captives' testimony, of their denials of the allegations against them, of the comments of legal scholars who criticize the allegations, and criticize the Tribunal implementation, because they accept the allegations at face value, without applying any skepticism whatsoever.
It seems to me that our nominator doesn't recognize these controversies. It seems to me that the effect, if this nomination succeeds, would be to strip our readers of the information they need if they are to reach an informed decision as to the credibility of these allegations. I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing.
In my experience those who take the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) assertions about the captives at face value find almost nothing about them to be "notable". They discount everything that casts doubt on the JTF-GTMO allegations. Therefore they find nothing that casts doubt on the allegations worthy of coverage here.
It seems to me that suppressing material that complies with all the wikipedia policies, because it does not fit within someone's personal preconceptions is in effect practicing a form of POV pushing. I am sure many, maybe almost all apologists are oblivious to the fact that they are POV pushing, because they are unaware of their preconceptions. That doesn't alter that its effect is POV-pushing.
One of the organizations that Joint Task Force Guantanamo analysts used to justify continued detention of the captives is the Tablighi Jamaat movement. I had a long history of contributing to that article. This experience strongly reinforced for me the value of writing from a neutral point of view, avoiding sensational comments, even when the material seems sensational, and trusting that our readers are intelligent enough to reach their own conclusions. Admirers of the movement felt very strongly that the documentable allegations that an association with the movement was suspicious enough to justify years of extrajudicial detention.
The lesson I took away from my experience with the admirers of the Tablighi movement was the importance of not allowing other wikipedia contributors to suppress material that fully complied with all the wikipedia's policies just because those other wikipedia contributors could not square it with their POV. Geo Swan 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that labeling any person a terrorist, using only a singular source or primary source (here, the unreliable DoD), simply repeats the point of view of the DoD, and unfortunately doesn't seem to square with me per BLP. It's not the list itself, nor any of your contributions--if multiple sources or multiple governments labeled them as terrorists, I'd be fine with it. Using just the words of one government is the problem. It merely parrots and repeats the DoD's stance, and we can't give them (or the UK government, or the Saudi government, or whomever) any special weight or value. If we do this will either be an advocacy piece, or a hit piece/attack article, depending on the reader's point of view, and nothing more. As such, the article in it's current form (and name) is unacceptable.

Rename, multiple sources required. Probably should never exist at this current name, as it could be seen as an endorsement of the DoD stance, which we will not do. • Lawrence Cohen 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after moving to "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations" and including the Taliban and/or al Qaeda if those organizations are indeed listed by the Defense Department as terrorist organizations. Citation to a reliable source would be necessary for each entry. Such a sourced list would certainly be notable and would meet appropriate criteria for lists that this present article would not (the "other than" part is just too arbitrary). Erechtheus 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC) See response below for new suggestion as to the appropriate result. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Several of the correspondents here have suggested renaming the article and/or including the Taliban and/or al Qaed in the list. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that listed ALL the orgnaizations that US counter-terrorism experts suspect have ties to terrorism. I have no problem with the wikipedia having an article that tries to list ALL the organizations that any counter-terror analysts anywhere asserts has ties to terrorism.
- But those would be different lists than this one.
- Because several people have suggested this here I think it shows an area where this article could be improved. (I'll work on it. Check back later.) The reason why the Taliban and al Qaida should not be included in this list, is because this list is an annotated version of the list the Seton Hall legal scholars prepared of organizations that the JTF-GTMO analysts find suspicious, that are not on the official lists published by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. The Taliban and al Qaida are on the officially published lists
- As the Seton Hall report notes:

This inconsistency leads to one of two equally alarming conclusions: either the State Department is allowing persons who are members of terrorist groups into the country or the Defense Department bases the continuing detention of the alleged enemy combatants on a false premise."

In other words, while captives apprehended in Afghanistan were sent to Guantanmo based on an alleged association with these organizations, an alleged association with these organization would not prevent someone who wanted to commit a terrorist act in the USA from getting a valid, legal visa to travel to, and live in the USA.
The several dozen organizations on this list are far from the only organizations that have been used to justify the continued detention of captives. There are also several dozen organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which were on the DHS or State lists. Geo Swan 12:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the way this has gone and the responses by Geo Swan, delete. This content has a place on Wikipedia, I'm sure. In its present state, I find there to be some WP:BLP concerns but more a serious concern with WP:NPOV. I don't find the one-sidedness of what is trying to be accomplished in any way appropriate for this project. We're not supposed to be about advocacy, which is increasingly what it looks like is going on here. Erechtheus 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I always ask people who hint or state they have a POV concern about my contributions if they can help me understand their concerns. I asked Erechhtheus. And I appreciate that he or she took the time to reply. The (first?) trigger was the name of the article -- which triggered a concern over advocacy for them. It never occurred to me that the article should have a different name. But I told Erechtheus I had no objection to renaming the article. I suggested The Seton Hall compilation of organizations the Defense Department suspects have ties to terrorism. Here is our exchange.

Special disposition Keep the article; such lists have gotten enough press that I am confident about their notability. However, I have serious WP:BLP reservations about the names within the list unless otherwise corroborated. Ordinarily, reliable sources publish details about the information from which their conclusions are derived. Secret evidence requires circumspection. Its reliability is less verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your ((blp)) concern. All of the individuals listed in the article are named as members of these organizations in the memos prepared for their CSR Tribunals or their ARB hearings. As I understand it ((blp)) doesn't say articles can't contain allegations against individuals. It merely says that those allegations have to reference an authoritative, verifiable source. And these allegations do reference at least one verifiable, authoriative source. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the concern is that parroting the United States point of view of who is a terrorist, without multiple sources, is the BLP violation. Just because a singular government says someone is something, does not make it so. "Multiple reliable sources". • Lawrence Cohen 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to Delete below. For now. However, for BLP purposes, is one lone primary source (the US defense department) fine for BLP to accuse someone of terrorism, a pretty severe and life-changing accusation? I would think not, and this should be reviewed to that end. If secondary sources don't exist, no one should be on this list. To that end, it should be renamed. Would this count as a soapbox? Thinking aloud here. • Lawrence Cohen 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, changing from keep. All this is sourced to one primary source, the US department of defense. There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations. • Lawrence Cohen 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by "There are no secondary sources corroborating these allegations."
- Are you saying you need to have a newspaper report, or an NGO, like Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, quote the JTF-GTMO documents, before you will agree they can be used? This does not make sense to me.
- The wikipedia should not be taking a stand as to whether the allegations against the captives are credible. I don't see how referencing the JTF-GTMO allegations, quoting the JTF-GTMO allegations, without taking a stand on their credibility, violated ((blp)). The article is clear about who is making the allegation. The reader gets to decide how much credibility to invest in those allegations. Geo Swan 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list appears to be based on A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data, who has secondary sources. Mark Bendeaux[46] seem to have received a fair amount of media coverage for his work on Guantanamo detainees: [47] . Here's one source, unfortunately not free: [48]--Victor falk 09:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seton Hall team has published five papers, based on the same 517 memos:
  1. A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
  2. Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
  3. The Guantanamo Detainees During Detention
  4. June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
  5. No-hearing hearings
- This list is an annotated version of an appendix from the second study -- Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy.
- Several people have said they think the article should have a different name. I disagree.
- I think e have to stick with the name the Seton Hall team originally chose. As I wrote above, we could certainly have a list that included the Taliban and al Qaeda -- but it would be a different list. Not the list described in the article. The reason why this particular selection of organizations should remain as-is, is that the main point of the article is that the people allegedly associated with one of the organizations on this list could get a visa to enter the USA, but, if captured in Afghanistan, the alleged association causes them to be sent to Guantanamo. As the Seton Hall article says, either JTF-GTMO is correct, and State and DHS are wrong, and the no-fly list is letting in passengers who are potentially dangerous terrorists -- or State and DHS are correct, and JTF-GTMO has been unnecessarily and wastefully holding innocent men for years. Geo Swan 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geo Swan
- Disclaimer -- I started this article.
- As I stated above, the nomination is based on serious misconceptions.
- Of course this list is important, very important, for several reasons:
- As I quoted above, the Seton Hall scholars pointed out that, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have published lists or organizations their counter-terror analysts suspect of ties to terrorism. If someone applying for a visa to the USA is known to be associated with one of these organizations, they don't get a visa, they don't get a ticket. Or maybe they get arrested and extradited from the country where they applied for a visa. So, individuals believed to be associated with the organizations on this list CAN get a visa -- can fly to the USA -- can live and travel within the USA. They could even sign up for pilot training.
- It is not our place to insert our own opinions on the credibility of the allegations against the captives. Readers should be making up their own minds However, I believe providing the information that our readers can use to reach their own informed opinion.
- Readers deserve to be able to read about these organizations, and the allegations against the individuals held because they were alleged to be associated with them.
- I invite you all to look at Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Tablighi Jamaat is one of the organizations JTF-GTMO analysts assert has ties to terrorism that neither State or DHS have put on their suspicions lists. I have done a lot of work on that article. About three dozen captives faced the allegation that an association with the Tablighi movement tied them to terrorism. I like this article. I think it is balanced. I think it fully complies with all the wikipedia's policies. I think it stops well short of stating that the JTF-GTMO allegations involving Tablighi are questionable. About a year and a half after I started working on that topic I came across what I regard as a "smoking gun". I found that Fayad Yahya Ahmed had asked his Personal Representative for a document that explained how his association with Tabligh tied him to al Qaida. His Personal Representative told his Tribunal:

We searched for a document to show that there is a connection but did not find one."

I'd like to see as many of the organizations on this list as possible have articles like this one. Some organizations only have one or two Guantanamo captives associated with them. Those organizations probably don't merit articles of their own.
Cheers! Geo Swan 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have reported on the list's existence, we can write about the list itself without naming everyone on the list. Please tell me if you can generate and source multiple reliable sources for each name on the list, which do not come from a single primary source (the United States government) asserting that these people are terrorists. If so, I will change this to Keep. Otherwise, this could even be speedy deleted as an attack article on the individuals listed. It also violates Neutral Point Of View to simply repeat a single nation's point of view on something like this, without multiple reliable sources from outside, unrelated parties. • Lawrence Cohen 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree.
I think it is in the captive's best interest to have neutral coverage of the allegations. You have looked into the captives circumstances deeply enough to have a healthy skepticism about the allegations. I think it is best, in the long run, to trust our readers, and count on their good judgement to reach their own conclusion, as we did.
Yes. They might reach a different conclusion than the one we reached. Well, that is life. It could be a sign that we might be mistaken. And, what if we are right, and the rest of the public is wrong? Well, the public might wise up, eventually. In which case we get to choose whether we want to say, "I told you so."
Or we might be right, and the rest of the public may never wise up. Well, that is just one of the less pleasant aspects of living in a democracy.
Back in 2003 George W. Bush thought the USA could force Iraq to appreciate US style democracy, at the point of a gun. I knew that could never work.
The way I see it, it is the same with the captives, and the allegations against them. If, for the sake of argument, the bulk of the public is not going to exercise healthy skepticism about the JTF-GTMO allegations, if they have a neutral presentation of those allegations, then I think suppressing those allegations would backfire.
Eventually the public would be likely to learn the information we wanted to suppress. I think getting the neutral presentation out there first is a far better choice then trying to suppress that info.
Do you think there is no way to cover the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them? I don't see it that way at all.
In general, the more I learned about the allegations, the less credible I found it. I think the more our readers learn about the less credible they will find them.
How credible are the allegations? They are, in my personal opinion, dreadfully lacking in credibility. WP:NPOV doesn't permit me saying that, in article space. It doesn permit me to comment about the sensational aspects of the allegations in a sensational matter. But that shouldn't really matter.
I really have encountered a number of shameless POV-pushers who wanted to suppress coverage of the captive's allegations, and other aspects of their cases, because they thought that factual reporting of the very weak allegations was "anti-American".
Cheers! Geo Swan 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Does it line up with BLP and NPOV to list extremely negative allegations about living people from a single primary source in such a list format? If so, how? We have to be compliant with BLP. Also, NPOV has to be adhered to, as well. Using only the Department of Defense as a source, that is not a neutral source, which means that the article is not neutral. Neither is unfortunately acceptable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lawrence. I am going to ask you return to the article, and check the list in more detail.
Check, and you will see that I never asserted that the captives were terrorists.
Check, and you will see that each individual's table entry in the list has the form:

Name Name'	Name Name faced the allegations during his CSR Tribunal that: Detainee participated in Organization XYZ XYZ is (known\|believed\|suspected) to have ties to (al Qaida\|the Taliban\|terrorism).

I strongly dispute that this violates WP:NPOV. On the contrary, I believe this is a very neutral way to cover this material.

I am not as familiar with WP:BLP as I am with WP:NPOV, but, as I wrote above, I am quite skeptical that reporting the existence of allegations violates the policy.

You and I are fully entitled to have our doubts about the credibility of the JTF-GTMO allegations. But:

I am very very skeptical that informing readers of the JTF-GTMO allegations opens the wikipediaa to any danger of libel or slander. The allegations are now very public. The DoD is not some anonymous blogger. In the very unlikely circumstance that one of the individuals named in this article goes to court, they will go to court against the USA, or George W. Bush -- not the wikipedia, or the New York Times, or any other party that repeated the JTF-GTMO allegations without endorsing them.
I am very skeptical that the passages you commented out violate ((blp)).

I write on controversial topics. Consequently I bend over backwards to fully comply with WP:NPOV. I think I do a pretty good job. But I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I do my best to take all civil, specific concerns that I have lapsed from this policy seriously.

I feel entitled to insist that those who have a POV concern make a meaningful effort to to be specific about the passages they object to. If there is a passage, or a number of passages, that you think do not comply with WP:NPOV I think you should explain your concern about those passages.

You have blanked out the bulk of this article, without a meaningful explanation. I find this highly disturbing.

How the heck am I to make improvements to this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

How the heck are the people who might want to express an opinion about this article, when you have blanked out 80% of it?

I urge you to restore the material you commented out.

I urge you to be specific about the passages that trigger your concern, and to explain why they trigger your concern. Geo Swan 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics: Specifically, I'm concerned about names of real people and organizations being listed on a page called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda, when we have no evidence or reliable non-primary sources saying they are terrorists. As of this moment, we have in essence only the United States government saying a person named "Ali Smith" is a terrorist. Should we, based on that alone, list Ali Smith on something like List of Terrorists? Absolutely not, ever. If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist, would we then included Stan Smith on List of Terrorists as well? No RS, no inclusion. Questions for you:

Why can't this article be about the existence of the list itself?
Do we have any neutral (not controlled by the US/DoD) media, other nations, or WP:RS that asserts these people are terrorists?
If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object.

Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article report the actual allegations? Several reasons:

Because merely reporting allegations, from a highly verifiable source, without taking a stand as to the allegation's credibility, is not a violation of ((blp))?
Because the credibility of the allegations is best viewed en masse?
Because, while it would be nice if we could feel confident that the verifiable, authoritative sources we have at our disposal was in line with what we personally regard as the truth, we can't count on that.
- If we work on enough articles we are going to come across instances where our personal idea of what is true, what is credible, is going to be at odds with the sources we have at our disposal,
- Suppressing material that is written from a neutral point of view, that cites verifiable, authoritative sources, because we don't agree with them, simply does not comply with WP:NPOV. Being neutral means we are not supposed to let our POV about what is true led us to suppress otherwise valid material.
- Sorry, but I think that is what you are doing here. In your personal opinion DoD allegations aren't a credible reliable source. You don't seem to realize that this is a highly controversial position.

In the interests of brevity I am going to address your other questions on the talk page. Geo Swan 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the DoD is doing the best job they can, and don't disagree with many of their assessments, even on this "list". However, we have *NO* sources yet provided that these accusations are notable. Do you have any 3rd party sources? Has any third party source reported on these accusations? If not, they're simply not notable, and goes back to my example of the Stan Smith CIA agent. Any nation saying something, from their government perspective, does not make it so, nor notable. If Germany names me as a terrorist, but no one cares enough to report on it on at least more than one non-German government source, odds are my accused terrorism isn't notable and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. No sources = no content, not included on Wikipedia. Please see WP:V. • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh> And this assessment of yours is based on what? How many transcripts did you say you read? Geo Swan 18:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many I've read, or haven't read. BLP seems to be saying we err on the side of caution, and if something isn't reported by reliable sources (WP:RS), we can't verify if it's factual or not (WP:V), and so it is not notable (WP:N). If we try to bring it forward any other way it would be original research (WP:OR), which violates WP:NPOV. Add in that along the way, we'll be basically writing that "X is/is associated with terrorism", when they may not be, and doing possibly substantial damage to someone's name. This is a lose-lose situation for us and everyone. • Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: so, no harm in an article about the list which was a research project by someone, but we can't be listing the people in the list without sufficient RS. • Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per my BLP concerns, I've hidden the Primary-sourced list from search engines until concerns are resolved, under WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, the information is as said, important and should not be lost. I'm not opposed to trying to merge it with Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy if that won't make the article over-laborious, but strongly disagree about hiding the names of detainees based on allegations of "BLP" - the article does not suggest these people are terrorists, it lists them as people the study has defined as such, based on DoD actions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's edict is "Do no harm". Do you not consider it harmful to list living people by name or groups under a page called in part, "List of terrorists", when there is no 3rd party sources calling them terrorists? We have some university researchers, restating/parroting what the U.S. DoD said, that person X is a terrorist. This is not encyclopediac. The existence of the list itself is. We have no reason to be listing these people thus without non-primary sources. Otherwise, this is functionally a reprinting of a possibly harmful claim. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It "does harm" to list Wolfram Sievers as a Nazi war criminal, but the Nuremberg trials declared him such - and he was imprisoned as such (and ultimately hanged). Similarly, this study did not independently label anybody a terrorist, it simply took the "associations" which the US DOD considered to indicate somebody was a terrorist, and put them in a list. A rewording of the title of the article might be in order, but certainly not deletion. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Sievers isn't alive, and was convicted in an international court of war crimes and murder. There is no harm in anything there to list him as a Nazi war criminal; that's what he was, and it is widely reported. In this case, we have the US suspecting people of terrorism/terrorist associations, and a group of researchers compiled names from government documents to assemble a new list on this. They published this list they made up, and we reposted it. If we have no secondary sources reporting that these people are terrorists, have terrorist ties, enjoy terrorism, read terrorist fiction, etc., anything, we shouldn't be listing them in a list, by name, on an article in part titled "List of terrorists...". Guilt and defamation by association, perhaps? There is no benefit to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to name these people (who are not convicted Nazi war criminals, let alone convicted of anything--well played on the Godwin invocation). They can't be listed here thus per BLP. Either way, the list itself isn't notable. It's a random research project that no-one has reported on. • Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find 3,190 google hits for the name of the report to which this list was attached. The 9/11 Commission accused a lot of living people of connection to terrorists, but we still report their assertions - even if they were made in an appendix of the Commission. See Hassan Ghul for one such example - you can't really claim "omg, BLP says that we can't include that detail of the 9/11 Commission's findings because it wasn't in a court of law!" We document who made the allegation (the DoD in this instance), and let the reader decide its credibility. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a total of 21 hits for it, only, when I exclude Wikipedia from searches, and go to the end of the search. Any primary/single source negative assertation to my knowledge should be excluded under BLP. Hassan Ghul is a red herring; he's widely reported on. I'm simply saying that no one should be on any list of this nature, with a name like this, without multiple non-trivial sources saying that "x is a terrorist/terrorist suspect". Otherwise, it's guilt by association, and that is wrong under BLP/NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even of those 21 unique hits, , I see Stanford, Oxford, the Commonwealth Institute, Refugee Council USA, Centre for Defence Information and the New York Times...that's a lot of large groups taking this study at face-value. WMF is no different. And I'm not sure if you're living under a rock, or just assume all "Guantanmo Prisoner X" stories are about the same guy - but the majority of these detainees are "libelled", as you would put it, in the daily newspapers. WMF is not alleging they are terrorists, they are repeating what the DoD, executive orders, the global media and a number of national courts which oversaw repatriated prisoners' trials, have already alleged. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent assertion of notability, over-reliance on primary sources, no independent assessment of value of the list or the article.ALR 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns including WP:BLP, a necessarily loosely defined standard, and the DOD's lackluster credibility. --Evb-wiki 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is important information, and US DOD view on who is and who is not an enemy should be noted - making it very clear that Wikipedia is merely repeating this information for the benefit of our readers, and the perspectives are those of the DOD personnel at Gitmo. Buckshot06 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the findings of this team of legal scholars should be mentioned in WP. However the list itself does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not notable, however, and there are no reliable sources corroborating these views. Unless reliable sources are found for the entries, for the list, this is unverifiable and the views of the DOD personnel at Gitmo would then be not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the list itself could be cited as a source for another WP article, since it was published in some form (by the college I guess), even if it is not notable enough to have its own article. Steve Dufour 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The value in that could be using the list as a possible RS to assert in an individual article that a given person is suspected/believed to be a terrorist by the US Government. As in, "Stan Smith is considered by the United States to be a terrorist.[1]" where 1 is this list? Just so I am understanding you. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was also thinking that the researchers' conclusion, which seems to be that the Department of Defense is holding people who would not be considered terrorists by other government agencies, could be mentioned in other articles. Steve Dufour 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that being a valid use for the data in the list, combined with other sources to supplement it. As it stands on it's own, though, this shouldn't be an article per BLP/NPOV without additional sources. It is fine one way, but not the other. • Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the nominator to clarify the grounds for his nomination and the policies it violates. The matter at hand is a bit more serious than an article about what a bored made up at school--victor falk 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because the list itself seems to be non-notable, not being mentioned in secondary sources, and because the bulk of the article when I nominated it was a reprinting of the list. (An example: The fact that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize is notable. The statement by the Nobel Prize committee awarding him the prize would not be a suitable subject for a WP article.) Steve Dufour 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - btw, info on terrorist groups from multiple sources is covered in both War on terror and Terrorist groups. --Evb-wiki 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC
- This article, by contrast, is either a list with only one source (part of my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage). --Evb-wiki 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Buckshot06, this article should be kept, it is notable and is stated in a clear manner. But more should be added to the article, and we need some other sources as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete; sets a dangerous precedent. Keeping this would give carte blanche for the inclusion in Wikipedia of any list, compiled by any pseudo-governmental department of any country, of people who that source claims are terrorists. There are no secondary sources. ELIMINATORJR 19:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral -There is no list, and the article I see explains what the document is. The source is about infighting withing the US gov't. I guess that the topic is notable, but the list isn't. Speciate 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was obfuscated here from the article. The list itself, however, isn't notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a wikipedia guideline, not a policy. It derives its authority from WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. I think it is a good thing that it is not a policy, because, when it comes to a controversial topics, the notability metric fails. For controversial topics the evaluation of whenther material is "notable" relies entirely on the readers fund of general knowledge and point of view. For controversial topics any judgement as to whether material is notable is a POV evaluation.
- The Department of State has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are known to belong to one of those organizations you can't get a visa. Possibly other actions too
- The Department of Homeland Security has a published list of organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action. If you are suspected of belonging to one of those organizations you will be on the "no-fly list", and can expect to be arrested by border agents, and possibly sent to Guantanamo.
- The Departmen of Defense has organizations it regards as suspicious enough to take action against. Its list, or lists, are published, and only overlap the published lists of the other Departments by about 50%. If you are suspected of belonging to one of these organizations, you can expect to be sent to Guantanamo.
- In total, if you combined all these lists, you would have about 100 organizations. Given the seriousness of the "war on terror", given the seriousness of the assertions against these organizations., I don't see why all 100 or 200 of them don't merit coverage on the wikipedia.
- If you look at the list Lawrence Cohen obfuscated, you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The no-fly list of the US government is incredibly notable--if we don't have an article on it, we should. Should we thus include the contents of the no-fly list, by name? Doing so I contend, using only the US government as a source, would be a humongous BLP violation. • Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you wrote, "you can see there is an entry for Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammad was alleged to be a member of Itihad Islami. You can see that Akhtiar Mohammed acknowledged being a member of Itihad Islami -- which, it turns out is a member of the Northern Alliance. That is worthy of coverage in the wikipedia" Is that your conclusion, or did a reliable source come up with this conclusion? If a reliable source didn't come up with this conclusion, and you did, we absolutely cannot use such conclusions in an article per Wikipedia:No original research.
See the synthesis section:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." - WP:SYN

• Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of brevity, I have replied on the talk page. Geo Swan 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is getting far too convoluted with all these needless indented back and forths. This article is both a WP:BLP and WP:SYN/WP:OR violation. Source A (USA DOD) says, "This guy is a terrorist", in various documents; source B says, "Seton Hall has collected all these guys the DOD says in random documents are terrorists in an Appendix," and that C is this title of "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda" republishing all these names under a page called "List of terrorists". We're basically saying that they are terrorists. We can't combine sources to make a new conclusion. Listing all these people, who are not convicted of any terrorism in any sourced court of law, under an article called "List of Terrorists," while only listing various diaspora of allegations, means that this is both a BLP and SYNTH/OR violation. Even worse, I just realized that this reference it came from here doesn't even include all the allegations listed in the "List" we host on Wikipedia. All that was gleaned from the various documents. • Lawrence Cohen 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without regard to the actual controversial contents, this is still a list with only one primary source. While the topic is probably notable, we have no way of verifying the contents of the article. It's also patent POV (that of the DoD). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. An article with this title can never comply with WP:NPOV. By definition, it is the POV of the DoD. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable. PxMa 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Regular Google search and a Google news search have nothing. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is called "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda so it's going to be pretty hard to get sources other then the DD, because it's their list. Also, google isn't everything. PxMa 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? This is not a DOD made list; this is a list generated as an Appendix (pages 11-12) of names gathered by staff at Seton Hall university. The article is about this list that they made. Specifically, this article is about pages 11-12 of a report that they did--not even the report itself. In essence, we have an article on a non-notable appendix of a non-notable report (which is now also up for AfD). So, also, if Google isn't everything, on what sources are you basing the notability of pages 11-12 of this report? • Lawrence Cohen 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an irrelevant issue. This can never fulfill WP:NPOV, it violates WP:V for relying solely on primary sources and violates WP:BLP for covering the persons rather than the overall event. All those are policy, notability is a secondary issue here. EconomicsGuy 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SheffieldSteel. The list is made up entirely from primary sources and so is inherently POV. Nothing else matters here. EconomicsGuy 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it inherently POV. A list of "The accusation of X" is by nature NPOV. There might be an issue with the level of weight it is given, but the US DoD is probably an organization that it isn't unreasonable to give a fair bit of weight to. JoshuaZ 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair argument. However, I still don't see how a list of accusations as a stand alone article serves any purpose other than to present the POV of the DoD. A less detailed list could go into an article dealing with this in a larger more NPOV context. EconomicsGuy 23:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because "other than" introduces an irredeemably arbitrary and POV distinction. Also "terrorist" may not necessarily be a consensus definition. Cruftbane 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Individual members of the list may be notable and possibly mention on the list should be mentioned individually. However, this list as it currently stands is an unnecessary compilation of primary sources. JoshuaZ 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they have compiled a list, and we have reliable information about the list, we can and should keep the article, and quibbling about the source being positive or secondary is a little absurd. as long as there is good reason to think it authentic. This is not a list or terrorist organisations, this is a list of those that one notable group interested in such matters considers to be--and as such is notable. Consider a list that the soviet government might have made--it would be notable too, and those on it would have probably considered it an honor. DGG (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list however, isn't notable. There is no evidence of multiple reliable sources acknowledging it, nor citing it. • Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark Denbeaux is idependently notable and should have his own article. JoshuaZ 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that... From his article: "Professor Denbeaux gained public exposure beyond the legal and academic communities with his publication February 8, 2006, of " Report on Guantanamo Detainees, A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis [...]"--victor falk 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a BLP accident waiting to happen. ---- WebHamster 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above discussion, I believe WP ought to have an article on the reports - either one or several - and a full set of links to the reports so that people can find them, but not the actual details themselves (people disagree about whether it ought to be there, and it's probably be a bit long). I would also encourage those working on this subject to make it a little clearer where the information is on Wikipedia. Despite looking, I could not find the chart by detainee extracted above. Buckshot06 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this PDF here, and go to pages 11-12 at the end. That is the chart in question. • Lawrence Cohen 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere recapitulation of a primary source. If it's PD, post the document to WikiSource, but this is not what WP is here for. <eleland/talkedits> 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. Editor comments that this information is "important" are irrelevant; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for detailed "important" information. News stories about the list (compiling it, disagreements, consequences, etc.) are certainly proper for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but the list itself - no way. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wow, where is Jimbo Wales when you need him? What afreakin' mess, violating WP:POV, WP:BLP, and WP:LIST all in one. We are not a web host for this academic spam. Bearian 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epicedium[edit]

There is no indication in the article that this band (a US band) meets the WP:MUSIC criteria, and a quick scan of search engine results tends to confirm a lack of notability. I am also nominating the following self-titled album by the band:

Epicedium (album)

Erechtheus 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: NN Band. - Rjd0060 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Their association with Embryo Records interested me for a moment, but this is neither the 80s Herbie Hancock label nor the Australian one but something entirely local to the Las Vegas area, it seems, and possibly their own creation (I can't find information). It seems their album is only available in the Las Vegas area and hence both band and album don't meet WP:BAND. Accounting4Taste 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Non-notable and doesn't meet WP:BAND. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Per nom and KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} Wisdom89 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; falls nowhere near WP:BAND. — Coren ^(talk) 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pair. The band and accompanying album fail the criteria in WP:BAND. Useight 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep It looks like they're actually somewhat notable; a Google search for "Epicedium" and "band" gives back 15,000 hits, including these: [49] [50]. They've done a gig at a pretty famous California nightclub, and performed with other notable bands. GlassCobra 04:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. LuciferMorgan 11:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 07:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ward[edit]

Non-notable actor. Three small parts in two movies and a TV show. Non-notable stage performances. -- Gogo Dodo 04:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too minor. Not notable. -WarthogDemon 04:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gogo Dodo's rationale -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, umm yeah. Fails WP:BIO. *Cremepuff 222* 14:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Monthneedbe 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Ward Monthneedbe 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why the title is Ryan Ward 2? Needs to be salted. Monthneedbe 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD appears to have been over a different Ryan Ward. I checked the deleted revisions and the content of that is quite different than what is there now. -- Gogo Dodo 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are fewer than 25 references to this game online, and no third-party references are provided in the article. It's simply not notable. KrakatoaKatie 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeebs Online[edit]

Non-notable GameMaker game, 750 individual players does not make a game notable. No reliable sources, and not verifiable. Looks like a vanity article ("once Saiklo gets his laptop we will have a full time server!"). Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The laptop part has been removed long ago, also the 750 is a rumor and we(the people editing the article) are waiting for someone to find a direct proof-list before (if its true) we put it back up. Everything said on this article is on the main linked website and subdomain, both of which are owned by the creator of the game.

--Space 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[Forgive my rushed typing]

Delete - The article seems to be more of an advertisement than anything else. The newly-created accounts that are editing the article all seem to have been created just for this purpose. Green Giant 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Newly created accounts': I dont find that for most of the people who edited this, Page creator 'contributions' that stretch before Squeebs.

75.38.13.198 , 65.27.251.59 , 71.238.131.203 , 210.79.177.2 , 124.169.35.143 are not accounts created, and so there is no proof of how new/old they are to wikipedia, or if they have made other contributions - IP's can change, also note, most of them made pretty minor changes, like typo's. And me, My account is older than squeebs, only I never really contributed to anythign else that comes to head, besides that, i only modified badly written paragraphs describing low-priority parts of the artical like Bosses, and Guilds. (my account was made June 2006, this is proof)

King laigonaz, mabye, but he did not write any biased information, only all open facts about the game field, eg. Guilds.

Jengajam2

Advertising: Lets take a look at this main pageline

Squeebs Online is a free online game programmed with a game development tool called Game Maker, and by Dino-cool. It is aimed at people of ages 13 and up.

Firstly, it points out the tool its made with, the author, and agegroup.

The history section had 'growing substancially' type info, but that has been removed also. Everything else is game fields eg. Guilds, Bosses, Enemies, Areas, straightforward things, you dont see everything catalogued and explained in very many 'advertisements'.

--Space 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[Forgive my rushed typing]

So this article is not being edited entirely by new accounts? OK I change it to "almost entirely by new accounts". Granted that Darkmast508 made edits before this article but most of those were made in a single sitting to one article - hardly a stretch, and Cb43569 who has made four edits, including two to Squeebs Online. Apart from one established editor who corrected a spelling error, and two other established editors who made edits related to this deletion proposal, all of the other contributors are newly created:

King Laigonaz active since Oct 15 (11 edits - all on Squeebs Online)
Spaceoff active since Oct 15 (8 edits on Squeebs Online, all other mainpage edits entirely on the sandboxes)
TwilightSoul active since Oct 16 (only edit was to Squeebs Online)
Jengjam2 active since Oct 15 (8 out of 11 edits were to Squeebs Online, the remaining 3 edits to Squeebs images)

As for the IP's, one IP out of seven could fit into your suggestion - 202.56.69.13 (1 edit to Squeebs Online, two other edits previously, which could have been by someone unrelated). All of the other IP's editing this article have never made any other edits on Wikipedia:

75.38.13.198 (first edit on Oct 15) (all 6 edits are to Squeebs Online)
124.169.35.143 (only edit was to Squeebs Online) (Oct 16)
210.79.177.2 (only edit was to Squeebs Online) (Oct 16)
61.68.27.56 (only edit was to Squeebs Online) (Oct 16)
71.238.131.203 (only edit was to Squeebs Online) (Oct 16)
65.27.251.59 (only edit was to Squeebs Online) (Oct 15)

So overall four out of six contributing accounts are new and have contributed only to Squeebs Online, while six out of seven contributing IP's have contributed only to Squeebs Online. Call me a cynic but it seems more than likely that someone who plays Squeebs Online, decided to "advertise" this online game on Wikipedia and has recruited other "players" to help edit. Green Giant 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is VOLUNTARY work by fans doesnt look to me like we're 'recruited' to promote the article, we're just shown it, and as a community project; to keep it up as a factual source. Also: pretty useless: 210.79.177.2, 210.79.199.2 both look router to me-ip changes a lot on routers, but seriously, bwe're providing factual information

Also the mass majority are fed up, as its being marked as an advert, even though its being neutral and explained in overview and fact, just because we are new accounts/havent done edits before doesnt mean we cant make an article, i edit on the sandbox for practice because i never previously tried any editing before on wikipedia, but the editing i did do before it was fairly simple. Most of the IP'ers never bothered even looking at wikipedia, but they want to expand the FACTUAL article of their/favourite game, anything wrong with that?

Also, stick to the point: tell me, quote 'where' it is biased and favouring good, rather being blissfully ignorant and just claiming it an advert. There are some one-articlers, not vandalisers, that edited the article on lemons - big deal. Space 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[rushed typin]

To access that link I would have to join up, so we can't really verify what you are saying. If this is voluntary work by fans, then I suggest you find some free space on a webhost somewhere - please read this official policy which states that Wikipedia is not your webhost.

As to the IP's, router or not, 210.79.177.2 still only made one edit and that to Squeebs. If there were lots of edits made to different articles by that IP, I would agree with you.
The History section starts with - "Squeebs is growing at a great pace, and it has improved massively since it first started out back in april.". Now if this is written by a fan on the behest of the link you provided, then it is blatant advertising.
The section on User-Submission contains unencyclopedic material - "You can submit game ideas, weapons, armour, monsters, accessories and maps. Some suggestions and designs may never make it into the game, as staff memembers might not be able to manage adding them to the game, or it may not be necessary/appropriate for the game." You won't find Wikipedia articles on other games giving such advice.
The article on lemons is something "tangible" with plenty of references and plenty of contributors even though I doubt anybody edited that article on behalf of some fruit company.

Basically, the fact you claim to be fans, brings up another issue - you have a conflict of interest which means you should avoid editing articles where you have a close personal connection, which you find discussed here.

Green Giant 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N Cap'n Walker 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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