< December 9	December 11 >

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G11) Also WP:SNOW and creator's statement "KKKZ is an up and coming production company. We are very small as of right now, and we have no works of note that have been published."--Hús ö nd 04:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KKKZ Productions[edit]

Non notable business, User:Aagtbdfoua marked it for speedy, but its been contested by the original author. Brian | (Talk) 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam and non notable at that. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Rettetast 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I mistakenly told Brian that I had marked it as speedy. I had actually marked it as prod. Same difference, this should be speedily deleted as a blatant advert. - Aagtbdfoua 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. MER-C 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Hagerman^(talk) 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on all (7) google results being from the official site, fails WP:V, WP:CORP and a few more guidelines mentioned above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom, appears to advert, non notable. Navou ^talk 03:36, 10 December 2006 (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 is strongly recommended that those disputing the article open a RfC on the matter. --Core desat 05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians[edit]

This article violates the policies of this project on so many levels. It’s a quotations farm and this project is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Too many quotes and very small amount of discussion is non-encyclopedic and could be a copyright violation even if citations are included. Also, some things implied in the text are not found in the reference cited if you carefully check. Its topic is inherently pov and right now the article is too heavily focused on the Afrocentric pov. It has been singularly edited by User:Enriquecardova who is more or less intent on proving that Egypt was originally a Black African civilization and that it only later changed its racial makeup [1] [2]. I’m sure other people can come and point to other evidence. If you check out prior versions of this article, you’ll get an entirely different picture. It’s an endless debate and seems inherently pov however you slice it.

I noticed that the article noted the controversy in its title before, so I tried to change it back but he kept edit warring about it, claiming it’s not really a controversy even though the quotes he added to the article are all laced with a controversial tone. How can it not be a controversy, just have a look at the talk page? The article is basically a long polemic that doesn’t add to the encyclopedic value of the project. See “silly debate” comment [3] No respectable encyclopedia has an article about the racial controversy of anything. I think the article should be deleted and some of the information merged with Afrocentrism and the genuine information can be integrated with general articles. Nebkaneil 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use other avenues of dispute resolution This article has an established version history before the current dispute:[4]. The topic does seem to be encyclopedically valid (though of course controversial). I don't see a need to bring the dispute to afd. User:Nebkaneil should try a Request for Comment and perhaps appeal for the involvement of WP:EGYPT members to generate consensus. Another path would be to ask for Peer Review of the article. User:Enriquecardova is an enthusiastic and prolific newcomer to Wikipedia who has made many knowledgeable contributions in his limited time so far. The amount of focus and ambition I've noticed that he brings to articles he's interested in is admirable (and also may be inadvertently a little intimidating for other users). Judging by his Amazon.com reviews and political blog comments, he is also quite opinionated. This is of course fine in itself, though perhaps he should take the time to familiarize himself more with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV. While most newcomers aren't that familiar with guidelines at a comparative stage, most newcomers haven't jumped into article editing with so much effort either. Anyway, I don't think this is one for AFD Bwithh 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was agreed that the article should be based on an established version and give only an overview about the history, concepts and the people involved in this controversy, then there should not be an attempt to prove one view or the other... Race is not a scientific concept, therefore it's impossible to prove in an objective way what "race" Egyptians were. Nor should it be a lengthy declaration of quotes about whatever findings/facts/claims some editors believe to have to support their position. I still think that this version should be set up for deletion and the legitimate information should go to Ancient Egypt topics. Nebkaneil 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per User:Bwithh Dionyseus

01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes keep this article. I think the request to delete is just sour grapes by a user who has little to contribute, is upset that his favorite dynastic race theories do not stand up under the data put forward by mainstream scholars on this subject, and is now using administrative measures to kill what he doesnt like. This user's writing style is familar to one I have encountered before, and I believe he is hiding behind this one as a front. But regardless of what bogus user names he or she hides under, his or her assorted claims are baseless. He charges:

Too many quotes------- Such quotes are there for a specific reason. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, it is necessary for readers to determine for themselves exactly what scholars in the field say, rather than read endless unsubstantiated arguments and undergo endless edit wars. Indeed thisi s part and parcel of the topic. It is controversial, and as a result, readers need to know exactly who said what, and where it can be verified.

Copyright violations------ It would be nice if user "Nebkaneil" or whatever current name is being used would provide some evidence. But of course, none is forthcoming. If there are any of these mysterious violations, they can always be corrected.

POV----- This is laughable. In fact the whole article deals with different points of view, and how they stack up against the evidence. We have Afrocentrists, manstream Egyptologists, critics like Mary Leftkowitz, neutrals who want to move away from race in anthropology, and other shades in between. They are discussed in the article.

Article different than before--------- lol. gosh... of course itis different than before. Its called Wikipedia.... and its called adding citations and scholarship. Ina ny event about 90% of the original information before the citations were addedis still there, even the King Tut picture, which by the way, sure looks like a "copyright violation." But I notice user "Nebkaneil" has nothing to say about that.

User Cardova "out to prove" certain things--- Actually, if their is any bias in the article, it is the opposite of what is charged. The bias toward the mainstream view, which sees Egypt as having a range of types, and which Afrocentrics attack as "racist." Indeed this is precisely why it is important to quote- so users get an idea of what is being said by "mainstream" scholars, rather than the common charge of "conspiracy" or "racism" thrown around by people dealing with this topic. As can be seen by quotes from Leftkowtiz and a mainstream Egyptologist like Yurco, the general consensus is that Egypt had a range of types that should not be pigeonholded. But then again, you would never know this if it were'nt for those "citations." Other have a different take, or a different angle. Other disagree. But that is scholarship.

As for redirects------- I requested that the redirector provide substantive reasoning to support the request to redirect rather than blanket statements of "controversy". To date, nothing substantive has been forthcoming, just arbitrary moves.

----------------- I think user "Nebkaneil" or whatever alias he is currently using is related to one user, who was pushing a more "Aryan" point of view. When challenged to provide his data, he could not, but backed off. This is indeed ironic. One thing the article shows is just how bankrupt such "Aryan" points of view are. Bankrupt of both data and clear thinking, his next step is to go the "administrative" route, rather than conduct a robust debate. Following this will be vandalism, and edit wars. Of course, these will simply be reverted or adjusted as needed, and no doubt an assortment of Afrocentric supporters or even 'Aryans" can be rounded up to pile in. It would be nice if people did not have to resort to such vandalism, or bogus "administrative" requests. It might be necessary to request that the article be locked in view of such tactics, since more detailed information is being added in the weeks to come.Enriquecardova 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiaiaiai, someone open a RFC... Bwithh 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs better organization.
~~Very weak~~ Keep. and revert to this version per Sandstein. This is more or less a very, very well sourced (and fairly well written) essay or "paper" promoting a POV. There is beyond a shadow of a doubt a wikipedia article in there but it needs to be rewritten for tone something fierce. The title of the article needs to be changed as well. I'm not really seeing way to fix this without an extreme amount of heavy work by those interested. The quotes need to go and be replaced by actual encyclopedic coverage of their topics. This is a quote farm, bad. I just can't quite bring myself to vote delete but my opinion could swing one way or the other with some more (outside) comments and thoughts. NeoFreak 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced, excess quotations can be removed and the remainder of the article could do with some wikification and copyediting for WP:NPOV, but deletion is not the answer. Has encyclopædic value, just needs some work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs some serious clean up. Hagerman^(talk) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable controversy in all its ridiculosity. - ∅ (∅), 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Malomeat 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This needs to be deleted and started from scratch. If this is an encyclopedic topic (which I'm not sure it is), the article as it stands now will never turn into one. Wipe clean, start it again if someone can make sense of this mess without a quotation dump. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside the question of the suitability of "quotefarm" in whole or part, as I pointed out above, an established version of this article existed before the recent influx of quotations Bwithh 03:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then revert and we'll talk. Based on the current status of the article, my opinion is to delete. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an article means removing its history too, not just its current version Bwithh 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut wayyyyyy down, or revert to previous better version. Seraphimblade 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up to be more encylopedic: fewer quotes and more exposition about what this controversy is/was, which is what the article should be about. Heimstern Läufer 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert or cleanup to make it readable at least. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revert to this older non messed-up version, cleanup from there. This is an editorial issue not suitable for AfD. Sandstein 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too well-sourced to be deleted. TSO1D 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others but needs "major" work. — Seadog 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic subject and interersting outside a narrow niche, clearly capable of being put into encyclopedic tone and format and with ample ability to obtain credible verifiable citations on this well-defined subject. AFD is not really the ideal recourse for encyclopedic-capable articles that just happen not to yet have been written according to policies as one would wish. Cleanup, sourcing, neutrality, RFC, and dispute resolution are more appropriate venues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic subject. Take the content dispute to RFC. Mr Stephen 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but go through RfC and edit mercilessly to correct the POV and to remove any copyvios in the paragraph long quotes, and to cite without all the cut and paste. This reads like an essay from the period a few years ago when Afrocentric educators tried to push the POV that Clepoatra was black as were all the ancient Egyptian Pharoahs, that the Egyptians used electricity, that they flew around in gliders, and a host of other absurdities aimed at instilling racial pride in minority students in the U.S. . The question of their racial characteristics is encyclopedic, and can be addressed based on paintings in tombs and via physical anthropology based on bone structure, and historically based on the writings of ancient observers. Edison 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complete cleanup and overhaul. Make sure the article clearly states that the leading scholarly belief is that the ancient Egyptians were of a multi-racial/Semitic appearance. There's no good reason to believe that the Middle East and North Africa were populated with Black people just a few thousand years ago unless someone can come up with a plausible explanation for what caused such a rapid demographic change. (I called a Black Studies teacher on this one and he couldn't.) As with the Race of Jesus, claims that the ancient Egyptians were of a Northern-European appearance are clearly ridiculous, but claims that they were of a Sub-Saharan-African appearance are *just as ridiculous*. Schlomanga5 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - This version, while far from perfect, is much better than the current article, and would be a good place to start from. Schlomanga5 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The proposal to delete this article sees a abusive use of WP procedure, & a waste of time for us all.DGG 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and replace it with this draft [5] which is actually discussing the "controversy" instead of resuming the dispute CoYep 14:02, 14 December 2006 (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 --Tone 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotechnical mine[edit]

Not an exact repost, but the article has been created by the same user and deleted in the past. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability or verifiable sources. hateless 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lack of notability. Dionyseus 01:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G1 and G4. The page is clearly a joke. --Sable232 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Sable232. Hagerman^(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Pyrotechnics, google shows that they seem to exist, but I can't track down much to make it verifiable, so a redirect would make sense here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little context, no assertion of notability. A redirect to pyrotechnics may make sense. Seraphimblade 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic, no sources cited and little in content.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom et al - don't think the redirect would be useful. SkierRMH,08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, has potential to be a decent article, has a couple of hundred plus hits. At worst make it a redirect to Pyrotechnics instead. Mathmo ^Talk 08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sable232, not a joke, 222 hits on Google. But it is unsourced, unverifiable and there is no assertion of notability. --Majorly 11:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't saying the subject is a joke, but the previous version of the article was. --Sable232 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Firework or Pyrotechnics. --- RockMFR 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5. Author Jsgray1993 (talk · contribs) is clearly sock of previous creator, banned Jsg1993 (talk · contribs). - Fan-1967 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2028 G Street NW[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion but buildings are not valid under A7, so AFDing. No Stance Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of notability, no citation of sources. --stephenw32768^<talk> 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NN and no sources. Dionyseus 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Hagerman^(talk) 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a WP:HOAX [6], and not terribly notable either. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN A7 at best, hoax at worst. SkierRMH,08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all what's above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sourced/and not-notable. — Seadog 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ect †he Bread 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as unsourced, and as a steaming pile. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) P. S. What the heck is meant by "is repudiated as one of the most haunted areas in Washington, DC?" I'd correct it to "reputed" except that I'm not sure whether it means "is reputed to be" or "is no longer reputed to be." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Subwayguy 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake in the crane's shadow[edit]

Complete nonsense. Speedy deletion was contested, goodness knows why. StoptheDatabaseState 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is utter nonsense. IrishGuy ^talk 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No question. Shagmaestro 01:21, 10 December 2006 (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 per nominator's agreement, below. NawlinWiki 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa University[edit]

Balboa University does not seem to exist, or at least has not since the 1950s. See talk page for further explanation and links. A google search yielded no results. Shagmaestro 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alliant International University, which seems to be Balboa's successor after several mergers. NawlinWiki 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. I hadn't considered this, as I am a wikin00b! Thanks Shagmaestro 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kazer[edit]

WWII soldier who won a Silver Star for bravery in one battle. Is that enough? I don't think so. Article is unsourced. NawlinWiki 01:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search of "Joseph Kazer" only produced mirrored wikipedia articles. Unsourced and marginally-notable. Shagmaestro 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Silver Star is a medal which is awarded to members from all 4 branches of the US military. According to this book by Chris Hedges, during WWII, just one branch, the US Army, awarded roughly 75,000 Silver Stars. This doesn't mean that this guy wasn't heroic (assuming that reliable sources turn up supporting the article) - just that he's not encyclopedically notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Bwithh 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn,and primary contributor is User:Kazer72a, so possible COI Werdan7^{T @} 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V with 4 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Hagerman^(talk) 02:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, missing multiple non-trivial published sources, also doesn't meet WP:V Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even all Medal of Honor winners stay. --Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Silver Star not enough to establish notability, entire article including this is not sourced in any case. Seraphimblade 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were in a book, I'd enjoy the passage, but unfortunately, Joseph Kazer doesn't have a place on Wikipedia - JNighthawk 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability concerns. TSO1D 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate sounding like a copy cat but defiantly not notable— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadog.M.S (talk • contribs)
Delete. Looking beyond issues of notability, the article has a copyright mark at the bottom. Either it's copied from somewhere (and should be deleted), or it was contributed by someone who didn't understand the GFDL. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Keeling[edit]

19th century Illinois brickmaker, only claim to notability is that he once hired Abraham Lincoln as his lawyer, and Lincoln advised him to drop his lawsuit. NawlinWiki 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO Akihabara 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drop it per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and it doesn't even say if he dropped the bleedin' suit or not! SkierRMH,08:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:bio. — Seadog 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not only does this article lack reliable sources, but being the recipient of a letter from someone notable does not necessarily confer notability, as demonstrated here. Yamaguchi先生 02:55, 15 December 2006 (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 with (not necessarily to) Smart Mobs. Sandstein 07:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart mob[edit]

neologism. no citations, some links at bottom of page don't even use the term "smart mob" Skrewler 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Smart Mobs Hagerman^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hagerman. hateless 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hangerman. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hagerman. SkierRMH,08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per G1 (Patent nonsense) or just delete. - Femmina 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per that guy. --- RockMFR 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Smart Mobs as per hagerman Bwithh 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this article could certainly be improved upon, but it is a very real concept in new media/sociology and is referenced/written about extensively outside of Rheingold's book, for example: this paper from the 2003 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, this paper from the 2004 European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, this IEEE paper, etc. Also see all the times it's mentioned in Wired (including this: "Is Wikipedia a heartening effort in digital humanitarianism - or a not-so-smart mob unleashing misinformation on the masses?") schi ^talk 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schi. Seems like a logical and improvable article subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per several above. Two articles, one concept. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do I need a reason? Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I do. It's redundant. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schi. Real concept worthy of own article. --Oakshade 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. -Ich (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2006 (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 Centaur-like creature. For such a long discussion with so many participants this was surprisingly clear cut. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chakat[edit]

A nearly unintelligible article on a fictional "creature" that seems be something the creator made up in school one day. The article puts forth no creditable claim of notability and, being a amateur construct, has no reliable sources outside the creator's personal website. To be frank I have no idea why this even has an article or why someone thought it would be a good idea to add this to the encyclopedia. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a free web hosting service to advertise your artwork. NeoFreak 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the format and wording of the article has changed since the initial nomination. While my oinion of the article's subject and its inclusion based on policy remains unchanged please review the article again if you have already cast a vote. Some justifications used for previous votes may no longer be applicable. NeoFreak 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "furcruft." From what I can tell from an initial Google search, this appears to be related to furry culture, and although this Bernard Doove guy has created a heaping ton of info about it and it fits into some fanfiction Sci-Fi universe, I still don't understand its purpose (or maybe I just don't want to). Maybe this stuff has some merger potential somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm already too weirded out to search further. As the article stands, however, it does seem to fail WP:NOT per nom. -- Antepenultimate 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote, please see below. -- Antepenultimate 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete, chakats are notable in the furry fandom, but only in the furry fandom. If someone wants to know what a chakat is, they will go to WikiFur. - ∅ (∅), 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Strong delete nn fictional species created for a piece of shit porn story series - ∅ (∅), 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite As I've stated on the Talk:Chakat page, If wikipedia is going to provend information on porn stars and obscure comic book characters then I can see no reason to delete such an article. I am unsure of how this article is something that was made up in school one day. Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Honeymane" is a typical chakat name, this user may identify as a chakat. :-) - ∅ (∅), 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commet: Honeymade, have you read the notability guideline I linked? If you have I don't understand how this can be seen as anything but "something made up one day". You're right, Wikipedia is not a place for obscure porn stars, see WP:PORN. If you see pornstars that are featured here that do not meet that criteria then by all means prod or AfD those articles. Most minor comicbook characters are included in their parent comicbook articles or in a list. Those that don't fail WP:FICT. Again, if you see any violations of this feel free to prod or AfD them. Another important feature that distinguishes those aformentioned articles is that they have been published. This, on the other hand, is a pure amateur creation that is being advertised on wikipedia that has no interest to people outside a particular subculture (cruft). The people in that subculture can find this information at other more appropriate places such as the creator's webstie, fansites and dedicated wikis such as WikiFur. Violations of wikipedia policies and those policies' guidelines do not set a precedent for continued violation. I would recommend you review WP:NOT and WP:N. NeoFreak 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. If there's articles about minor comic book characters and non-notable porn stars, take them here so that they may be deleted. MER-C 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication why this is a notable word or work of fiction. Seraphimblade 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikifur for merging, then delete as per above. MER-C 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: As the original creator of this text (but not the species) I cite the large amount of independent art and literature that has been created about this species, including this article. [[7]] [[8]] These are independently conceived and written works, and I assure you (as a writer) that the act of creating the two given examples was non-trivial. The fact that you may or may not like the species yourself does not change the fact that hundreds do. The fact that you don't understand why this species (among millions like it) has achieved that level of success is in fact a mark of potential interest to the wider community. ANTIcarrot 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction is one of the least reliable sources out there. MER-C 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of fan fiction on this subject demonstrates a 'cult following' though, which is a criteria for notability. I would also challenge you to name another fictional species which has achieved this level of popularity (or greater) or caused the creation of this amount and quality of work (not of creator origin) without being backed by a major publishing house or broadcasting organization. If you cannot, and no one else can, then that makes the species notable all by itself. ANTIcarrot 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan fiction isn't a source, period; at least not in terms of any notability guideline I've ever read. We're talking published, independent, reliable sources. Think newspapers, scientific journals, informative television programs, and some web content - but not blogs, and in this case, probably not anything from www.furry.org. -- Antepenultimate 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines require the topic (chakats) to be the subject of multiple non trivial works (novels and very expensive art) whose sources (people who created the works) are independent of the subject itself (and its creator). The guidelines go on to say that 'published works' is a very broad category not limited to the examples given. If it was limited to those categories then wikipedia itself (being non published) would be a trivial source- which is blatant nonsense. If you wish to exclude all material that is only published online then you still have to deal with the large amount of paper artwork that has been created on this topic. To my knowledge wikipedia offers no guidence for notabilty of artwork, but the shear quantity and quality produced makes it non trivial. ANTIcarrot 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this isn't a question of whether anyone likes the species, it's about whether or not chakats are notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia, which is what this is. - ∅ (∅), 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ANTI's point is; because it is so well known, in a pool of dozens of other fictional species in the Furry Fandom, it is notable. Take the Sergal for example. It's pretty obscure in the fandom, where as, chakatas are not. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...no, seriously, read WP:N. NeoFreak 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

explane to me how Noonien Soong is a notable example of a character, when A) the only source it cites is Star Trek TNG, and B) a wiki on star trek which also cites the same episodes. Perhaps that article should also be deleted. Surely Noonien Soong isn't notable outside the Star Trek fandom, and it's only citing works of fiction from one source; I can't see where the news articles are, or other such secondary sources of information are. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:BIO, which allows for articles about "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." In the following list of items to assert notability for an individual of this type is the requirement: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following." Note that this is acceptable because it is a character on a long-running, extremely popular television show - not self-published internet fiction. -- Antepenultimate 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better place to check is WP:FICT, where Noonien Soong is actually used as an example of a minor character that deserves a separate entry, due to suficient depth. Please note the background of a successful television show as well; this really makes all the difference. If this Chakat race is really as important within furry fandom as claimed, it may be best for you to look for another article at Wikipedia that you could suggest merging a shorter, more concise version of this article into. This is a compromise that I may be able to support. -- Antepenultimate 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Soong deserves his own page either but as I've said past violations are not precedent for this one. Besides if you think that the Chakat's "Stellar Federation" furry fan fiction universe is equatable to Star Trek then we alot bigger issues here. NeoFreak 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Forest tales 16-18 have been published as a book, [[9]] Second, You can not say 'this page has to go' and cite a policy that basically says that such article are allowed. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line two on the webpage: Creator Owned Publications Self published, doesn't count. Relevant Amazon hits for "Chakat": Zero. That covers a lot of territory, what with all the Amazon associate used and speciality booksellers. Also, while you're at it, read WP:INN. Tubezone 06:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's a nice Error 404 you've linked us to, there.~~ whoops, that was temporary. And I'm not going to explain the difference between a long-running television show and somebody's personal webpage again. Start citing reliable, third party sources as outlined in WP:RS if you really feel this article should stay. You should know that Star Trek fanfiction drek gets deleted all the time. You're right to say the fiction guidelines are somewhat loosely followed, and I agree it's gotten out of control. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting it to get worse. -- Antepenultimate 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misreading Creator owned publications, I believe it refers to the fact that the writers still own the copyrights to the stories.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worse still, Fauxpaw Publications seems to be a vanity press... MER-C 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be a vanity press to me... they claim to pay the authors, not the other way around. Small press, certainly, but that's to be expected with a niche genre like this. I'm not convinced the book is enough to make this topic "notable," but given that it seems to be a web-based concept, it could be argued to meet criterion #3 of WP:WEB. Personally, I'd want to see sources. If they're that widespread in fandom, hasn't someone written up an essay about their culture, or something? Anybody reviewed all those stories? Anything? Shimeru 07:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it seems they pay the authors "in kind" (free copies of the book) or the royalty income, what there is of it, winds up going to pay artists, here's their submission guidelines. As far as I can tell, their only distributor is The Rabbit Valley Comic Shop, zero Amazon hits for Bernard Droove or Fauxpaw. Maybe not a vanity press per se, but should still be considered trivial for notability purposes, you'd practically have to publish in Sanskrit from a cave in Nepal to be much less notable. Tubezone 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to independent review of the work to the article.ANTIcarrot 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A furry-fan e-zine (Anthro #6), trivial. Tubezone 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this shows that it is notable in the furry fandom, and it has reviewed by another source. It's like claiming that a science-fiction fan magezine can not review Star trek and use the review as a citation for an article on star trek. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a forum for unsubstantiated opinion. 'Trivial' on what grounds? ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial per WP:BK. Anthrozine is even less notable than Publisher's Weekly, and reviews by PW are beneath the notability threshhold. The Forest Tales books don't even have ISBN numbers, let alone LC catalog numbers. I mean, there's stuff that's been published on mimeograph that has an LC catalog number. Equating Forest Tales with Star Trek or Chakats with Noonien Soong for notability purposes is a an absurd non sequitur. Tubezone 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, at best, to Wikifur. SkierRMH,08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or slight merge. I've found myself involved with some of these furry AfDs lately (I'm going back to writing mycology taxa articles soon, I swear), not out of any remote personal interest in the concepts, but rather in the AfD process. At times, material that could meet our standards reaches AfD because the articles don't: they are poorly written, in a genre perceived as "crufty", and little effort is made to appropriately reference or verify the content (even by its supporters!). That said ... I cannot find multiple, independent, non-trivial sources here. There are no shortage of trivial mentions: art categories, furcode references, one-line references in FAQs. The term is well-attested in the print-medium fanzine South Fur Lands, but that is not independent of the creator; the self-published and ultra-minor press material likewise. It is discussed in the webzine Anthro (#6), but that's not enough to support an article. Nevertheless, the term seems to have some cultural currency. Perhaps it can be merged as a brief mention in another article, such as a mention infurry fandom that roleplaying charcters—on which a stubby section already exists—might include "anthropormorphic animals (such as rabbits, foxes, or wolves), mythological creatures (centaurs, dragons, and the like), or fan-created species (including the quadrupedal feline aliens called chakats)". Serpent's Choice 08:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) -- change in suggestion, see below[reply]
Delete Chakats already have an article in Wikifur. A mention in a list of fictional furry creatures with a link to Wikifur is enough. There's just a lack of non-trivial, outside of the walled garden of furry-fandom references to this. The ghits count is artificially inflated by "chakat" apparently being a word in Hindi, Malaysian, Japanese, Russian and Shawnee. The article smells like social astroturfing as well. Tubezone 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already fleshed out over at WikiFur and isn't notable enough to keep over here. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per user Tubezone and BradBeattie. Also I can't help but think that the originator of the article was making up the article as he/she was going along in writing it. There a no verifiable citations/sources and one could just about add anything to it with no one the wiser. --Eqdoktor 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being inaccurate, your thinking is not a good basis for deletion. Citations can and are being added. ANTIcarrot 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first line of the page you cite states the following: This story uses elements from the Internet role-playing environment FurryMUCK, however it is not intended to be a complete or accurate description of anything actually there. Furry fanfiction != reliable source. Tubezone 17:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false argument. Pretty much every modern fantasy book on the book shelves contains elements from Lord of the Rings, but that does not make them fanfiction. All writing works that way for all genres. Furry simply tends to be a little more honest about it. The two (story) sources are relevant as they mark the turning point where the chakat setting stopped belonging to its creator and became 'open source'. Information to this effect exists on the chakats den. At that point fanfiction as a term no longer has any relevant meaning. (And point of note, specifying 'furry fanfiction' like that is not needed. Fanfiction is fanfiction. Specifying specific types can sound prejudicial and non-neutral.) ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was first written (2004) before wikipedia even had guidelines on fiction notability (2005). I'm not sure it's fair to suddenly demand it meets complex guidelines that did not exist at the time 'or else'. Give it another week or two (when people have found time for a major rewrite) and then have another look. ANTIcarrot 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is exactly the kind of article the notability guidelines are meant to address. I don't see any grandfather clause in the guidelines. I am not sure what you think you can come up with in a week or even a month, there isn't going to be a Publisher's Weekly review or an amazing change in the Amazon ranking of its books or author (actually, any Amazon ranking at all would be amazing). Tubezone 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true that Chakat is not breaking any rules or policies other then being poorly writen. As I've pointed out, these are not very strong guidelines, Chakats are notable in the fury fandom, just as Nooien Soong is notable in the star trek fandom. If a Fictional engineer in a fictional universe can be an article, so can a fictional creature in a fictional universe. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and when a Forest Tales' syndicated TV series comes out, I'm sure the issue of the notability of this character will be revisited for a WP article. Tubezone 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of articles on wikipedia about non-syndicated Television shows. I feel that you are attempting, on purpose, to misunderstand my example.

To paraphrase NeoFreak: The chakat article has no claim of notability, and does not hae any sources outside the creator's website.

Now, if you replace chakat with Noonien Soong; The Noonien Soong has no claim of notability, and does not have any sources outside of the creator's show.

However, if one reviews the WP:FICT one sees that Noonien Soong is an example of such an article which is allowed.Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ENOUGH. Can that please be the last time the Noonien Soong or Star Trek is mentioned? They have nothing to do with Chakats. As has been said numerous times: inclusion is not an indicator of notability! Please stick to the subject at hand. This conversation is going in circles, and it is going nowhere, because I still don't see reliable, independent third party sources being added to this very-definition-of-fancruft article. I suspect this is because these sources simply do not exist. -- Antepenultimate 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: Your argument that another article on Wikipedia is just as worthy of deletion as the one in question does absolutely nothing to further your position of Keep. -- Antepenultimate 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are intend to address the style of such pages, not snuff them out of existence. The current page is inappropriately worded in many respects, but it is unreasonable to expect people to drop everything they are doing and instantly rewrite the article just to make you feel better. As mentioned above there are good reasons for the topic to be of interest for a group larger than the core readers.ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per everyone else who agrees that the Furries have their own wiki for this kind of thing. It's well-written, but it's well-written non-encyclopedic non-factual stuff of minority interest. Pete Fenelon 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Seadog 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account that (I think) this already exists on Wikifur. Transwiki if I'm wrong about that. --Dennisthe2 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - much as the character is popular in furry fandom, it's pretty well impossible to source under the guidelines here, and is probably better off at Wikifur. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While normally I'd vote to keep, the people who own the furry fandom and yiff articles (yes those have been WP:OWN for as long as they've existed), refuse to link to this article from their's. There's links from the talk pages of people arguing for the linking. It would be best transwikied to WikiFur, but if that's not possible, then Delete. Anomo 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I think I'm understanding the deeper issues here, (which really don't involve the notability of Chakats for WP), apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) the mainstream furry fans (the folks who like ordinary furry things such as The Lion King and Dogs Playing Poker) aren't too hip on hermaphroditic feline centaurs, whilst the more extreme furry-lifestylers and yiffy crowd don't see Chakats as overtly sexual enough, then apparently there's some personal issues between the "owners" of the articles as well. Thus all the protestations about the notability of Chakats in furry fandom, which really isn't pertinent to this AfD (the question here is solely whether the article meets WP guidelines). Anyway, the Chakat article on Wikifur is pretty much the same as the WP one, so the transwiki-ing is a done deal at this point. Tubezone 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I think alot of it has to do with the "owners" of this article being upset that their subculture isn't getting the same "recognition" as more mainstream ones. Like Star Trek I guess. This is only the tip of the wikipedia furryberg. Check it out. NeoFreak 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you've created a list completely of furry related articles to delete; do I detect a bias?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you've included a "This User is a Furry" userbox on your Userpage; do I detect a bias? (It can cut both ways, you know.) -- Antepenultimate 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but my bias isn't going to delete articles. Just some food for thought --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... being biased is only OK if it leads to cluttering Wikipedia with fancruft articles that very clearly fail WP:N? Very interesting. You and the other supporters have done little but argue your case based on emotions. Those of us who favor deletion or redirection (I'm the latter, it may be hard to see that given the length of this discussion) have consistently referenced numerous guidelines in support of our position. We support these guidelines because we do not wish to see Wikipedia become a joke. You, Honeymane, also included references to guidelines in one of your posts - and I respect you for that. But a single WP:RS-compliant source will do much more for your case than a thousand posts referencing WP:IAR. If Tubezone has created a list (and, to be honest, I haven't even looked at it) and you feel that those subjects are worthy of inclusion, then now is the time to start furnishing them with independent, third party sources (as outlined by WP:RS) to assert their notability per WP:N. Truely notable subject matter has no trouble doing this. -- Antepenultimate 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, as is WP:N. WP:IAR is a policy. Now, I can understand that you would not like to see wikipedia become a joke, as you put it, I, However, Do not want Editors on wikipedia to lose sight of the spirit of Wikipedia. It may not seem importent to you, but the last thing I want to see is wikipedia to become a wanta-be EB. You keep pointed to articles like WP:RS but you fail to tell us what you believe a thrid party source is; I believe the review we've cited is a third party source, if not, explane why it is not. IIRC, a third party resource is one that comes from another person, unrelated to the creator of the material.Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citing verifiable, authoritative sources IS a core policy of Wikipedia. WP:RS is a "guideline" only in the sense that it is used to help determine what is and isn't an authoritative source, not being "policy" doesn't mean that sources aren't required or that trivial sources or sources that are unclear independence of the primary source (such as niche booksellers or webcomics) are acceptable. This article is essentially a copy of an article that already exists in Wikifur, so there's little reason to maintain it here, and suitable references and links are already in the WP article Taur. That's a fair and reasonable compromise by just about everyone's standards. Tubezone 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to go and frequent the other current WP:AfDs, since your fuzzy logic could be used to "keep" just about every single one of them. Your emotional attachment to this subject is so strong that you would rather see Wikipedia devolve into an uber-inclusive anarchy than have this article deleted. Note that every time I have said "third party source" that annoying word "independent" happens to show up in front of it: This is not an accident. In this case, this means someone who is not associated with furry fandom (clearly, a webzine with the name Anthrozine raises some red flags here), and could be something as otherwise-insignificant as the local weekly newspaper. I didn't want to say it, but citing WP:IAR in the midst of an extensive argument such as this probably isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. It is clear that your involvement in this AfD debate is born of emotional attachment and not from any desire for improving Wikipedia - a significant requirement of WP:IAR, by the way. With well over 1,500,000 articles, the last thing I worry about is Wikipedia turning into another Encylopedia Brittanica. The issue is no long quantity, but quality. -- Antepenultimate 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to improve wikipedia, which is why I'm pointing out the WP:IAR. Video game articles often cite reviews that are done by websites, like 'Gamespy', which are not outside the video game fandom should you refer to it as such. I doubt if there will be a newpaper article on chakats soon, but that does not make them non-notable.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, you would have mentioned that line of reasoning long before I basically begged you to start citing policies (see below). I'm thoroughly unconvinced that you just happened to stumble upon this AfD and began commenting with the hopes of averting some great injustice. And for the last time, please stop mentioning completely un-related subject matter as though it has any bearing on the current discussion. What a video game, created and developed by a major software publisher and distributed internationally (and henceforth reveiwed by Gamespy) has to do with a race of hermaphrodites "living" in some future fancruft universe... Seriously. This is ridiculous. To say nothing of the fact that such a review isn't likely to be the only thing an author of such an article could come up with. If you find articles where this is not the case, then you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. In the meantime, no more changing the subject, hmm? -- Antepenultimate 03:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out above that "Honeymane" is a typical chakat name, too. :-p - ∅ (∅), 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liking The Lion King and Dogs Playing Poker doesn't count as furry fandom. That is normal fandom for modern culture. Loony Toons isn't necessarily furry fandom. Furry fandom is stuff like Inherit the Earth Quest for the Orb game or Taurin Fox's artwork. Anomo 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point of contention and I would wager that most furries would disagree. Check out the Furry fandom article. I think that bringing the Lion King and Looney Toons "into the fold" is really an attempt to make the Furry community more mainstream or more encompassing than it really is but that's just a personal opinion, the argument can be made both ways. NeoFreak 09:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when... alt.furry was a new Usenet newsgroup (yeah, I know, that's ancient history), most of the posts seemed to discuss The Lion King (in particular, that was popular) or similar Disney furries, that's why I mentioned TLK. Dogs Playing Poker was just a lame joke on my part. Haven't paid a lot of attention to furriness from then 'til now. Tubezone 09:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you don't need to like the sexual elements of the fandom to be a "extreme furry lifestyler" :-p - ∅ (∅), 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taur, aiming for a compromise. I just spent some time cleaning up and referencing the disaster that was the taur article, and collapsing about a zillion smaller articles into it. I included a brief mention of chakats (which probably do not meet full-article standards, but certainly can hold their own for an acknowledgement in a larger related section). Wikifur is the better place for the in-universe detail, barring notability-standards coverage of the concept at some future time. Serpent's Choice 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos: Wow man. I was about to say that article was on my hit list too but you've done some great work to it. It's a million times better. I'm still not sure that the "Chakat" belongs there because that sets an example for anyone that creates a fictional creature or comic book/fan art to add their creation to wikipedia. Still a violation of the WP:NFT notability guideline even though it does not have its own article. I really think this sort of thing is best left to personal webpages and private wikis. NeoFreak 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! It needed ... erm, help. I'm going to have to hit centaur soon, too, as it makes Chiron cry. But as for chakat and the WP:NFT issue... I'm torn. On one hand, as far as fictional creatures go, its certainly not centaur, or even drider. On the other hand, there are a ton of Google hits (conflated with some foreign language issues, admittedly). The material has seen publication in several fanzines (South Fur Lands, Fur Plus at least), and a serial-format (more or less) self-published book that got reviewed by webzine Anthro here. I don't think that's quite enough for an article, but I think its plenty to dodge the NFT bullet in regards to a mention within a larger topic. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changing my vote to redirect per Serpent'sChoice's excellent work on the Taur article. I don't know how happy the furry fanatics are going to be about cutting the article down to one sentence, but that one sentence wraps up about all that is encyclopedic about Chakats, IMO. Perhaps including external links to Wikifur and Doone's website (outside of the references) might not be such a bad idea. Again, nice work. -- Antepenultimate 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: here's one "furry fanatic" who could care less about chakats. - ∅ (∅), 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional species. Edison 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I feel this article should be kept, as it is as notable as the unicorn and the pegasus. You don't have to be in the furry fandom to enjoy such things, either. SheWolff 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Do you really think that the Chakat is as notable to popular culture as the Unicorn and Pegasus? Seriously? Do you have any refrences outside the furry internet community to back that claim? Has the Chakat ever been included in mainstream books, videogames, boardgames, movies, TV shows, coats-of-arms, or art like the Unicorn and Pegasus? No? I didn't think so. So what exactly is your comparative criteria for a statement like that? NeoFreak 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably WP:ILIKEIT ;-) I think this AfD is going to set some kind of WP record for non-sequiturs. Tubezone 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Answer: If they are being discussed in classrooms in elementary schools, which to me, is outside the furry internet, that is reason enough for me. Something doesn't have to be on a coat-of-arms or on the TV to get admiration. If they discuss it in schools, then to me it has enough merit. Nuff said. SheWolff 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - HUH? Where did that come from? Not only is this fact not from the article, I don't believe its even been mentioned in the conversation above. Do you have any sort of proof for this rather sudden claim? ~~Also, why are you creating new usernames each time you come here?~~ Never mind that last bit, I see that you must be manually signing your name and got it wrong. Next time, just type this: ~~~~ and it will all be taken care of for you. -- Antepenultimate 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proof came in the form of my son coming home and asking me about it. Upon further investigation, indeed the teacher has been discussing it in the class, along with other myth-like creatures. That is where that info came from.SheWolff 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (Comment moved here for clarity ANTIcarrot)[reply]

All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, so unless the local news does a writeup on your son's experience, it doesn't pass the test. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with some of our core guidelines; besides Verifiability, reading our guideline on Notability should also be helpful. -- Antepenultimate 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had kids in elementary school for a long time, so maybe I'm out of touch here, but if my son's elementary school teacher were discussing hermaphoditism, or even a fictional hermaphrodite, let alone a fictional hermaphrodite that has mammary glands where they shouldn't be and runs around with them hanging out most of the time, in an art or English class, I think I'd be calling the school principal, not using the incident in a WP AfD discussion....Tubezone 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, the criteria on which this was brought to the class was indeed taken from this site. Now, that being said, the chakat is up as an article, as seen on here. That makes it verifiable, and notable. A lot of information that floats about this world comes from gaining knowledge from places such as this. With what you just said, you are contradicting yourself by stating what you did. Therefore, it is verifiable and notable. SheWolff 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo.... what's really happening here is that the author of Chakats is using WP to establish notability? Sounds like you're making a good case for a CSD G11 speedy delete for spam... Tubezone 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read the verifiability and notability guidelines? An article's existence on Wikipedia being used for it's own verification?!? That line of logic makes my head hurt! Read the guidelines, please. -- Antepenultimate 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If as many of us know about the topic as the above discussion indicates, it is surely notable. (smile) Not as a comicbook character in a story, but, just as the author says, a character who has been the incentive for the creation of a notable series. DGG 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which "notable series" would that be? Also, how many people engage in an AfD discusssion isn't one of the Wikipedia notability criteria. Tubezone 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question:What exactly do you want us to verify? The species exists as a creation. there have been multiple articles created on the subject created independently of the site. WP:WEB There is a notable amount of art created on the subject independently of the site. It is known about outside of furry. This has all already been verified so far. If this isn't good enough what else is required? We're not going to turn up tomorrow with a front page from the London Times - and yet the page has not yet been deleted. You pointed to Wiki standards time and again, but what exactly do you want the proof of? ANTIcarrot 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My mentioning of verifiability was in direct relation to Shewolff's "proof" about Chakats being used in classrooms being a personal experience involving her son. That instance, even if true, is impossible to verify; therefore unless another source can be found to back up the claim that this is being taught in schools, it is not eligible for use in the article nor is it relevant to this discussion. We've already gone over the notability concerns, please read WP:N and stop throwing that word around like there isn't a very specific definition of its use here at Wikipedia (as you just did when you claimed there to be a "notable amount of art.") As per why this page has not been deleted yet, AfD debates typically run at least five days (we are on day three now, I believe) at which point an admin will review the arguments to determine if a consensus has been reached. That admin will weigh arguments in terms of their relevance to established guidelines, so it is in your own best interest to familiarize yourself with those guidelines and phrase your arguments with their requirements in mind. -- Antepenultimate 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not paper And I'm starting to believe that perhaps the use of WP:IAR may have to be used in this case. We've provended sources for you. However, you shoot them down, dispite the fact that they are Sources. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between a reference being a "source," which can really mean almost anything, and being a "Reliable Source," which is what we are concerned about here at Wikipedia. -- Antepenultimate 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a reliable source, as that is where the article they used to teach the class came from. The school must have thought that this was a reliable source or they wouldn't have used Wikipedia as a resource. SheWolff 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the words "Reliable Source" into a Wikilink just because I thought they looked pretty in blue. It is a link to an established Wikipedia policy that very specifically details the defination of what is considered a reliable source here at Wikipedia. Please read it. How your son's teacher feels about the reliability of Wikipedia could not possibly be less relevant to this discussion. And lest we forget, the claim that this is being used in a classroom environment is currently completely unverifiable, anyway. -- Antepenultimate 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Chakats are also obscure comic book characters, as they're the main feature in Four Footed Furries by Shanda Fantasy Art. Secateur 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — Secateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obscure is right... "Shanda Fantasy Arts": 11 ghits, 13 Amazon listings (none with ISBN's), 12 have no ranking, one has a ranking of ....(drum roll)... 1,963,122. I mean, this example is practically defining non-notability. Tubezone 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Footed Furries was a one-shot anthology, not an ongoing series of any sort. Also, referring to the chakat content as the "main feature" is deceptive. Doove's work shared space with at least two other authors. To its credit, it did see Diamond distribution, but I still think it would require an extraordinarily liberal reading of guidelines to consider this sufficient for article justification. I'll happily add it as a reference in taur, though; print refs for fictional topics always make me happy. Serpent's Choice 05:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I figured front cover helped somewhat towards main feature. By the way, two other authors? Mark Merlino's reprints from New Horizons, sure, but who do you have as the third author? Ah, Diamond makes sense, that's how it found its way to Northern Europe. Also, I suggest redirect to taur. I don't think WP:NFT is a problem, because getting a comic book distributed by Diamond is a bit more serious than funny things you did at school some day. I do, however, think WP:N is a problem, at least with chakats as its own article. Secateur 08:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Front-cover status was news to me; my store didn't stock Shanda titles, and so I've never seen a copy. That said, what minimal information I could find about this issue online indicated material by Doove, Merlino (Shelly Pleger illustrating), and Roy Pound. I could be wrong as its been staggeringly hard to find info about the title at all. Serpent's Choice 09:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.rabbitvalley.com/item_4671_2769___Four-Footed-Furries-Issue-Number-1.html for a cover and brief contents. I'll see if I can figure out which issues of New Horizons Merlino's stories where printed in. Roy Pounds II is an illustrator, not an author. I don't remember exactly what he drew in that issue, but knowing his art, I'll guess chakats, garettas, sphinxes, shapeshifters... Secateur 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints of stories from NH #1 and #5, but then Rabbit Valley stopped reporting contents for the next few issues, and I haven't been able to verify the last one. However, I doubt it matters to the task at hand anyway. Secateur 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chakats are also characters in the webcomic Apollo 9[10] Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link indicates no article found at wikia by that name. Doing research myself, this appears to be a self-published webcomic with no verifiable coverage on independant sources. Webcomics that do not meet the project's notability guidelines are no more able to serve as references or reliable sources than fan faction, livejournal entries, or blog posts. Serpent's Choice 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot part of the address, however, what webcomics are not self published, and, if you perform the search I did on google, (see below) you'll see a lot of sources.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google PageRank of www.longtail.us/apollo9/ = zero. Alexa rank .. (another drum roll) ... 2,240,125. I mean, we're rapidly being sucked into an obscurity black hole here. Chakats are apparently reverse Midases of notability. The next example that comes up will probably prove that a gathering of the entire world readership of Chakat material would barely fill two booths at the Shakey's in Cucamonga. Tubezone 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google search however, shows 127,000 results, for Longtail, Apollo, and 9 (longtail apollo 9). I find it hard to believe that it could = zero.Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google PageRank is a 0 to 10 scale. BTW, the Alexa rating for the site dropped 1,297,089 in the last 3 months, and the page views by 83%. These stats are for the entire longtail.us site, the stats for the individual pages, of course, will be less. The recently zapped article Draconity, BTW, had over 11,000 ghits, and that total wasn't be skewed by false cognates in other languages. Tubezone 08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad most of those are for the Apollo Space Program. Even a simple revising of the search to Longtail "Apollo 9" (the quotes ensure that all results have "Apollo 9" as one phrase) quickly whittles that down to 236 - and still quite a few of them are about the space program! -- Antepenultimate 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is a substantial difference, for Wikipedia, between a webcomic hosted privately and one associated with Keenspot, ~~Comic Genesis,~~ or even Blank Label Comics. A properly formatted Google search provides substantially fewer hits (360, with 69 unique). Almost all of them are livejournal entries, blog posts, or Webcomics List and its mirrors (which lacks Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion). The only exception I could find is a reference in South Fur Lands, which was established earlier in this thread as not being an independant source from the concept's creator. Serpent's Choice 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an award for Best AfD of the Year (Comedy)? This is rapidly approaching the status of hilarious. NeoFreak 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article exists at WikiFur and is not generally notable. Arkiedragon 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taur - SecondTalon 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taur per earlier comments. I'm not a furry, but have certainly vaguely heard of chakats, but at present I don't see adequate independent referencing. Once there are a couple of references to chakats in the broader ( that is, non-furry ) media I'll change my view. Certainly, though, we should have a redirect, so that people accessing Wikipedia at least have something to go on. WMMartin 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taur Was going to say delete, but I liked the solution offered. Chakats aren' notable enough to have an article for themselves, but are notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. 201.84.18.36 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes about problems cited. As I understand it, Wiki policy prefers that potential problems are discussed in talk pages before deletion becomes an issue. That did not happen here. "made up in school one day" It would have been easily disproved by an examination of the primary source given at the time that this is not the case. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" This article is not one of the examples given. Wikipedia currently gives no guidelines for as to whether any given story is notable. The article might be a close match for requirement 6 in books albeit chakats are a species that features in several stories written by several authors; rather than a single story in and of itself. "Advertising" Chakats are not a commercial product, so it is hard to see what is being advertised here. The article was not written as an advert. "Wikipedia:Fancruft" Not in and of itself a reason for deletion, and not a policy violation. This statement is also disputed, as with the school teacher example, and that the species might be of interest to transhumanists, and scifi writers in general. (See below.). "Astroturfing" I cannot see how this is possibly relevant to the topic. This and the accusation about hit-count manipulation read as a personal attack. "Does not meet style for fiction criteria" This is an argument for rewriting, not deletion. "Notability" The big question. Two third-party web-published articles (non-scholarly sources) have been found on the subject. A large amount of third party literature and art has been created. Since this is a shared universe the term fanfiction may or may not be appropiet. Wikipedia at present contains no guidelines whether pictures/art are/are not non-trivial works. Some of it is very likely to have been published by parties.ANTIcarrot 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages and pages of notability guidelines, with a number of points that are applicable to this article and have been explained. WP:PARROT Tubezone 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A final note for on the usefulness of the topic (since notability is so heavily defined): We may well have in this discussion a couple of experienced deletionists here. I once again ask them a question which they have so far either not noticed or refused to answer: How many species are there like chakats that have created a comparable amount of interest and participation as evidenced on the Chakats Den and associated site? The deletionists must come across topics like this a lot. So how many can be named? It has been implied that chakats are nothing special. So how many examples of fictional species can you name? Creating such a popular fictional species is neither easy nor simple. chakats weren't even created as such, yet they *became* popular because people showed an interst in them. It might have been word of mouth, or random clicking, and yes, people reading about them in 'cruft' publications. But the fact is that lots of people were interested enough to look it up, stay, and contribute. how often can you say that for a fictional species that hasn't been backed by a major publishing house? For the administrator: I realise that 'being very exceptional' is not a criteria for wikipedia notability, but it is a standard for common language notability. In the latter sense, chakats are very notable, not because of the species itself, but because the exceptional response and interest they have generated is very unusual and has sustained itself over fairly large period of time. I ask the administrator to consider whether this might constitute an occasional exception to the notability guidelines on that basis alone.ANTIcarrot 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how many examples of fictional species can you name? Offhand, dragons, mermaids, centaurs, satyrs and unicorns. All fictional species of long term, wide popular notability, not cult subjects of webcomics with sub-1,000,000 Alexa ratings and books that are so obscure they lack ISBN numbers, which demonstrates exceptional lack of response and lack of interest. Never heard or cared about Chakats until this AfD came up. That sort of goes to the point, WP is supposed to document notable things and persons, not be used to create notability, neither should this AfD used to create notability. The keep argument ran out of gas, like, about the first day, but every argument except actually coming up with verifiable, reliable sources that establish notability has been dragged out and rehashed ad nauseum, just to keep the debate going, it seems. Tubezone 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Alexa rank of the Chakats Den = 717,353. WP is, by 30,000, the highest ranked site linked to it, without that WP linkspam, the ranking would likely dive to oblivion. Chakats Den exists to promote and sell Mr Doove's work, so does the page, a pretty good argument could be made to speedy delete this article as spam. Tubezone 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He could be refering to such things as Sergal [11], rather then Creatures best defined as mythical, like unicorns and Dragons.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think chakats being characters in Apollo 9 makes them notable. But that doesn't make them non-notable either, because non-notable means absence of notability, not presence of a case of non-notability. Not having heard of chakats isn't a valid argument for non-notability, nor are WP:IHATEIT found way above, just as WP:ILIKEIT aren't. I agree though, there are plenty fictional species more known than chakats. However, you don't list any modern creation. I suppose List of species in fantasy fiction might be interesting here. Secateur 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Secateur (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Look at all those fictional animals just waiting to be put up for AfD! (in my best Snidely Whiplash voice) BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!! But seriously, I'm going to lay off participating in fictional creature AfD's. As far as Chakats go, a mention in Taur and on that list is fine by me. BTW, I'm not arguing to delete based on whether I've heard of it or not. I haven't heard of most of the characters on that list because I'm not much interested in most of the material they appear in, other than Dexter's Laboratory. Tubezone 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition strongly accepted not-notable fur-cruft. - Francis Tyers · 02:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not verifiable from information in reliable sources. Delete. --Slowking Man 02:11, 16 December 2006 (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 Opabinia regalis 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Nelson[edit]

I don't think she meets WP:BIO Akihabara 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur. MER-C 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One Oscar nom[12], so not quite. ~~Delete~~. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Neutral, default keep, as I just don't see any sources that can be used to expand the article. It's possible there are historical sources, not online, that could be used. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There's no information here beyond what can be found in the Internet Movie Database, but Nelson was once nominated for an Oscar [13] which would place her above the run of the mill for costume designers, and also did costumes for some other prominent films (Miracle on 34th Street, Gentleman's Agreement). She may qualify under WP:BIO among "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". --Metropolitan90 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She appears in a couple en passant mentions in Google Books. One of them is Costume Design in the Movies: An Illustrated Guide to the Work of 157 Great Designers[14]. She is not one of the 157; she did work with three of the 157 (mostly Charles LeMaire), but notability is not transferable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being nominated for an award that has a limited number of nominations, and which is shown on national broadcast TV in prime time, is notable.--Prosfilaes 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first Oscar telecast was in 1953, fyi. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. — Seadog 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per above Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the Oscar nomination and the work on an extremely notable film (Miracle on 34th St.). Costume designers are rarely notable, but I think this one might just barely squeak by. A reference in a book (even if she wasn't one of the subjects) adds some verifiability. Xtifr _tälk 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Award nominee = "notable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an Oscar nominee. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oscar nominees are notable. Ccscott 17:12, 15 December 2006 (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 after addition of reference. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Mousley[edit]

I don't think being an electoral commissioner is notable. The others at the page's link don't have pages on Wikipedia. Akihabara 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem notable enough. NawlinWiki 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial mentions on Google, 1 news ghit, also a trivial mention. MER-C 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news mention outside the job and her job is simply not significant enough to sustain an article. Does not pass any part of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think electoral commissioner per se is a notible position. SkierRMH,08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is hard to have an article on the elections in South Australia without having an article on the person who runs those elections, which is what an electoral commissioner does. The article has references. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly trivial claim to notability. Rebecca 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is South Australia's first female Electoral Commissiooner and there are 30 Google News Archives results. [15] The article is referenced which puts her across the line for me. The person above should sign their comment. Oops as should I. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is perhaps of note. If you'd like the article to be kept, can you please update it to mention this and provide the references so it unambiguously passes WP:BIO for notability. Thanks. Akihabara 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference added as requested. I can't figure out how to use the referencing system so I have added it manually. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to say Keep, based on the points of the person above me. Could use a little bit of cleanup though. Lankiveil 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Definitely keep - per Australian Electoral Commission being an important post, and first female at that. More notable than 90% of bios on Wikipedia. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while probably not all electoral commisioners are notable this one is per the news coverage of ehr appointment. Eluchil404 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple mentions in media equals notable. Most electoral commissioners are probably not notable, but this one is. Ccscott 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; all concerns regarding WP:AUTO aside, the general concensus here is that she meets WP:BIO. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Biggs[edit]

I deleted this under CSD A7. The user re-created the page, and added substantially more information (secions 3 and down). What do you all think. No Stance —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think this person is sufficiently noteworthy. Reyk _YO! 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly notable; I added a refs tag and categorized it. Akihabara 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~Keep Disclosure: I have been in extensive dialogue with Barb Biggs on her talk page. The page submitted is an autobiography written by the subject. I think before we can accept this there will need to be many independent sources cited and/or an extensive reduction of the content. I advised her to compile her notability sources and I was intending to consider writing one myself if, after verifying the sources she had a notable and verifiable biography. Alan.ca 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am concerned that user:Barbbiggs is editing her own biography, the criteria of wikipedia have been met to have an article for Barbara Biggs. It is my hope that editors who find this topic useful will contribute more neutral point of view content. Alan.ca 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm finding this a very notable person. [16][17][18][19]. If there's a serious vanity issue, I have no problem deleting it to a stub and letting it grow. But definately a notable person. --Oakshade 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, if this is your position, than strip it down to a stub based on referenced material and the AfD debate can continue on the stub article. My may concern is Conflict of Interest at this point. I have been working with Barbara on her talk page and I intend to continue to do so to find material that may be relevant.Alan.ca 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I have been working with Barbara on her talk page, due to this process, I have taken some time to look at the reposted article. I removed all references to articles Barb Biggs wrote as that would clearly be Conflict of Interest. Further, I reformmated the 3 provided citations and removed a great deal of uncited statements. That said, I offer this section of wp:bio for contemplation as I think this is the nature of our debate:

--- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
- Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

--- The citations we currently have in the article, two of them are interviews and one is an independent article. The interviews, I am interested to read the thoughts of others. Do we consider interview statements made by the subject reliable sources? Barbara is making some rather controversial statements about the barrister, that I have not seen confirmed by anyone but Barbara herself. If we choose to accept the interviews as reliable sources we may be reprinting something that is not a reliable statement. Lastly we have the "Hollingworth in 'journey of discovery'" article from theage.com.au. The Hollingworth article reads as credible as it is not simply an article, but I personally cannot speak for the reliability of the source. Anyone on that subject have a thought? I have not touched on the book citations, I would like to read your thoughts on these 3 first. Thank you for your patience. Alan.ca 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding your issue, Alan. First of all, she was a sole primary guest of the BBC program Woman's Hour [20] and that's the audio interview (actually, by listening to it, it sound more like a discussion with the host [21]). That she was chosen as the primary guest on a long running popular national radio show is an example of notability in itself. And I would strongly argue that an "inteview" is very different from an "autobiogrpahy". The other two pieces currently in the article certainly aren't "trival coverage" (not just a "mention" or a listing).[22][23] She's the "Primary subject". As almost always, when there's a journalistic piece of somebody, they contain quotes from the subject. Correct me if I'm but, but just because they contain those quotes, you seem to be labeling these as autobiographies. They're not at all. And none of these are "self published works" in any way. ; The Age articles and the BBC interview are not published by this subject. This passes WP:BIO easily. --Oakshade 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am raising for discussion is the value of sourcing a statement the subject of the biography made in an interview. I think the idea of independent sourcing relates to remarks others have written that support the article about the subject. When you are citing the subject, even if it's in a national interview, the source is not the interviewer, but the subject themself.Alan.ca 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only dealing with the issue of notability, not exacly verification of the article content. I'm looking at these articles closely and I'm finding a majority of the Nitika Mansingh and Damien Murphy written ones have only a small minority of actual quotes of the subject and are mostly about her rathing than listening to her. I agree that the article content should not be verfied by the actual statements of the sujbect, whether they are from that BBC interview or the written articles, except as written in journalist form that actually cites the subject, ie. "According to Ms. Biggs, when she was 5..." --Oakshade 09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I am not familiar with the radio show in question, but in the U.S., being the primary guest of a tabloid TV show means very little. Some shows even put on fake guests or coach guests into elaborating their stories. The reputation of the show is very much at issue here. That said, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons requires that any accusations she has made against still-living persons be independently verified, or else that the accusation itself be sufficiently notorious that it has wide press coverage. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woman's Hour is very similar to a US NPR show. Think like All Things Considered or Fresh Air but specifically focused on women. You can listen to the audio link and judge for yourself.[24] --Oakshade 16:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't seem to read the file, but I accept your word that this is not Jerry Springer. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of naming an accused based only on her say-so, but that is an issue distinct from deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio files are always iffy. It's realPlayer. Just for information, there are at least 3 non-interview sources in the article now. I still won't argue about content verification (like the accusaions) only being her word without an outside source. --Oakshade 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Barbara Biggs' Alan.ca 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend alerted me to this page which I didn't even know existed, although Alan had mentioned there was a debate going on somewhere! - main reason I haven't responded to the debate. First point I'd like to make is that the barrister died in the 1990s. This was first rreported in a fourpage article Good Weekend, one of Australia's most respected liftout magazines in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers (Melbourne) in 2003 when my book came out. I will try to find a reference to this, however I find that often older articles are hard to find. The main reason dozens of articles about me haven't come up when I do google searches I presume. I was also interviewed on BBC World Service when In Moral Danger came out in the UK. Once again, if I can't find it on google, I don't know where else to find older references. If anyone knows, please let me know. In one version posted, there were references for the publishers sites listing In Moral Danger in Sweden, Greece and Japan. They are in the languages of those countries, but if you don't allow weblinks in other languages, this isn't necessarily going to be reported, since it isn't considered relevant news, in English publications. If anyone knows where such a source could be found, let me know. As for notability, there are pages of interviews about me on google, including some of the most respected interviewers in Australia - Phillip Adams, Robyn Williams (30 years presenting on ABC radio), George Negus (30 years Oz TV), Australia's top rating Sunrise breakfast news TV program three times. These are not cited but I will try to find them. As for the political career. Unsure why this was deleted since my candidacy was reported in Nitika Mansinghe's article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs).

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you for clarifying that the barrister is no longer a living person, which relieves BLP concerns. If the name goes back, a date of death with citation would be nice -- perhaps he has a capsule biography in Who's Who or some equivalent? A Lexis/Nexis search might help as well. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find many articles and interviews which I've slotted in, but not the crucial Good Weekend one. It's too old I think. The Sydney Morning Herald archives only back back 12 months. Also, I've found a Japanese amazon.jp site and cited that for the Japanese publication (this is in Japanese, but the book, In Moral Danger and my name is written in English on the site) but amazon doesn't have websites in Greece or Sweden. Of course I cited Greek and Swedish sites before, but somebody has deleted them, presumably because they are in a foreign language. I'd certainly like to know how other people verify that their books have been translated into other languages. In any case, see how you go with the sources now cited and keep me posted Barbbiggs

See my comments on the talk page, where detailed discussion belongs. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the talk link in your posting above and got a page for Robert West, which I presume is you? couldn't find your posting there but will look again. Barbbiggs 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Talk:Barbara Biggs, which is where discussion of improvements to the article belong. This page is solely for discussions about whether the article should be deleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is WP for if not articles on people who have written books about their experiences that have become obvious matters of public controversy. DGG 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted public figure and author with numerous media mentions. She clearly passes WP:BIO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the person is notable and not a speedy deletion candidate at all Yuckfoo 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the hoo ha, back stabbing, control issues, going on about this article. As a result of, I presume, adding source material and fixing typos to this article myself, I have been blocked from my username and can't log on. This feels more like a grade eight class of school kids fighting over what is basically an innocuous article that should have been a fairly straight forward process. My many 'edits' that I have disobediantly 'added' have been fixing typos, adding an apostrophe and adding sources. If you want ordinary people with something to offer to have a positive experience with WP, I suggest you get over yourselves and spend some of your time fixing up other, appalling and offensive entries (Recovered Memory Therapy, The Courage to Heal, Satanic Ritual Abuse) instead of wasting everybody's time with inoffensive ones like mine.
I have personally spent some 20 hours trying to satisfy your every increasing demands on what is basically a few hundred words about a person who writes books and volunteers much of her time on an issue that most people find a turn off. Do with the article what you will. I resign. 203.36.217.79

Keep based on authorship of multiple published books. JamesMLane t c 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As written now it is properly referenced, and contains multiple, non-trival independent media publications on the subject. Notability is not subjective and if the media has determined her notable, the primary criterion of wikipedia notability has been met. Ccscott 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On The Real (forum)[edit]

Does not establish notability. -- Ben (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. Almost a speedy. MER-C 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Basketball forum with 1000 users. No outside references. Not very encyclopedic. -- Ben (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable forum. Nobody has come yet I see. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn web group; haven't even warrented a ((not a ballot)) tag on their nomination! SkierRMH,08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable IMO. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. TSO1D 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why this was created, but I'm the owner of the basketball forums. I think the plan was to place a link to an article of ours, not create a page for us. Can I request an immediate removal, please? Realdealbneal 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you can if you created the article. And it seems like User:Silversword55 has that honor. -- Ben (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good to hear, thank you for the information. Realdealbneal 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Kingsley[edit]

Early 20th century teacher whose diary is in the Harvard Library. No other claim to notability. NawlinWiki 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN. MER-C 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. SkierRMH,08:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. TSO1D 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only reference provided is the Harvard source. WMMartin 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Enterprise Coaches[edit]

"New Enterprise Coaches is a small coach and bus company". Fails WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 02:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:CORP SkierRMH,08:56, 10 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Jordan[edit]

Non-notable losing reality TV contestant. No indication of notability outside TV shows. Contested prod. MER-C 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (keep) merge to Aleksandra Jordan, her real name. Being featured in a reality TV show plus a somewhat accomplished professional ballroom dancer may be enough. hateless 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Aleksandra Jordan has been added to this nomination. MER-C 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to both, nn as also-ran in reality TV and also-ran in dance contests. SkierRMH,08:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN... or at best merge into the parent show's article. Pete Fenelon 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak (keep) merge to Aleksandra Jordan, her real name. She is an exceptionally talented rising star of the dance world. hateless 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be notable, if she is a rising star then she can have an article when she has risen. Inner Earth 15:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An IP editor already merged, though to the stage name, rather than the real name. Article does not assert notability by WP:BIO standards, much less use independent reliable sourcing to prove it. GRBerry 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of heteroflexibles[edit]

Blatant POV fork of List of bisexual people, where this page's creator has been involved in a lengthy edit war. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |[reply]

Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - ∅ (∅), 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And because Wikipedia has ten times more lists than we need. - ∅ (∅), 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 04:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per that second small comment. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary duplication of article as noted in nom. Seraphimblade 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft as a way to end an edit war doesn't justify existence as article. SkierRMH,08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft (WP:NOT) --Charlesknight 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of dubious criteria which can be hard to substantiate and will never be complete. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVforking. ~~Do we even need the other page? I can't really see how a list of famous bisexuals serves any real purpose. Wouldn't a category be better?~~ Koweja 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to List of bisexual people and sprotect. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bisexual people and semiprotect if necessary. I'd be cool with delete too. POV fork. Another problem is that "Heteroflexible" is pretty neologistic. It's not in the dictionary (AHD4). Having gotten drawn into editing List of bisexual people, I've found that for many people it possible in many cases to find decent sources that refer to them using the word "bisexual." I've argued (semi-successfully) that the criterion for list inclusion should be the citation of a reliable source that uses the word "bisexual," rather than Wikipedians' editorial judgement of whether some collection of facts adds up to bisexuality. But I don't think there many people for whom you could find a reliable source that describes them using the word "heteroflexible." I notice that a Google Books search on "heteroflexible" turns up only four entries, none of which uses the word to describe a specific, named person. Heteroflexible is an awfully... flexible word. Would you call Lewis Carroll a "pedoflexible?" Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dpbsmith. Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, neologism, POV fork. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. This is a neologism not in the dictionary, and it inherently invokes POV every time it is used except perhaps in the rare cases of cited people who used the word to identify themselves. Doczilla 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK. I don't think a redirect is necessary because the term apears to be a neologism.--Isotope23 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless those proponing deletion are willing to maintain the subtle distinctions needed for accuracy @ List of bisexual people — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, above all because the list includes, and is clearly designed to include, people who are more like homoflexible. There are real, difficult questions about how to handle the List of bisexual people, but this kind of blatant mislabelling makes things worse, not better. —Cel ithemis 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think I can give a reasoning that wasn't already provided. -- Mikeblas 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wnukowski[edit]

Weak Delete Notablity not explained thoroughly. His claim to fame is playing the piano at a few government functions. I'll withdraw the nom if he's done more than that somewhere else. Just H 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Name gets 2500 hits on google and his website shows several CDs. Also, there are already many other wikipedia articles on him in different languages. Joshdboz 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:N. The article needs mutliple non-trivial independent media articles. Surely it shouldn;t be hard to add them to the article for someone as 'notable' as google inists. (And releasing CDs on your own website is not proof of notability, it's just proof he's making a lviving playing music.) The Kinslayer 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed WP:MUSIC and WP:V. - crz crztalk 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Hagerman^(talk) 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not justified in article. Akihabara 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. riana_dzasta 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, and the article itself doesn't give rationale of notability. SkierRMH,09:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the commenters above, no prejudice against recreation at a later time from reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Bank N.A.[edit]

Minor bank, fails WP:CORP. Delete - crz crztalk 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:CORP SkierRMH,09:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otter island (fictional)[edit]

Amateur fiction cruft. The article details a fictional world written in-universe that the creator seems to have just made up but Wikipedia is not for things you make up one day. This article has been around for over two years because it is a walled garden. The article is a fan construct so it has no reliable sources or verifiability, makes no claim of notability and seems to be orginal research. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service for people's fictional creations or an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoFreak 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, that's so cute! I love it. Unfortunately it doesn't belong here. :-( Delete. - ∅ (∅), 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above I can't believe this has been around for 2 and half years and has been looked at and edited by multiple named editors but hasn't been brought to account until now.Bwithh 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as.... Mustelidcruft? Tubezone 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have been made up one day, fails WP:V. MER-C 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above, esp. Bwithh's comments. SkierRMH,09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good god, how this be out there for so long? amateur fiction - delete as OR. --Charlesknight 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I don't even think TV fictional places deserve an article, let alone this place that nobody has ever heard of. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was of interest to anyone else there'd be references to it, private mythologies don't cut it here. Pete Fenelon 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike some of these topics, which simply suffer from poorly written articles that do not attempt to meet WP:V, this seems to stand no chance to do so even if motivated. Serpent's Choice 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightwave Indie[edit]

I believe this article is vanity. The one external link is to a particular band's webpage. The phrase gets very few google hits. The first one lists only the linked band as being tagged with the label "brightwave indie". best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn musical genre, fails WP:V. MER-C 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passes the Glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,09:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. —ShadowHalo 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know the person who wrote this article, it was just a demonstration on how to invent a new genre of music. --131.227.101.13 02:50, 15 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Shadow[edit]

Procedural. Twice-prodded. Concern was notability. Abstain. - crz crztalk 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. The two "magazine" articles are actually links to an ezine on, you guessed it, that unreliable wellspring of vanity. MER-C 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, and WP:V given the misleading "citations". SkierRMH,09:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangi meads[edit]

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V. No relevant google or google books hits. Zero Factiva hits. Did not speedy delete as this article does make claim to notability. To me, it reads like it was written in earnest (though maybe I'm just not familiar with Kiwi humour cues), so also bringing it to afd to see if anyone comes up with something more (e.g. if the name has been misspelt) Bwithh 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let's put this "article" out of its misery. MER-C 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speey delete as horrible WP:BIO v*nity piece. SkierRMH,09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. DrKiernan 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of superhero clichés[edit]

Delete - Pure OR. Otto4711 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 2? :) Nah, not very encyclopedic, original research. riana_dzasta 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, incomplete unsourced original research and listcruft. MER-C 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would-be listcruft. - ∅ (∅), 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contents are ultimately quite subjective, in addition to the problems suggested above. Heimstern Läufer 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Golly gee Batman, why is this here? SkierRMH,09:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with List of comic book clichés, which seems to have the same problems with this article - only a lot longer than 2 examples. --Eqdoktor 12:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, that comic book cliches article should go too. It's been nominated before and I can't figure out how to do a 2nd nom. Otto4711 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Figured it out, the other list is now nominated. Otto4711 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to vague of a standard for inclusion and everything added is original research or from non-notable sources. Koweja 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more clichecruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 11 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT/Wellesley Toons[edit]

Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable student singing group which has a couple of records available through a self-publishing service and has done some touring of other colleges. The first AFD did not involve much discussion. Keep !votes revolved around assertions that 1)Chorallaries have an article too (i.e. the Pokemon defence... I'm dubious that they're encyclopedically notable, but Chorallaries at least can make the claim that they have been somewhat successful in international singing contests), and that 2) bands with smaller fanbases and fewer (self-published?) records had articles too (no specific band articles were offered as examples. Such articles no doubt exist, but should be deleted under WP:MUSIC too).(oh, there was also the assertion in the first AFD that the bulk of WP:MUSIC doesn't apply to Collegiate a cappella groups - to which I go "eh?"). No Wellesley College Senate Bus jokes please, I'm British. Bwithh 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1st AfD was an aberration - crz crztalk 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They seem notable but that's got to be my personal bias, and if they actually are, the article fails to assert that. —ShadowHalo 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Do not meet WP:MUSIC. If there's general consensus that college groups should be held to a different standard than other musical groups, than WP:MUSIC should be edited to reflect that. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2006 (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. It will be recreated as a redirect to Battlestar. --Core desat 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Columbia[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as spam but doesn't meet that speedy criterion, IMO. AFDing to see consensus. No opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meh...thought it might have been spam due to the RPG link at the bottom...unsure though. Anyway, still not notable. Gzkn 03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells of fancruft too. Be aware that some of the 810 non-wiki ghits are about the Space Shuttle Columbia as per this Time article. MER-C 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. —ShadowHalo 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Individual items (weapons, vehicles etc.) from TV series, video games etc. are usually not notable. I don't see any reason why this one is an exception. Heimstern Läufer 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battlestar. All relevant info already is there. Caknuck 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. (The battlestar article contains more specific info on Columbia that this article, actually.) Quack 688 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. A passing reference in the Miniseries is not enough to warrant a full, independent article.-- danntm ^T _C 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I guess, though a deletion might work just as well. TSO1D 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Fancruft. --Bryson 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable fancruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it is verifiable - the issue at hand is that it's not notable enough. Quack 688 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Battlestar, per Caknuck. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battlestar. This is trivia, not notable enough for its own article. Doczilla 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A ship mentioned as destroyed in both versions isn't notable, and this page is clearly just badly written excuse to promote someone's RPG. Duggy 1138 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect delete it first, then recreate as a redirect to Battlestar. 132.205.93.16 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Francolini[edit]

This article was nominated back in February, and the result was no consensus, with one editor volunteering to clean up the article. It has been sitting as a stub with no claim to notability since that time. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7. --Daniel Olsen 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedily. Articles that have generated a discussion resulting in no consensus (I do realize it was a very short discussion and should have been relisted) should not be tagged for speedy deletion in most cases. theProject 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: I agree with theProject's reasoning, but otherwise this article could fall under both CSD A1 and A7. Heimstern Läufer 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and It's just two lines with a picture. SkierRMH,09:10, 10 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KBasic[edit]

A minor software product. Originally an open source product, then with a limited free edition, now entirely commercial, according to the home page linked from the article. I see no reason to keep providing them with free advertising. Delete gadfium 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ADVERT for insufficiently notable product (see WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services). No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:28, 13 December 2006 (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 to No Fly List#False positives and alleged misuses, dab page adjusted accordingly. Sandstein 14:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Iqbal (Rochester, NY)[edit]

Non-notable guy who plans (according to source in 2004) sue U.S. government. Renata 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What the heck? Three seperate articles about the guy are pretty much instant notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to No Fly List#False positives and alleged misuses. Several people considerably more famous than this person have had similar experiences. --Metropolitan90 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. He is not notable for anything he did, he is simply a statistic. Any article that needs to state "he is notable because..." is not notable. Resolute 08:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added another source with some more information now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Metropolitan90. Inner Earth 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90RaveenS 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP He is notable not for what he did, but for what was done to him. The articles needs serious expansion, which will be easy as every news source has written about it, here and abroad, and will be continuing to until the matter is finally resolved, some years from now. This is already a notable civil liberties case, and not keeping it would be a very serious POV bias.DGG 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This "planned" lawsuit doesn't move me, but he's received enough publicity that readers may want to know about him. One trouble with merger is that I'm not sure we could keep him listed on the Asif Iqbal dab page, which would lessen Wikipedia's value in helping to sort out these four people. JamesMLane t c 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with leaving him on the disambiguation page with a link to No Fly List#False positives and alleged misuses. Not every entry on a disambiguation page needs to have a full page in its own right. --Metropolitan90 20:15, 16 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid adapter[edit]

wiki article for non-existent, untested and technically unfeasible object is being linked from other web sites by the author. [25] Clearly original research and/or spam. Athol Mullen 05:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Akihabara 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Athol's comments are not true and not objective - as many hybrid adapters have been built and article does reference others work in this field. This article does name the category of devices and the name as has yet to be published somewhere other than the internet -- based on this fact, the article may run afoul of the deletion rulesIhero 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link that you've added since I proposed deletion is completely unrelated to driving a trailer to push the vehicle, which is what the article is about. That 5th wheel setup would fit in the hybrid vehicle articles that already exist. Oh, and the word I was looking for to describe this article is wikiturfing. --Athol Mullen 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. $CJ 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the descriptive contents in the genset trailer article. LHOON 10:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth wheel article was added to refute Mr. Athol's technically unfeasible claim -- which has no basis -- and is more like a personal attack. The article clearly has original work -- and to be honest - I did not know you could not include original work/concepts in wikipedia -- for I do it at work all the time in our wikimedia software(a non public version).So I learned something valuable here -- how do I help delete the article, how do I help in the process? Ihero 12:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an article about hydrid vehicles. Sounds like a great idea, but is pretty much original research, citing only a blog. Wikipedia is not a site for initial publication of gadgets someone thinks up. Build it, get it in Mechanics Illustrated and Popular Science, with TV coverage on CNN, then come back and re-create the article. The article trivializes concerns about the source of the energy, the size and weight of the batteries, the possible instability of pushing a car with a fifth wheel, quick failure of an overloaded motor, the lack of traction, the lack of acceleration, the need to coordinate the bvraking system with the pushing motor, and safety concerns, and presents an idea as an established concept. Edison 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Linn[edit]

Totally fails Notability, who IS this guy really? --MinervaSimpson 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to this page on the Florida Department of State's website, he finished third (albeit with only 1.9% of the vote) in the Florida gubernatorial election, 2006. Notable. Heimstern Läufer 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For one thing, he was on the ballot for the 2006 Florida governor's race. —tregoweth (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heimstern Laufer. Seems to pass our notability criteria... Localzuk^(talk) 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually seems not to meet our notability criteria - people elected to major office, yes, but not people who came a very poor third and are not even on one of the two main party tickets. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[26] ThuranX 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Harless[edit]

Non-notable, more pop culture fringe crap. Wikipedia does not need to drown in a cesspool of marginal pop culture mire. Only of interest to 13 year old girls, if that.MinervaSimpson 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided to put her up since she was the manager of NSYNC and innosence, plus being Justin Timberlake's mother. I won't vote either way on this (mainly because I created the article), though sory if it doesn't seem to meet the standards here. -WarthogDemon 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment and maybe a vote - All issues aside, I actually was beginning to consider putting this up for AfD myself. It did seem to be notable enough at first, though that was partly because I had gotten some information wrong and thought she had slightly more notability than she actually had. So I suppose if I can vote, I'll also go along with delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs).
Delete, having famous offspring does not make one notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one step too far removed from notable musicians to pass WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this person is NN, might be worth a passing mention in articles on Timberlake and the bands she managed. Pete Fenelon 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[27] ThuranX 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Against America[edit]

None notable band, top google results include its wikipedia article and the bands myspace Dan027 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but perhaps a redirect to one of our articles on War on Terror may be appropriate. MER-C 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I don't think a redirect seems appropriate either. —ShadowHalo 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martyr this article and bury it wrapped in a pig skin. - ∅ (∅), 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Latona[edit]

Apparently more teeny bopper crap. Non-notable, insignificant, total waste of byte space and our resources. --MinervaSimpson 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - member of a notable group --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability provided. Akihabara 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one step too far removed from notable musicians to pass WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has nothing outside of an obscure pop group to warrant inclusion. No AMG bio would signify that the solo career didn't pan out. Caknuck 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Localzuk^(talk) 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[28] ThuranX 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danay Ferrer[edit]

Totally fails Wikipedia notabilty standards. Author spent more time on cute graphics than actual information? You know why? Because there is NO information worth writing about! Delete this tenny bopper garbage post haste. --MinervaSimpson 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because something is teeny bopper doesn't make it worthy of deletion. Having said that, is no additional information and notability, so a redirect is probably not worthwhile and I agree delete. Akihabara 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one step too far removed from notable musicians to pass WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has nothing outside of an obscure pop group to warrant inclusion. Caknuck 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Localzuk^(talk) 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[29] ThuranX 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep due to bad-faith nomimation. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Morris (singer)[edit]

More idiotic teeny bopper pop garbage. Not notable, among other things. The author's continual creation of non-notable unsourced pages on worthless "personalities" borders on trolling.MinervaSimpson 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD is totally wrong - it's for a DAB page --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this mess and now the AFD points to the correct article. Now we can consider the article that was intended to be nominated. MER-C 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As for Danay Ferrer. Akihabara 07:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has nothing outside of an obscure pop group to warrant inclusion. Caknuck 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But this is an obvious WP:POINT nomination. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one step too far removed from notable musicians to pass WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and there is nothing that could be merged into the group's page either. I don't like how this has came to AFD though... Localzuk^(talk) 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Innosense (band) which is barely notable. JoshuaZ 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[30] ThuranX 18:43, 10 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Wotan (book)[edit]

Prod disputed with reason "I agree that it should probably be deleted but as a "published" book its notability should be reviewed in AfD". Article on author deleted due to lack of notability/attack, no indication why either book or author is notable. Nominating for deletion accordingly. Seraphimblade 06:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Also, this comes quite close to CSD A1. Heimstern Läufer 07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete May be notable, but unless evidence is forthcoming it should be removed. Akihabara 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn self-published book Dragomiloff 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but cross-reference @ Wotanism. A rather insignificant self-published book which was heavily plagiarized from other sources and then given a neo-nazi spin. - WeniWidiWiki 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Nazi poppycock, deleting it will just make it pop-up again in a week or month or year. Alf photoman 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material by Miguel Serrano makes it useful. Also, the book is connected to The Order (group), a significant terror group in USA history.--Tsmollet 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the foreward is by Serrano. Also, the book has nothing whatsoever to do with the Order, other than the fact that the (ex)wife of David Lane edited it. This is long after his involvement with the Order. There is no content, and it is unverifiable. One line of text is not an encyclopedia entry.- WeniWidiWiki 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, which part about "stub" do you not understand? You know, wikipedia is literally awash with crap such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambone, and people are targeting articles useful to the pagan community..... --Tsmollet 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Wotanism or some other article dealing with Nazi nonsense. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily, with ((db-nocontext)), or ((db-empty)). Ceci n'est pas une ébauche. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not assert meeting any of the criteria at the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) (WP:BK), nor does it demonstrate any sort of notability on any other basis. GRBerry 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brock[edit]

No secondary sources, not notable, vanity. Skrewler 06:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first nomination.
This was found in the first nomination. Procedural listing. MER-C 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and no claims of notability. - Femmina 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --61.114.193.19 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. cacophony ◄► 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources? Non-trivial coverage? Guy (Help!) 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia after all. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:59, 13 December 2006 (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 Opabinia regalis 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Place[edit]

nn vanity alexa 100,000 it was deleted before, somehow it has reappeared. Skrewler 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 1st nomination and second nomination.
This was found in the second nomination, which was incorrectly titled as the first. Procedural listing. MER-C 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, it was undeleted to userspace, greatly improved, and moved back into the article namespace. But it's still short on notability and reliable sources, aside from a few mentions in the Guardian. delete again. BCoates 07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:WEB. Blog has just been nominated again for 2006 Best Weblog awards (see here). Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the number of references listed is impressive, but most of them are links to other non-notable blogs, forums, or internal links to the site itself. Only trivial coverage of the subject by an online newspaper is claimed. Fails WP:WEB. - Femmina 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on that vote: We seem to go around and around on this one. First, someone claims that the press coverage was not sufficient. Then I or others add information showing all the mentions, and put it in the article to prove it does meet WP:WEB. Then everyone agrees that excessive press linking just to prove WP:WEB is no longer needed because the article clearly meets it, and so it is pared down. Then someone nominates for deletion again on the grounds that the articles does not prove that it meets WP:WEB. So, here we go again. All significant mentions, with the page number for you to check in your newspaper library:
  - Nick Cohen, "Saddam's very own party", New Statesman, June 7, 2004, p. 26.
  - Daniel Finkelstein, "Police crack down", The Times, September 15, 2004, p. 2.
  - Nick Cohen, "Left's must-see film", Evening Standard, November 10, 2004, p. 15: "Harry'S Place is a website which struggles to uphold the values of the decent Left".
  - Janet Street-Porter, "Spare us these monuments to vanity", The Independent, December 23, 2004, p. 29.
  - Steven Vass, "Bloggers ready for general election debut", The Herald, April 10, 2005, p. 6.
  - David Aaronovitch, "Lib Dems in the land of wolves", The Guardian, May 3, 2005, p. 5.
  - Rhys Blakely, "The Week on the Web", The Times, May 21, 2005, p. 38.
  - Henry McDonald, "In defence of bigotry: The Religious Hatred Bill will only feed prejudice and lawyers", The Observer, June 12, 2005, p. 27: "On my newly found spiritual home, the sane left, robustly secular, anti-fundamentalist website Harry's Place ..."
  - Daniel Finkelstein, "Politeness in the photocopier queue is why we're losing the War on Terror", The Times, July 13, 2005, p. 18.
  - Rhys Blakely, "Bloggers", The Times, July 16, 2005, p. 40.
  - Nick Cohen, "Cool logic our only weapon against the preachers of hate", Evening Standard, August 9, 2005, p. 15: "The broadcasters can go to the "Harry's Place" website, which has become the meeting place of the antifascist Left."
  - Mary Ann Sieghart, "Fair-weather fan, moi? But it's the perfect way to watch sport", The Times, September 1, 2005, p. 2.
  - "Net profits", The Times, September 17, 2005, p. 38.
  - "Web page: Guardian.co.uk: Top Stories", The Guardian, September 24, 2005, p. 32.
  - "Media Matters", The Observer, October 2, 2005, p. 9.
  - 'Norman Johnson' (pseud.), "Free Radical: Don't pretend Harry's exit is just coincidence", The Guardian, October 8, 2005, p. 29. It should be noted that the Guardian's 'Norman Johnson' column was started as a pastiche of the politics of Harry's Place.
  - Oliver Burkeman, "The new commentariat", The Guardian, November 17, 2005, p. 8: "Harry's Place, the "blog" to which he is now a prolific contributor, has become one focus of Britain's culture of political blogging"
  - "I am... Peter Tatchell", The Independent, January 31, 2006, p. 11.
  - Ed Caesar, "Meet the bloggerati", The Independent, March 20, 2006, p. 10.
  - Catherine Bennett, "What would George Orwell say?", The Guardian, April 13, 2006, p. 5.
  - Catherine Bennett, "Men used to go fishing when they wanted to get away from 'the wife' and swap smutty jokes. Now they take up blogging", The Guardian, June 1, 2006, p. 5.
  - "Blogospheric pressure" (letter from Keith Flett), The Guardian, June 5, 2006, p. 4.
  - "Politicobloggery: A taster's guide to six of the best", The Observer, July 9, 2006, p. 11.
  - Michael Gove, "Hamas house of horror is not for me", The Times, July 26, 2006, p. 7.
  - Michael Gove, "Despite any misgivings we cannot deny Israel the right to defend itself", Sunday Herald, July 30, 2006, p. 9.
- Now I call that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", what do you call it? Also, it has been twice nominated for best UK blog in the weblog awards, which meets WP:WEB #2. Fys. Ta fys aym. 11:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Maybe your problem is that you insist on keeping too many external links to blogs on the page. Consider replacing them with a link to a page with the above list of pubblications. - Femmina 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the links are to articles on Harry's Place which are there to back up the text. The reason there are fewer press links is that they were removed for reasons discussed here. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, it's more than enough for me. Please do not consider my vote. -- Femmina 13:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The first 5 of these I could look up on the web [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Are entirely trivial, one-line references, either using it as an example of a blog or as a substitute for a man-on-the-street quote. BCoates 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UK political commentary blog with plenty of coverage (see above). Note that Alexa is a flawed metric for measuring popularity. Catchpole 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Alexa is not relevant site to measure popularity of the web page. People don't like spyware and Alexa toolbar it that kind of a so called tool. I agree with Catchpole. --MaNeMeBasat 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough references in 'real' media to this blog to make it notable. Pete Fenelon 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the one who recreated the page, along with User:Dbiv. I thought the decision to delete was based on an improper appreciation of the relevance of Harry's Place in UK political culture. I admit we didn't follow "proper" procedure when going about recreating the page, but as it stands, it is now a well-referenced article about a notable topic. I welcome this AfD as an opportunity to finally clear up lingering questions about the suitability of this article. Peter G Werner 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable blog, featuring prominent hjournalists in its comments section/readership.--Red Deathy 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not particularly keen on articles about blogs, but it is pretty obvious this one meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But what is the point - Dbiv and Werner will just recreate it if it gets deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.187.61 (talk • contribs)

Comment – Actually, I would respect an informed consensus decision to delete, the "informed" (concerning the notability of Harry's Place) part being what was missing in the earlier AfD votes. Peter G Werner 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well it is a great pity you could not have done so when it was deleted on (what?) TWO previous occasions - or is consensus only acceptable when it agrees with your brand of 'politics'? What arrogance - all the other votes were not "informed". Hear that folks? - vote against Werner and you are obviously stupid and should be ignored until you vote for the right result. Sounds familiar... Hilarious. I am starting to love the way you use and abuse wikipedia. Keep it up Werner and Dbiv - you guys are priceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.187.61 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 December 2006

Consensus can change. Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep the most obvious keep of the week so far. (except for Iqbal) DGG 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pers second (and successful) nomination. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This user, and the nominator, appear to be part of an organised ballot-stuffing exercise against blogs, judging by their user pages. Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It really shouldn't matter if people have a bias, there are real wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB which this topic meets. --Quirex 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd like to retract my delete. However how can I be part of "an organised ballot-stuffing exercise against blogs" when AfD is not a vote? Huh? Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:WEB per the giant list of references above, please merge that list with this article so it isn't nominated again based on WP:WEB. --Quirex 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:WEB per the commenters above with an exceptional number of non-trivial sources. Yamaguchi先生 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one is non-trivial? BCoates 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge Season 15: Fresh Meat II[edit]

(Note: the page is located here, and mediawiki does not look kindly upon the slashes in the title). I nominate this article knowing that it may be recreated one day. However, right now, it adds no verifiable, non-obvious information to our encyclopedia. This article, which is about a possible future television season, fails WP:V and WP:NOT. The only ref points ambiguously towards a flash website, which appears to be a recruiting agency. The actual content of the page is as follows: 1. a patent and not helpful observation about the unverifiable title of the season. 2. A table which has no clear meaning. 3. Everything in the table is not sourced, nor could I find any sources. 4. An unsourced trivia section that makes no sense to those that don't watch the show.

Even the forum yields no information. Nor does this search from MTV. Scrolling down to the bottom of this list, TV.com (owned by CNET) does not reveal a single thing. If this page is just guessing about who's going to make the cast for this reality TV show, I also move to delete it under WP:NOT#CBALL. Gracenotes ^T § 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced crystal balling. I've taken care of the slashes. MER-C 07:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to list a valid source and is rather on the crystal ball side.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard about casting calls for this, but it's still too early to start an article.-- danntm ^T _C 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Fresh Meat 2 was only to be produced if Road Rules 14 was not picked up. Milchama 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sources on the actual company's site. See "[www.bunim-murray.com]". Anom8trw8 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, that was before Road Rules 14 was picked up by MTV. Milchama 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Crzrussian. MER-C 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Luistro[edit]

not actual person Jagvar 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7. Appearing in x number of videos isn't an assertion of notability because those could be home-made. Someone else has tagged the article for CSD G3. Also a possible attack page. MER-C 07:10, 10 December 2006 (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. Deizio talk 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Lawrence[edit]

WP:V, notability - crz crztalk 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately, fails WP:BIO. Not a media personality, nor did he influence anything notable intellectually. If possible, Merge content from this article into another one (like We Were Soldiers Once...And Young or Vietnam War) without adding superfluous information. Gracenotes ^T § 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the one work he's listed as having authored doesn't seem particularly notable. Heimstern Läufer 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can't find RoA on amazon.ca, title produces only 6 google hits, and being mentioned once in another book doesn't mean muchWLU 17:22, 14 December 2006 (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 Deizio talk 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintek[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. This article has been written with the assumed intent of advertising information about the company, and reads as if it has been written by a person working for the company question. While it may be a company, it's activities or operations have had no significant impact on made no significant contribution to the industry in which it resides. Article also lacks significant citations, particularly in relation to financial status and such information could only be known by a company insider. Thewinchester 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a local, these guys have zero retail presence except on the net. They didn't even advertise in yesterday's West (which has two A3 pages devoted to classified ads for computer stores). Fails WP:CORP absolutely. MER-C 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the Primary Author for this article. The company is one of the top 3 online retailers in Australia, and is widely considered to be the top innovator within the IT industry. All financial information is cited in the West Australian article. The company has now been the subject of 5 non-trivial articles regarding their bulk buying project, and is facing increasing industry criticism as a result of their operations. Suggest the article be improved to conform with Wikipedia standards, instead of being deleted. Atchung 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Supporting Comments by Proposer. Also invoking WP:V as an additional reason for deletion of this article. I still doubt heavily that even with a massive re-write it would come close to meeting either the letter or the spirit of WP:CORP regardless of any increased conversation about it's business practice. It's practices have no significant national or trans-national impact, and the issue is not receiving significant coverage in the mainstream press, invoking WP:CORP#fn_6_back as these are not major authored works, but one time press articles about a minor and localised issues. The company is private and is not used in the calculation of ASX indices. My request for deletion under WP:CORP remains. Further to the citations of financial status, this was information provided to the newspaper in question by the company themselves and would not meet the criteria of WP:V and WP:REF being that the information is not independently verifiable. Consistent with WP:V, such citations do not meet the Burden_of_evidence section of this policy. thewinchester 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thewinchester (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rarely say keep about a debatable corporate article, but 1/the article itself is weitten objectively and 2/itdoes seem to be a matter of public controversy--and an interesting one.No policy says mainstream press is a requirement, but rather the press apprpriate for the subject field. this is the english language WP, not the US-UK WP, and I will go by what the Australians here think. DGG 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company just sorta meets WP:CORP.1 but they look like press releases not independant writing. IT doesn't help that this is the only article User:Atchung has worked on - so his arguements don't sway me very much.Ga rr ie 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have little to no impact on the market in which they operate in Western Australia, other than possibly an online presence. As a computer retailer myself and former IT support person, I'd never heard of this company until reading the deletion debate - I note also that none of Arrow Computers, Austin Computers, PLE or Trinix have their own articles despite being regularly advertised and well-known in Perth with considerable trading volumes. (Note: I'm not suggesting they *should* have articles, anything you could write about them would probably be self-sourced and fail WP:CORP) I'd also note that substantiation of financial information from The West Australian may not be sufficient as there are questions as to the editorial policy at the West - see that article for details. Orderinchaos78 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement that Dell is a competitor is false (reference says they provide a service similar to Dell's), if adhering to the letter of the law, you could call 3 obscure and brief articles non-trivial but I'd stick to the spirit and delete it. If the company grows and actually becomes a source of competition, re-create. Also, only 1 non-deletion based link to other articles and it's just a list of companies WLU 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry[edit]

Inaccuries, obvious omissions and serious bias Quintessencecat 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)— Quintessencecat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obvious keep, if you have an issue with content, take it to that article's talk page. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD was malformed in various ways. I've deduced from the nominator's contribs that this was what he was attempting to achieve, so I've fixed up the syntax and so on. That said, none of the above reasons are deletion rationales - they are in fact reasons for the article to be cleaned up by any and all comers. Thus, keep from me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and rewrite, the article is confusing and reads like it was written by someone who's first language is not English. Its talking about Middle Easter customs in the part on Europe and some sentences are not understood by me at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy Keep. The next admin reading this page should take a moment. Hornplease 08:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - What? This is like putting arranged marriage up for deletion. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give our nominator ideas. MER-C 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to assert notability. Majorly (Talk) 14:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayal Raja Muricken[edit]

Of doubtful notability, unable to find a non-wiki ghit. Also a mess (which I tagged). Akihabara 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup not a reason to delete.Baka man 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You haven't addressed my main point - notability. Why is this notable? Akihabara 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article makes clear assertions of notability (Indian agriculture) and the man is pre-internet. All that I've found in a search is a passing mention of him[36] in the context of land redistribution by the govt of Kerala - "It includes 1959 acres of kayal lands reclaimed by Muricken, which was declared surplus and distributed among landless farm labourers in 1975." It needs some reliable sources. Mereda 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because who ever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where one grew before, would deserve better of mankind and do more essential service ....than the whole race of politicians put together. (Jonathan Swift) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohanjoseph (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not delete the entry. If the instructions as to clean up and adding links were simple on the site, I would have done it myself. I hope one of you can help me in this regard.mohanj 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) This comment moved from AfD talk page by Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Smith Golf[edit]

Was about to tag db-spam but noticed they are now defunct. Insufficient notability provided. Akihabara 07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:BIO Bearly541 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP, whichever is applicable. MER-C 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent Kaapu[edit]

incomprehensible list, primarily NN members, defined as notable -thus inherently pov? - of relatively minor subcaste. Prod removed without comment by user with single edit. Hornplease 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero context, unreferenced and unwikified. MER-C 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename - List of Kaapus.Baka man 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN no references, etc. TSO1D 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No context - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniversalExports.net[edit]

nn website, references/awards seem made up, alexa is around 585,000, very spammy Booshakla 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Per nom. Next time just db-web it. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but it isn't a speedy. MER-C 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of 585,731. WP:WEB and ((db-web)) refer. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 10 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 06:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrouge[edit]

nn website/forum, no references, fails wp:web, very crufty and spammy Booshakla 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - db-web. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but not a speedy. MER-C 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers; Alexa rank of 175,937. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, it's my site, so that gives a bit of bias, but I would still like it kept in Wikipedia. I'll admit, it isn't a very large site (and thus, finding sources that mention it is - well, hard to say the least.) We are trying to expand the site though (which will also deal with the cruftyness). As for the article reading a bit spammy - well, I've tried to update it to a neutral POV. Philip P. 1:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please see WP:V, WP:AUTO, and WP:OR. I realize web forums are difficult to reference, but 1,000 member forums are actually relatively ocmmon. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer Redwall related, thus no relevance. --68.116.157.177 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 14:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zestha[edit]

Does not include origional sources. Just contains words and language. "empty" I nominated for speedy deletion, but a user took off the tag. Bearly541 08:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I usually would weak keep temples, but this is unsourced, confusing, and without hope of reference. Next time, simply revert. Removal of speedy tags is vandalism. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iff it was removed by the author, that is. MER-C 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Geni removed it.Correction duly noted. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 14:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ullas Das[edit]

NN author. Prod removed without comment by user with a very few edits, largely in related pages. Bringing it here. for discussion. Hornplease 08:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. 0 non-wiki ghits in Bengali, 11 non-wiki ghits in English. MER-C 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (Talk) 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Obvious[edit]

Keep - Deprodded. A notable enough expression (335,000 Google results when quoted). - Sikon 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 172 million hits for "even though", which would make it an even more popular phrase. We don't put an article up for the same reason we shouldn't here - there's no encyclopedic content. -Joshuapaquin 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - Lack of sources is a concern, however, this is a very popular term, ~~one used (as a character) in the syndicated comic strip Non Sequitur as well~~ (edit: actually, it's Obviousman, but a clear parody). It is difficult to properly source phrases, so my opinion is to weak keep this one, but clean it up. Wookieepedia is not a RS. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It - I just came to this article to find out what Captain Obvious was - if it had been deleted I wouldn't have found out! I vote for "Keep It" - it's doing nobody any harm existing! ~~MB

If we moved it to Wiktionary, you'd still be able to find out its meaning. But there's no chance that this will ever be a decent-quality article. -Joshuapaquin 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. It would fit better in wiktionary than wikipedia; it's not encyclopedic and hints of neologism. Deltopia 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unreferenced OR dictionary definition. Proto::► 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps appropriate for Wiktionary, but there is zero chance that this article will ever be encyclopedic in nature. -Joshuapaquin 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, not even good for a dictionary. TSO1D 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Wooty. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Neologism. Anomo 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neologism is not a speedy criterion. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonencyclopedic term that barely qualifies as a neologism. Doczilla 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known term with lots of opportunity for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My conclusion was the opposite - that there is no opportunity for expansion to encyclopedic status. What do you see as having potential? -Joshuapaquin 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject itself. A term this well known and used has plenty of opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or transwiki to wiktionary. Aside from very common usage, Captain obvious is defined in the 2005 print edition of Urban Dictionary, which seems like a reliable source to me.[37] schi ^talk 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a well-known term, it's not a neologism. However, there are some concerns about its encyclopedic worth, so this explains my reasoning. --SunStar Net^talk 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've added a link to a radio show named after Captain Obvious. I'd feel a lot happier if some more media references were found, though. Some sources regarding the history of the term would also be nice. Quack 688 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is just about notable enough... just. Perhaps a Wikitionary is in order? D Marcescu 21:36, 16 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Palestinian Union[edit]

Uncitedable, non-notable as article, possibly merits a mention in Binational solution but it seems to be an idea floated by one guy -see only cite I could find, plus another attacking the idea <<-armon->> 09:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice idea, but without any evidence that it has achieved any notability. --Sandy Scott 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified/OR with weasel words in lieu of reliable sources. The top google hits are this article [38] and the answers.com mirror. Wikipedia is not for bringing about world peace (yet). -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 23:16, 10 December 2006 (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. DS 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwilasz[edit]

Neologism, 0 relevant ghits SkierRMH 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would suggest transwiki-ing but it seems to be a made up word. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another worthless and nn neologism (yawn). MER-C 11:05, 10 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relusion[edit]

Neologism, used by one person in new book, 1 relevant ghit SkierRMH 09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet Another Worthless Neologism (YAWN), nn neologism. MER-C 11:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Neologism. TSO1D 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:YAWN (sounds like a good redirect!) Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - when theory of relativity came out we should have deleted it because it was only used by one person! come on, its an original word therefore keep it, why not? if u dont like it dont read the article, the bigger wiki is the better.

- Comment Your logic is awesome. I'm guessing you are not related to Einstein, though. Danny Lilithborne 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps these are religious fanatics who want the word removed, because its just another term to describe their delusion of god

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

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

The result was speedy close. Please send redirects to WP:RFD instead. MER-C 11:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GXO Magzine[edit]

spelling Fork 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Malformed AfD, nominator blanked the redirect (which would normally be put up for RfD), and "spelling" is not a deletion criterion. Deletion of the misspelled redirect is acceptable, but not through AfD. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:29, 10 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Mu[edit]

Strong DeleteI came to this page to see if it had sources as the article I found the link in, did not. I propose:

This article does not have Verifiable Content
Is written by members themselves, see the Talk:Sigma_Alpha_Mu and their internal discussion of club literature, therefore it is not a wp:npov and is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Constitutes Original Research, just read it.
Contains no value to wikipedia, in fact may serve to associate subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect. Alan.ca 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- Website is located here: http://www.sam.org/. Bearly541 09:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote keep, the inclusion of their web site in no way disputes my reasons for nomination? Alan.ca 10:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and Ccson's fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha are edited by members who belong to the fraternity. Also, we site the official website and (in the case of APhiA) history books. Bearly541 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you answered the question. Akihabara 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ but might need some cleanup Skrewler 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my nomination criteria, this is not a vote, but a debate.Alan.ca 10:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criteria, but if you're going to AfD this one, you should AfD all the other Frats/Sororities that are on Wikipedia. If not, then this one just needs to be cleaned up (a lot). Skrewler 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let's work together to flag all Frat pages that meet the same criteria for nomination here. When would you like to start?Alan.ca 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changing to ~~Delete~~ Please see User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs We already have a sort of cult following, perhaps we can expand the project to include frats. Skrewler 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I said about expanding the project, but I thought I'd show you what we've been doing Skrewler 10:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles been cleaned up (kind of), and sourced. Meets wiki guidelines for notability and verifiability Skrewler 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of similar is simply not a criterion for keeping an article. Ever. I for one would welcome a systematic AfD for all nn frats. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about everything except NN. A whole lot of major universities have this fraternity. I'm no notability scholar, but it seems to me that alone would satisfy the criteria. Many, many, google hits.--Tractorkingsfan 10:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the start of a New Frat Patrol Alan.ca 10:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete OR. Linkspam, listspam, sounds like a copyvio or copied from somewhere else. If not, this is obvious vanispamcruftisement. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is unsourced, autobiographical, original research. On a wiki, however, this reality should only serve as an invitation to improve the article. The article is of little value to Wikipedia as is, but considering that the subject appears to be indeed notable, a better article could be. --Tractorkingsfan 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not a forum to debate deletion policy. It serves as a forum to debate if this article meets the deletion criteria as nominated. Do you have any information that challenges my assertions in the nom? Alan.ca 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As should be clear from my previous two comments, I feel as though the fact that the subject is notable trumps your concerns. I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that all of those things are fixable, where as not being notable is not. If the information is available from a variety of websites, and anyone has access both to this information and to the tools required to add it to this encyclopedia, then why do we need to delete it? I don't know how to say it any better than that. Sure, you listed it for deletion and put forth some criteria. Does that mean that all of us are required to address our comments only to you now, or that those are the only criteria that exist? Trying to control the discussion is not going to help get your point across any more clearly. You made your point, and I thought it was a good one. But you are not addressing what I'm saying, either. --Tractorkingsfan 11:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on what contributions may be made to the article. This AfD will be up for 5 days, if you think the article can be salvaged I suggest you make those changes and then anyone reviewing this AfD will have those contributions to take into consideration.Alan.ca 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, suggest away. The fact is that it's presumptuous to assume consensus at this point, when what you're essentially saying is that any article for which sources have not yet been cited or that someone suspects may represent a conflict of interest should be deleted. To address your concerns: Unverifed does not mean unverifiable. "Just read it" is not exactly hard evidence. I've already disputed "no value to wikipedia." And I don't know what "associates subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect" means. I'm done. --Tractorkingsfan 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little out of line, I'm sorry. It is probably autobiography, as I said myself. But it can be sourced and much of it can be verified, and there's nothing slanderous and anything incorrect can be removed. I'll try to work on it myself tomorrow. --Tractorkingsfan 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hundred-year old fraternity with 69 chapters in major colleges with a fairly long list of notable alumni is notable. Lots of articles need editing, but that doesn't mean they should be summarily deleted.--Prosfilaes 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that other deletable articles exists is not a counter point to my assertion that this article does not meet wikipedia guidelines. We have no way of confirming the notability assertion, as there are no cited independent sources. Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Organization meets WP:ORG. The omission of sources is easily correctable. I'm not willing to say this nomination was bad faith, but there are certainly articles whose references are in worse shape but are allowed to stand. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article cannot meet any guideline if the statements used to meet that guideline are unsourced. The assertions in the article relate to many biographies of living people and therefore must be verified by independent sources.Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a national organization, it meets WP:ORG. Sourcing, COI, and phrasing issues can be handled outside of AfD-- danntm ^T _C 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have not been met outside of AfD and that's why I have nominted the article. Alan.ca 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note, in WP:ORG, it is clearly stated the following cannot be used to establish notability:

1. Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article.

Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself.

2. Student-run newspapers.

Comment Okay, how about this website, which not only confirms some information in the article, but also lists a number of notable members of the fraternity and does not appear to be in any way affiliated with the organization? --Tractorkingsfan 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That web site states, This is a beta version of NNDB, I would not consider it to be a reliable source. Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment As an initial step, I just axed the entire "fraternity history" paragraph, which was pure advertising/autobiography/unverifiable from start to finish, in my opinion. Now we have more objective material remaining on the page. Much of it is still unsourced. Someone let me know what they think of the website I link to above. If that is usable to establish notability, we can use some of the "internal documents" as sources without a problem. Also tell me if there are any disagreements regarding my removal of that paragraph. Trying to start getting this thing in working order. --Tractorkingsfan 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

How about taking the article to a sand box or someone's talk page until it is ready? In the mean time, we can delete this edition.Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to many other comments here, I have decided to include an excerpt from the admin guide to deletion to clarify my perspective on this nomination.Alan.ca 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus

To respond to both of your last two comments, I don't know, maybe it could be moved for a while until it's ready; that's not a suggestion I would immediately reject. However, I still lean toward keep, only because I just don't think this article fits even that paragraph you just cited. The article, to a certain extent, violates some of these policies. However, it is certainly not impossible that an article on this topic can exist without breaching these three policies. Ergo, these policies need not be respected above other opinions. The article currently, in certain places (namely the paragraph I attempted to delete), does violate policy, but an article on this topic need not necessarily do so, as notability is established, the internal documents can be used as sources, and non-neutral tone is fairly easy to fix. Thus, according to the logic of the very paragraph you cited, the article does not demand deletion. A better option is repair. --Tractorkingsfan 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be established because there are no acceptable sources cited. This is such a key element that many discussions relating to notability point out that some sources that are acceptable otherwise cannot be used to establish notability. Speedy delete makes an exception for asserted notability, but AfD actually requires it to be proven as per the excerpt I included above. I have discussed this with more than one arbcomm member. If the article is notable, find the verifiable sources that are accepted.Alan.ca 09:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except their notability can be established based on information on their website. Is their date of founding and number of chapters so contentious as to warrant it not counting as a source? That's the primary factor that would disqualify it; otherwise, WP:V says it should be allowed as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use self-cited sources for establishing notability. Think about it, I'm notable because I wrote an article about myself stating as such? Alan.ca 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:V: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious...." If you write about yourself saying that you're notable, that's contentious. If Sammy's HQ writes that they have chapters at 50+ colleges across the US and Canada, and if you can find them directory-listed at all 50 colleges, do we need to reference all 50 schools' directories, or can the self-published source stand? Note also that I have added a scholarly reference—a doctoral dissertation, which means heavy research and review—supporting the age and religious affiliation of SAM, which is half of its claim of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is addressing the fact that you may use the source in the article, it does not say it can be used as a source to establish notability. As I stated previously, if we permit self-cited sources to establish notability, anyone can make statements about themself that would make them notable. That would be flawed logic.Alan.ca 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Organization meets WP:ORG. No one is debating the credibility of General Electric just because much of the information on the Wikipedia article comes from their own website. Sammy is a nationally known frat that’s quite a bit larger than many other ones which were proposed for deletion and allowed to stand. The article is in poor shape but for no reason should it be deleted. Sammy is an easily verifiable organization and I’m sure some editors are working on adding some other sources already. If you’re worried about some things being notable why don’t you go and AfD some articles on the random flash toons episodes and no name porn stars we have on Wikipedia. Trey 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Extremely bad faith nomination and/or unfamiliar nomination from a new editor. According to the nominator's logic, all fraternities, sororities and student organizations are inherently non-notable. A 100+ year old fraternity that is national in scope, part of the National Interfraternity Conference etc., has prominent alumni is notable. I've watched over all the fraternity articles and many of them have bias but to delete for that? You don't delete. You fix it up. The fact that the nominator states" Please comment on my nomination criteria, this is not a vote, but a debate" shows that the the editor is not familiar with AfD processes or Wiki policy because Afd's ARE votes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though Alan.ca and I have had a hefty back and forth over this article, I see no reason to label his actions as bad faith. In addition, an Afd, like most other things here, is not a vote but a search for consensus. The strongest argument wins (for example, a complete copyvio pretty much trumps everything). The problem Alan has is that while most of us would use common sense to conclude that the frat is obviously notable, most of us have not proffered a verifiable, third-party source to definitively prove any assertions of notability. Cfred's arguments go a ways towards alleviating that concern, but I understand Alan's argument. --Tractorkingsfan 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still believe this is a nomination on poor grounds. I too understand where Alan is coming from but if you've edited Wikipedia long enough, you'll see how much of the articles on here fall for AfD within his scope of reasoning. I've often participated in AfD for nearly two years and the reason why I stated this as bad faith is because of his arguments above and his wanting to start a "New Frat Patrol". Alan may not be one of them, but I've seen many notable student organizations get nominated for AfD by prejudice of an editor instead of a solid argument. AfD is usually reserved for controversial articles. This "debate" should have been on the talk page. At best a cleanup tag or disputed tag should have been placed. You can call it votes, consensus etc, but in the end, when the admin closes the nomination, votes for keep and not to keep are the primary considerations, not "comments" which this nomination is riddled with (myself guilty of this). --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not a vote. The point of an AfD is to have a debate on the issues. Many people don't actually know that an AfD is not a vote, but in fact, if you read Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette it clearly states as much in the policy. Alan.ca 08:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Needs a little work, but should be improved. Articles of various level exist for all of the members of the North American Interfraternity Council and would be recreated immediately. There are editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities which are in the public domain, but the only on Wikisource is from 1879 which is too early. 1920 edition would be ideal (Since SAM was founded in 1909). However using whether they would founded before the last public domain Bairds as a qualification strikes me as really goofy. Naraht 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Now - This is clearly a notable fraternity. I say give the writers until February to cite the appropriate sources, and then AfD again if they haven't. -- T H L 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean. If this article isn't yet meeting criteria to keep, the subject is certainly worthy of an article: note articles on every other fraternity. Scoutersig 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - How can you even propose this for deletion, it is a waste of time for AfD participants. TH 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you're going to participate in this debate, make a point vs. suggesting it's a waste of time, which has no meaningful value. Further, stating that other articles exist that meet AfD criteria doesn't address the value of this article either. Alan.ca 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is highly obvious that the article should not be deleted and therefore the AfD nomination is a waste of time. Clearly the organization is notable, if the article isn't quite up to the required standards then it can become so over time. The only good thing an AfD possibly accomplishes in this case, is to bring attention to the community that the article may be in need of improvement, but really there must be a better and less provoking way of attaining that (such as Template:Improve) rather than AfD. TH 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, there should be atleast one article, somewhere, in a local published newspaper that is dedicated to talking about this group. Something better than a student paper should easily be available if this is a topic of great interest. Alan.ca 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with the above - the fraternity has been around long enough, and one of a handfull of Jewish organizations in what has been historically dominated by predominalty white/Christian groups. As much as some people don't like them, fraternities and sororities are an important part of American college life. Granted, the article needs to be cleaned, but I believe deletion is uncalled for. User:hps05 21:04, 14 December, 2006 (UTC)

Keep per the commenters above, this meets WP:ORG guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:ORG is a proposed guideline. Therefore, meeting it, does not mean anything. Alan.ca 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I am aware, but surely you can agree that this subject does meet our increasingly strict standards for verifiability, and that WP:ORG in its proposal phases is better than nothing. Even as proposed, this guideline does mean something, particularly to those who are involved in establishing a metric for this and similar organizations in the future. Yamaguchi先生 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I cannot agree, as the proposed guideline does not clarify what constitutes a reliable thrid party source. If you read other guidelines relating to verifiability and notability, they consistently require a higher standard for sources that verify notability than any old statement in an article. A reliable third party is not a student newspaper. This article lacks reliable thirdy party sources and that is why I find that notability has not been established using a valid source. Alan.ca 04:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I don't agree with the charge that the nomination was in bad faith. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems many people do not know that an AfD is a debate, not a vote. I attach here a wikilink to the policy for the reading pleasure of those who may not be aware of this fact. Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette Alan.ca 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, please stop patronizing your fellow wikipedians. A word of advise, if you see some 20 plus "Keep" comments and only one "Delete", it is time to back down. Your persistence reflects badly on you and lends credibility to the argument of this being a bad faith nomination. TH 09:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just to expand a bit on this. What I am trying to say is that when 16 people say "Keep" and only you (the nominator) and one other person say "Delete", it means that your arguments have failed to convince the rest of us and you are not going to achieve a consensus. This is not about voting but about common sense. Repeatedly re-stating your arguments or saying that "this is not a vote" does not make any difference - the consensus is to keep this article. Upon realising this (which you ought to by now), the best course of action is to back down and accept that at this time, the consensus is that such articles stand. You brought your test case, it failed, if you want to bring it or a similar case again at a later time, when the community standards and/or policies may have changed, you are free to do so. But if you simply keep labouring a spent point you will be seen as a troll and lose respect. TH 09:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating the comment every several paragraphs because it amazes me of how few people seem to know what an AfD is about. In fact, through reading, I found that a group has started an AfD patrol to educate people about the guidelines for it. I am more concerned with the lack of understanding of these guidelines than I am about keeping or deleting this particular article. I don't take this AfD personally, I have no interest either way. However, I will be diligent to make certain that famous Canadian politicians will not be associated with this article or fraternity without cited sources. From what I've read, the frat seems to have a positive message, but I have a strong motivitation to protect subjects of living biographies from association with groups of which they may have no association. If we cannot have that, we have a tabloid here. Alan.ca 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what it has to do with the AfD debate. But now that you brought it up let me just add in that I would prefer to add Template:Fact to the questioned people for a while to allow authors to cite sources instead of removing the people outright. It is not as if we are alleging membership of a Nazi party or something, there is nothing inherently negative or positive in being mentioned as a member of a student organization. I do not care enough to get involved though, but I really don't understand why you feel so strongly about this article. TH 13:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To some, a Nazi association is positive, not my opinion, but an opinion. The association of being a member of a group is a serious allegation to make. Keep in mind, I have no knowledge of this fraternity, only from this debate do I learn of them. How about tomorrow, the news media releases an article that claims this frat is a group of such and such or a position on a certain political viewpoint. Now, each member, who may or may not be an actual former or current member has their image affected. This is why, many politicians do not wish to be associated with any groups directly. For this reason in part, I believe we should be very thorough when associating subjects of living biographies (in vivo biographies). Not only does this article associate alleged members with the group, but associates them with eachother. As such, this article should meet the minimum standards of wikipedia and include third party, citable sources. Alan.ca 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have convinced me on this point. I agree that it is bad to have famous people listed as members without verifiable citations. This does not change my views on the AfD (that is a separate discussion). TH 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cleanup shows its value. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, as in, put your statement in terms of how you find that the nomination criteria have been countermanded? Alan.ca 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure lets go over your initial listing points:

This article does not have Verifiable Content
proven false as there are references which back the content provided post cleanup.
Is written by members themselves, see the Talk:Sigma_Alpha_Mu and their internal discussion of club literature, therefore it is not a wp:npov and is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
WP:AUTO is not a deletion criteria, just because someone writes about themself does not mean we delete it, else we'd have to delete Jimbo Wales too.
Constitutes Original Research, just read it.
So does Wikipedia, this is a rationale for a cleanup, not a deletion if the subject is notable and content is verifiable (which as the cleanup has shown it is)
Contains no value to wikipedia, in fact may serve to associate subjects of in vivo biographies in a way that may be incorrect.
Not a valid deletion criteria as applied, your basically claiming a subject which is now referenced is non notable and non encyclopedic. I would argue a social group with numerous chapters in multiple states most certainly passes WP:ORG and WP:BIO.

Have I answered your question? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:02, 17 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangalore Quiz Group[edit]

Contested prod. Idea for merging with Quizzing in India rejected. A quizzing group that is most probably not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Google test doesn't establish notability. I could find three news items, all of which were covered in "Metro Plus/Metro News" sections of the newspaper[39][40][41]. Delete as non-notable. The group is already mentioned in the article Quizzing in India. utcursch | talk 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail WP:CORP. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete per Utcursch. Not enough here for its own article. Risker 16:20, 10 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Reminder[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion because it seem non-notable, especially when taken in context with Say the Time (AfD discussion), which was linked at Reminder software at the same time. --Mdwyer 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and as nominator of Say the Time. _JD^talk 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 12:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pulls up 100 000 ghits [42] (not much for freeware and most are download mirrors) I think it fails WP:SOFTWARE because I can't find any references to it other than places to download it or self promotion. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 10 December 2006 (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. Agent 86 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keydata Corporation[edit]

Article fails WP:CORP for notability. Akihabara 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically significant company. Once notable, always notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Historically important... like Kaypro, Studebaker, Wang Laboratories, and TWA. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that notability cannot be lost. JamesMLane t c 09:50, 15 December 2006 (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 much discussion, but almost a WP:CSD#G11 case anyway. Sandstein 14:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keygloo[edit]

Notability not established, likely spam. Akihabara 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 12:01, 10 December 2006 (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.

Hall of Light[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete Zsinj^Talk 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fan site, fails to meet any of the criteria set out at WP:WEB Alexj2002 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pn, db-spam Akihabara 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete by User:Deville. // I c e d K o l a 04:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starski[edit]

Once speedied, reborn again, fails WP:NOTE ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
20:39, 9 December 2006 Aecis (Talk | contribs) deleted "Starski" (A7, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC (yet?))
02:56, 29 November 2006 Mindmatrix (Talk | contribs) deleted "Starski" (CSD - A7, G11)
≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. Non-notable, most of the article is crystalballing. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt - easily fails WP:MUSIC, and the quality of this article along with the unreferenced material makes it read like an advertisement. // I c e d K o l a 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per Iced Kola. I'd also look at Izz Thizz and Traxamillion made by the same author (although the latter may not be a candidate for deletion). Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 11 December 2006 (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 non-notable biography - article discusses notability of something else entirely, not the subject at all. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wride[edit]

Procedural nomination: originally tagged with nn-bio, but asserts notability. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 12:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:BIO with 34 ghits. Doesn't seem to exist... MER-C 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:V and WP:BIO. Hello32020 13:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - asserts notibility of other people who already have articles (see Fres Oquendo), but not Dave Wride himself. If you look carefully, all claims of notability apply to Fres, not Dave. Knowing a notable person doesn't make him notable. Chovain 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as the AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khull(Noor-abad)[edit]

Just another non-notable village. Akihabara 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all villages and towns are notable. There's plenty of precedent to support this (check the archives). MER-C 12:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, AfD withdrawn. I've categorized it. Akihabara 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Floyd[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 13:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO as noted. I also note that the AfD was removed from the page in bad faith by the contestor. Akihabara 13:39, 10 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McVey[edit]

Disputed db-bio, I do not believe the article asserts sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. Akihabara 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable biography unless reliable sources can be provided to substantiate the claims of association of this individual with the groups stated in the article. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tone 23:18, 10 December 2006 (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 copyvio of this page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raggle[edit]

Non-notable aggregator with only 191 000 ghits [43] (not much for software) and according to Crow-stepped gable it is part of some roofing desgin (upping the hits). The article is also a copy of [44] which is the site's promotional page. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is in Gentoo, FreeBSD, and Debian. The popcon stats list it as 9611 out of 61426 [45]. --Karnesky 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicktheoilhabit.org[edit]

Unsure if this meets WP:WEB. Borderline spam; thought I'd seek others' opinions. Akihabara 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete Getting a mention by Robert Redford on CNN [46] is pretty big achievement. However, the ghits [47][48][49] and the Alexa rank [50] [2,798,549] tell a different story. Google News gets 3 hits for "Kick the oil habit" [51] only one of these [52] seems to refer to the website itself and this is from an affiliated political website. I'm not convinced that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" are going to be forthcoming, but I'm more than ready to reconsider my opinion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem notable and looks like spam to me. All I see is a mailing list form and a few news articles. --Sable232 18:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If it becomes more notable later, we can still recreate the article. --Tone 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability concerns. TSO1D 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Alexa rank in the 4.7millionsths.Ohconfucius 02:14, 13 December 2006 (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, default to keep for all three. Sandstein 16:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clough[edit]

non-notable high-schooler, article based upon WP:CRYSTAL BALL predictions. Nashville Monkey 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the same stable, Steve Tyrer and Steve Bannister should be considered here as well. None of the subjects has played for St Helens first team yet. My view is that playing first team matches is what counts, but I don't have any strong feelings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clough has played first team. Other two are additions to the first team and so fail to meet your protocol for space on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Londo06 (talk • contribs).
Keep Paul Clough, delete the other two, per the author. I userfied Steve Tyrer for the author, so if this is speedied, please userfy Steve Bannister. The likelihood is that they'll be notable sooner or later. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No prejudice against recreation when this fellow actually plays at a notable enough level and meets WP:BIO. Agent 86 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO for rugby league players as he has played Super League for St Helens. Catchpole 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. St Helens' official bio of Clough [53] states that he "made his Super League debut in July 2005", so he has therefore played professional sport, and qualifies under WP:BIO. Loganberry (Talk) 03:14, 12 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy McKay (trader)[edit]

Ignoring the trivial (went to school, marine, plays bridge) we are left with having done his job of making money and being mentioned in a book. Is this enough to make him notable? Emeraude 14:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He has a few non-Market Wizards hits, but I don't see how he is different to any other trader; there are thousands that make several million dollars. Akihabara 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable, WP:BIO. Lacks encyclopedic expandability, likely going to be an eternal stub with an amazon.com link. Note: apparently part of a series of similar articles on business people, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Major article spam? Femto 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability & shallow --BozMo talk 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Femto. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made some money in 1970-71. Where is he now? Stompin' Tom 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the various criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. -- Satori Son 04:36, 16 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kids on the Block[edit]

Likely advertising / spam. Akihabara 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A pretty specific Google news search ("Kids on the Block" puppets) produces 6 distinct news hits from the last 2 months. I don't think finding reliable sources should be too much of a problem. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note this is a company, and the guidelines indicate it must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Amongst your links zero, perhaps with slack just one, have this company as the subject; for the rest it is just mentioned in passing in an article whose subject is something else entirely.
Delete per nom. --Tone 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A nice article but no assertion of notability. Maybe with some way to verify and reliable sources it would be keepable. Vegaswikian 00:19, 14 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orneryboy[edit]

Article asserts no notability for this comic that would suggest inclusion under WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tone 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anomo 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reputable third-party sources, no suggestion of notability, wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 07:45, 13 December 2006 (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, default to keep, with an expectation that more reliable sources will be added. Sandstein 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whiteboard[edit]

Article's closest assertion of notability is two published books, but I can't seem to locate them on the comic's website nor on Amazon. As far as I can tell, this comic fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

books are located at http://www.docsmachine.com/tees/Sniper1rfa 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would readership statistics be of any help? Is it relevant to compare the notability of this webcomic to the notability of other comics with Wikipedia entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.128.67 (talk • contribs)

(Author) The direct link to the book sales (above) was temporarily removed from the main page when the latest preorder run was completed. The preorder included some 240 T-shirts and over 450 books, totalling some $14,500 in sales in one month. Over 900 books in total have been sold since Christmas of 2005. DocsMachine 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Author) According to the page stats (Extremetracking link below comic) TWB receives over 110,000 unique visitors per month. DocsMachine 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: It has been around for a while (2002/06/18) and has been mentioned on Websnark on one occasion February 25, 2005, although as a "Zapruder Kestrel". It been published but available through the parent site. The article does read a bit like a press release but that can be fixed. --Aclapton 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In light of the further the discussion on this page I have reconsidered my indecision and decided that this webcomic is worth the benefit of the doubt. --Aclapton 10:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WEB - Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:

This comic has been reprinted in magazines relating to the sport with circulation numbers of over 1mil. How does one go about verification of this to Wiki, if the magazine does not publish online?--Nitehawk337 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Nitehawk337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Heavy distribution in a magazine could qualify it under WP:WEB as long as it's WP:V verifiable. Could you provide references to this magazine? Thanks. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Paintball Games International editor Anthony Jones requested a special full-page TWB, which was then printed in the special annual issue What Paintball Gear? in 2003. The issue had a print run in excess of 150,000 in both the US and England.

- - Five strips were translated and reprinted in Russia's largest-circulation paintball magazine (the name of which I'm unable to reproduce here) in 2004. Images of both magazines and the TWB strips therein can be viewed here. (Clicking the "O" under each photo brings up the full uncompressed 3.5mb photo.) It's my understanding that the combined circulation of the two magazines is in excess of 200,000 per month. DocsMachine 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring paper sales or references would greatly handicap the ability to list any web-based medium...even Wikipedia...should we delete that, too? (/sarcasm). But seriously, Baen's Universe, SF.com and several other publications are web-based only. There are a number of other web-based comics listed here, including (forex) Schlock Mercenary. I agree the character backgrounds could be a bit less sales-y, but that's an easy fix. There's no direct marketing, and the strip does have a large international readership.209.43.8.126 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Z. Williamson[reply]

Delete Fails WEB FirefoxMan 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a good example of a failing in the WP:WEB current policy. This is a paintball-themed web comic, and is NOTABLE and WELL-KNOWN within the paintball community. The problem that WP:WEB fails to address is that even though 10 million people play paintball every year, the industry has underdeveloped traditional media outlets, so being well-known and notable does not transfer to being published due to a lack of traditional publishing outlets for paintball. Raehl 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hrm. That's an interesting point you raise there. I'm going to take the question over to the folks at the talk page of WP:WEB and see if they have any insight on this. Chances are it's been discussed in the past. One thing that just crossed my mind: how do we verify that any comic is notable within a subculture? --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask this, but feel I must. The books are clearly posted on the site and have legitimate ISBNs. Fan following is worldwide. References and reprints exist in industry magazines with large readership. Comic is highly ranked on multiple webcomic surveys and award lists. Has greater market penetration than (forex below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock_Mercenary
So the question is, since you make a point of claiming veganism, is this an attempt to delete a comic that just recently had an extended thread extolling the virtues of killing, cooking and eating animals in a vicarious fashion? Why no previous complaints, why only THIS comic at THIS time?209.43.8.126 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Z. Williamson[reply]
- Comment. To be clear, my diet of choice really has no bearing on this AFD nor did I mention it in this discussion. This nomination is part of my effort to clean up the webcomic category. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On the note of the example you gave, Schlock Mercenary won an award from the WCCA. If you can show that The Whiteboard meets one of the 3 criteria in WP:WEB, I'll gladly argue for keeping this article. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Whiteboard has been discussed numerous times on Schlock Mercenary and specifically on Howard Tayler's blog (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2006/08/16/this-run-of-the-whiteboard-needs-your-attention/). Also, Irregular Webcomic has noted The Whiteboard as well (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=1300&dir=prev5). Additionally, while anecdotal and unverifiable, I can wear one of The Whiteboard's t-shirts to any paintball field in the country, and a majority there will know what it is, where it is from, and understand the reference. Nightfalke 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — Nightfalke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, doesn't meet our content policies. No references to reliable sources, appears to be based completely on original research. -- Dragonfiend 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Is original research a problem? Seems to me that if you can't find the info compiled somewhere, you should find it and compile it. Is that not what wiki is all about, anyhow? Sniper1rfa 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I understand that I need to assume good faith, I find it hard to understand how you can edit the entry to move/remove the references and outside sources, then make a recommendation to delete the entry based on lack of references/sources. Nightfalke 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean -- I didn't remove any information. All I did was move the most important information (this comic's publishing history) from the bottom of the article to the top. See the diff here [54]. -- Dragonfiend 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And then you added the unreferenced tag after moving said references.Nightfalke 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreeing here - Based on WP:V there has been a citation of sources. This goes back to my original point - these magazines are worldwide distributed, but does not replicate all content online... how does one "prove" the citation other than mailing a copy of the said magazine to the person that tags the article as non-cited?--Nitehawk337 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The unreferenced tag leads you to Wikipedia:Citing_sources which explains citing sources. The short version is that it's done through standard footnotes (with issue numbers, dates of publication, page numbers, etc). Your idea of mailing physical copies of source material to every wikipedia editor seems impractical. -- Dragonfiend 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. I edited to cite page number's and publication dates.--Nitehawk337 14:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Weak Keep needs more info on magazines (if these magazines are that widely read and notable, maybe they need their own articles?), but that looks like an issue for clean-up and editing rather than deletion at this point. I'm willing to give this article more time. -- Dragonfiend 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; magazine circulation is way better than most get, even if it doesn't have ZOMG NYTIMES. Nifboy 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If such info could be added to the article with a reference I'd probably agree with you. -- Dragonfiend 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So noted. Info from above magazine reference listed on main page. DocsMachine 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it important to have the magazine circulation at the top of the article? The main page is hardly so large that data is lost/buried at the very bottom.

Because the most important information should be at the top. -- Dragonfiend 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Important to the article, or important as a reference for the article? As far as the average online reader is concerned, the publication or nonpublication is of lesser relevance than a description of the strip itself. The data is not irrelevant, and clearly satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, but in regards to the readability and clarity of the article, it probably doesn't necessarily need to be "above the fold". DocsMachine 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the reason this comic is important is that it has been published in these magazines, then that ought to be mentioned in the introduction. See Megatokyo -- a featured article on a webcomic -- and note how the intro talks about the reason why it's important (its popularity, its print publication by DC comics, its review by The New York Times, etc.) long before the characters and plots are described. Descriptions of real world impact and historical significance are more important than plot summaries and character descriptions. This has little to do with whether the article ought to be deleted, so let's continue this on the article's talk page if this needs to be continued. -- Dragonfiend 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that is the case, looking at the article for Sluggy Freelance, an obviously notable webcomic, nothing is stated at the top of the article about the notability and importance of the comic that The Whiteboard doesn't have (Readership statistics, longevity statements, publications, etc). So by that reasoning, either Sluggy Freelance is not a notable webcomic and fails WP:WEB, or The Whiteboard IS notable and passes WP:WEB. Nightfalke 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The second sentence of Sluggy Freelance is sourced to the Washington Post. No sentence of The Whiteboard is sourced to The Washington Post or any other third-party source with a reputation similar to the Post. -- Dragonfiend 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As noted above, high-resolution snapshots of each magazine example can be found here. Clicking on the "O" under each image brings up the full uncompressed photo. DocsMachine 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Doc, you may want to put a copyright notice saying you release the photo of the book for use on this page.Sniper1rfa 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Noted. Actually, I'd prefer an image more representative of the strip, and less a "buy my book!" ad. I wasn't necessarily interested in a direct-to-the-sales-page link to the books, as I agree with Wikipedia in that this article isn't intended to be advertising. Though for notability discussion reasons, it's probably necessary for the moment. Could someone show me how to change the image, or where to upload a new image to? DocsMachine 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Query: Who decides a discussion is "closed"? As far as I can tell, this article meets Wikipedia standards for notability, at least for a webcomic, so who offically declares the Article for Deletion open, closed or kept or deleted? DocsMachine 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- About five days after the discussion is opened, a few more if there's a backlog. -- Dragonfiend 08:40, 17 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic book clichés[edit]

Delete - suffers from fatal POV and OR problems. Otto4711 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilate useless irrecoverably OR/POV listcruft. - ∅ (∅), 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Mig ^(Talk) 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It original research WP:OR for the most part, fails verifiability WP:V on the majority of the entries. Its fairly amusing but completely unencyclopedic. As mentioned, there are also POV issues. --Eqdoktor 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stand-up comedy clichés and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of cliches. I like reading these kind of articles, but Wikipedia is not the place for them. Wavy G 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to vague of a standard for inclusion and everything added is original research or from non-notable sources. Koweja 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. --Tone 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Or WHAT??? Wavy G 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OR in this context means original research, which isn't permitted. Koweja 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah. That was actually supposed to be a joke. Sorry it wasn't funnier, I guess. Wavy G 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't worry, it made me laugh. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry about that. Koweja 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more clichecruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/OR cruft. Doczilla 09:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep ... it'd just come back from the dead anyway when they start the numbering over~~ What of this can be verified is already in better articles without the overburdening OR. Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent's Choice (talk • contribs)
Delete Oridinal research. Cnriaczoy42 16:15, 11 December 2006 (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 not keep as an article, no consensus as to whether to merge the content to Celt or not. So I'm just redirecting it. Mergers can be done from the history, provided of course the editors of Celt consent. Sandstein 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic warriors[edit]

This page attempts to cover a hugely broad swathe of history in a tiny space with no detail whatsoever. The Celts were a heterogenous group who really can't be lumped together in this way. It's comparable to having an article entitled "Germanic Warriors" starting with the battle of the Teutoberger Wald and ending with the Redcoats. The few salient points the article raises are all covered in Celt anyway. Unless anyone can come up with some way of improving it, it ought to be deleted. Mon Vier 15:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, this seems to be a well-written article about a Welsh Rugby team.--Sandy Scott 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the nominator has misunderstood the subject of this article, as it has nothing to do with the Celtics and the history of the Celtic language. It's about a Welsh Rugby team, which seems notable enough to have an article. Jayden54 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Now that this AfD actually makes sense (thanks IslaySolomon!) I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect. The article doesn't really offer a lot of information, and could easily be merged with the Celt article. Jayden54 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ This is either a bizarre misunderstanding or today's piece of novelty vandalism. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, I see they mean Celtic warriors. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, fixed. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that. I have neither qualm nor quibble with the rugby team. Mon Vier 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Celt, per Jayden. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all warrior characteristics evidently seem to come from De Bellum Gallicum, of which we know that it was a total propaganda book by a certain Mr. Ceasar against the Gallic. Modern research distances itself from the descriptions contained in the article. Alf photoman 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom; no salvageble content. Eluchil404 10:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still in favour of deletion, but if the article is redirected then Celtic warriors should redirect to Celtic Warriors - people are more likely to be looking for the rugby team. Mon Vier 18:51, 15 December 2006 (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 lack of notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hernández[edit]

Delete - does not appear to be notable and what is asserted doesn't seem to be verifiable. Also reads a bit addish. Otto4711 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything in Google, and no sources to show any notability. Jayden54 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he doesn't meet notability guidelines. Slideshow Bob 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:17, 12 December 2006 (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 This is pointless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whismur[edit]

Non-notable Pokemon. It has never actually been written about outside the anime, card game, and video games, and even in those places, it's not very notable at all. Lack of secondary sources other than Pokedex entries (and Bulbapedia, which hardly counts as more) doesn't help. People who close this as a speedy keep with no discussion will be eaten by Grues. Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't the majority of Pokemon show up only in the anime, card game, and video games? As Pokemon wikipedia entries go - this one looks fairly decent. It may be obscure but they can't all be pikachu --Eqdoktor 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But this one is incredibly obscure. Few Pokemon cards for it, none of which are ever actually used, and not even the main subject of an anime episode, like some others. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, no reliable sources (just a list of fan sites), no evidence of any real notability. Yes, I'm a aware of WP:POKEMON, but it's high time that flawed bit of circular reasoning was laid to rest. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, why don't you go and nominate every other pokemon article except for pikachu for deletion then?--Ac1983fan 21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strawman arguments are bad. Don't make them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just saying... I would guess 99% of the pokemon articles are what you described in your nomination reason. so, it's all delete or this one stays, I would think. (Except, of course, pikachu, probably bulbasaur, and maybe torchic).--Ac1983fan 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pokémon only exist within the anime, card game, and video games, and this one is just a specific one of the near 500 that currently exist. Just because this one has not appeared in many of either of the media does not mean that it should be deleted. There are Pokémon that have only appeared in two of the three media, but that does not mean that their article should be deleted either. It has been a goal of the WikiProject for Pokémon to get presentable articles on all of the species, and this is one of them. To compare, some relatively non-notable Pokémon articles are good, and at least two articles are featured (these Pokémon are somewhat more prevalent in the metaseries, though).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny that most species articles are good, or could become good. Being a member of the Wikiproject, I had better know that. But Whismur simply is never mentioned. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whismur#In the animé states Whismur was featured in #315 "A PokéBlock Party," which it is the Pokémon of the Day for that episode. More information on the episode itself is here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - <sarcasm>Oh, yay, it happens to be part of a running joke. That's a very important appearance.</sarcasm> -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because it ties into the running gag means nothing. Whismur was the Pokémon that was the focus of the episode, just like Caterpie was the focus of the third episode of Pokémon.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - One might count my opinion as biased, considering I'm mostly here to deal with any issues which involve Bulbapedia on the Wikipedia; however, given that this was brought to my attention, I must note that I fail to see a major, significant difference between Whismur's article, which is being considered for deletion, and Weedle's article, which has good article status - particularly when one notes that Weedle is a first-generation Pokémon and Whismur is a third-generation Pokémon, which inevitably leads to three times the amount of reference material on Weedle as on Whismur. Beyond that, the differences can be whittled down to the In other media section - all Pokémon media, of course - fluff, and polish. --Jaydeis 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't possibly see any good reason in deleting one single Pokemon article out of hundreds. Ignore all rules - if we're going to have 492 of them, we might as well have all 493. --- RockMFR 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments - I'm sure we've had dozens, if not hundreds, of similar discussions before. All this seems to be aimed at is changing precedent. I don't quite understand the nominator's motives, but in my opinion nominating individual Pokemon only puts a strain on the deletion system. --- RockMFR 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That assumes that one Pokemon's deletion necessarily means that others should be deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why delete one article out of the 493? That's ridiculous in itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the one article has a reason I can see to delete. I've not seen any other Pokemon as non-notable as this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What makes it non-notable? It's been featured in an episode of the anime, it's listed among all of the other ones known at both official and fansites, it's probably been published in one of the various handbooks, just like every other one.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, actually, yes, putting Whismur up for deletion does assume exactly that. What you're arguing is whether or not Whismur is notable enough in and of itself to have an article of its own. If there are grounds enough to justify thus far every Pokémon having a separate article, there should be more than enough grounds to justify group articles. So, if Whismur is not notable enough for a single article, then it should be in a group article; but what's the point of a group article if only Whismur and Whismur alone is in it? Why not, in such a case, just have the article for Whismur? Or do you expect everyone to simply pretend Whismur doesn't exist? Or include it as a footnote on the articles for Loudred and Exploud? Deleting one out of 493 serves no purpose except to make an incomplete set. --Jaydeis 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something? Why are people assuming that we must write about every Pokemon somewhere in the encyclopedia? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sadly, it's listed in The Official Pokémon Handbook. That means it is notable. It's an officially documented part of the universe. There are cards. It has appeared in the cartoon series. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (signed late)[reply]
Comment If this one gets deleted based on its AfD nomination criteria, we have grounds for a mass delete of all Pokemon species. Whismur may be obscure to the Pokemon afficiando but then so is Charizard or Bulbasaur to the non-fan; and Pikachu is a complete mystery for most over-60's crowd. if it can fulfill WP:V, it should be a keeper --Eqdoktor 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah. I wasn't claiming otherwise. It is incredibly rare that something fulfilling WP:V should be deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not knowing much about the subject, the reasons for deletion are a little silly -- where would a Pokemon show up other than in "anime, card game, and video games"? The local Italian restaurant? JPG-GR 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ongep 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: while I don't have a strong feeling about this article per se, I feel that the nominator and nomination have been treated unfairly by many !voters. I have recently seen many AfD's where there were complaints because the nominator had created a mass nomination (nominating multiple related articles at the same time). Now, people are complaining because the nominator has not created a mass nomination. This is unfair, and does not reflect the nomination. This nomination is not a call to delete Whismur and keep all other Pokémons, but a call to delete Whismur, full stop. After this AfD, and depending on the comments and the result, every editor can choose to nominate other articles and/or merge them. Another comment is that it is not right to nominate an article for deletion because it only has in-universe references (only references in the show, card game, ...). However, this is a perfect argument for deletion. If no one had ever written anything out-of-universe about Rhett Butler (a terribly unsourced article for the moment) or Tintin and Snowy (a much better example), it would be perfectly allright to delete these articles, since the only sources then would be primary sources, making Wikipedia a secondary source, when it has to be a tertiary source. Every article that fails WP:V, no matter if it is about something obscure of about a detail of a well-known subject, is a fair candidate for deletion. Now, a good argument to keep this article anyway is to point to the available secondary sources (books, articles about Pokémon: not game manuals and so on though, those are still primary sources), of which there are a few listed. Since I am unable to judge if these books fit the WP:V criteria (independent? reliable?), I am in no position to decide if this AfD should get a delete or a weak keep, but I still wanted to comment on the many people unjustly targeting the nomination instead of targeting the subkect and its merits and faults, as an AfD discussion should do. Fram 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself is not bad. It is sourced just like any other article on a particular Pokémon species. In fact, it even passes a notability requirement for a singular Pokémon that the nominator believes it has failed, which i had also brought up. It's not feasible to merge any of these articles into lists due to their length, nor does it make sense that a single species' article be deleted when it could be improved upon, or other matters be dealt with. This character will probably not be mentioned in the New York Times, or other notable news media like some others have, but Whismur is alongside probably 300 similar cases. The man who knows nothing about Pokémon is only going to know Pikachu, but that does not certainly mean only that one species gets an article, while all of the other ones are relegated to lists. All Pokémon species are only going to be mentioned in
1. The Video Game series
2. The Anime series
3. The Card Game
4. Official Nintendo publications
5. Unofficial game guides from third party publishers
6. and Fansites
- All of which are listed within each article on each species. There are probably another few sources that I have forgotten to mention, but something like Rotom is not going to be spoken about any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but of the six kind of sources you mention, only the fourth and fifth can be considered WP:V sources, with the fourth having the problem that they aren't independent of the subject, and the fifth that they may not be by reliable, fact-checking publishers and authors (but the latter is a possibility I can't judge). So my only question is if the mentions in these sources (especially source number 5) meet WP:V. If not, the articles have to go, no matter how many fans Pokémon has (but then a merge may be a solution, if more can be said about larger groups of Pokémon). If, on the other hand, these books are good WP:V sources and e.g. Whismur is discussed in them in more detail than just a passing mention, then these articles have every right to stay. The other sources are only of supplementary value: 1, 2 and 3 are primary sources, and 6 is of no value for Wikipedia (no matter how good such sites may be). Fram 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in various different media as a character in a massive franchise. WP:PACFAQ. Regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Like everyone's been saying, If we delete this one, then why not delete other Pokemon articles as well? Joiz ^A. Shmo 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow; Whismur sure is quiet, but this AfD seems to be approaching sound levels like that of Exploud. We still need this (WP:PACFAQ). TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pokemon aren't non-notable. What about if something links to a Whismur article? As odd as it might sound to some, all pokemon articles are noticable. Yes, even down to Nidoran F. Toastypk 05:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- >__> [55] ^__^ --- RockMFR 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't really think that we have completely proven that it is impossible to write an article on Whismur or any other Pokemon like Mitsuhoney. There was a lot of discussion on the WP:PCP talk page about possible mass merging of these near-500 Pokemon creature articles, but that conclusion was never reached, and such an action would create Wikipedia's version of the Los Angeles Riots, I'm sure. Keep in mind that this page never had an editing focus like other articles, but there's certainly room for it. I think Silcoon and Cascoon are even less notable than Whismur, but several months back I had completely rewritten them, and now it's a matter of sourcing those pages to create what I think will be somewhat good articles, at least in comparison to List of ship commissionings in 1964. Whismur hasn't been revamped and rewritten yet, but I may plan to some time in the future. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is rediculous. It's not non-notable at all. Why not delete all 493 Pokemon articles while you're at it? Spinach Dip 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has anyone here read this? Wikipedia:Pokémon test. The positive view of the Pokémon argument, which holds that the articles on truly trivial Pokémon turned out to be reasonable articles that fulfill all of Wikipedia's official content policies, and therefore are keepers, like poor Whismur here. Interesting read. --Eqdoktor 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaah, keep since Whismur is as notable as any other Pokemon. TZM^{Everything is notable} 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominated by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely block user. Contributors do not own their articles, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Borsch[edit]

I am the author. I want it deleted as I do not like the trolls that infest Wikipedia and try to delete your hard work for no reason, such as "chewblock". So I will do it for them. 8daysaweek 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No, you don't get to delete your content just because you don't like trolls. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominated by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely block user. Contributors do not own their articles, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rusack[edit]

I am the author. I want it deleted as I do not like the trolls that infest Wikipedia and try to delete your hard work for no reason, such as "chewblock". So I will do it for them. 8daysaweek 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No, you don't get to delete your content just because you don't like trolls. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominated by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely block user. Contributors do not own their articles, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bloy[edit]

I am the author. I want it deleted as I do not like the trolls that infest Wikipedia and try to delete your hard work for no reason, such as "chewblock". So I will do it for them. 8daysaweek 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No, you don't get to delete your content just because you don't like trolls. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nom by a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user whose stub at this title was deleted. Article has since been rewritten and significantly expanded by others. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia[edit]

As the principal arthur of this page, I want to deleted it because otherwise the trolls would want it deleted. I have been prefectly sivil until these trolls came along. 8daysaweek 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, stop doing this. You don't get to delete pages because you don't like trolls. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hägar the Horrible. WP:V concerns, which cannot be overridden by consensus, preclude keeping it. Sandstein 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snert[edit]

NN neologism that never took off, "deprecated and obsolete on the vast majority of the Internet" according to a recent verion of the article. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 16:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete Deb 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hägar the Horrible ➥the Epopt 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Sable232 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Epopt. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with deleting the article. The term IS still used some places, and while I might quibble with parts of the article, I think the basic characterization is correct. Deleting terms just because they are not common would make for a bad reference work. It is exactly the uncommon terms that people need to look up. Whoperson 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coud you provide a reference to show that it is actually used? Percy Snoodle 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful as reference even if archaic. --Sjsilverman 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the question isn't whether it's useful, it's whether it's used. Can you cite any sources to show that it is used? Percy Snoodle 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have used the term Snert in a recent ethnography I carried out, which is currently being peer-reviewed. Apple didn't change their name when they launched the iMac just because they had existed since the 1980s. Snerts are still apparent in online communities, it is still a useful term for describing those who's posts to an online community are dominated by flames. - Jonathanbishop 12:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then this should be moved to Wiktionary. --Sable232 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Snert and Internet Troll should be merged into a page on types of user in online communities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanbishop (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment had you seen this term before, or did you invent it for your ethnography? If the latter, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Percy Snoodle 11:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm an expert in online communities Percy, I have been developing and researching them for nearly a decade now. The term Snert appears in literature on online communities, such as NetLingo, so has every right to be on Wikipedia. In my ethnography I used pre-existing names whereever possible, and Snert was one of the ones I used. If my paper is published I or anyone will have every right to put the terms I came up with and their definitions on Wikipedia, so people can learn about the different types of people that make up online communities, from experts like myself, who have their work peer-reviewed by top academics, and published in well-respected academic journals. People like you Percy seem to just want to destroy knowledge, it is people like you that ruin projects like Wikipedia, by asking for information that people want to be deleted. Read my conference speech about people like yourself making projects like Wikipedia not meet the harmony criterion of social change. [56] --Jonathanbishop 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with deletion. I was looking for the Dutch soup, which needs to be expanded, but in the process learned about an interesting (if archaic) term. Keep 10:48, 16 December 2006 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.117.105 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Whether it is interesting is not the issue; it's whether it is a genuine term that was used, or whether it was just made up by someone one day. Percy Snoodle 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also disagree with deletion. I was reading about forum trolling and learned about forum snert too --84.48.104.116 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the keep votes here are from people who "learned about" the term from this page - that would seem to indicate that they'd never heard of it before. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Percy Snoodle 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Webb[edit]

Child actor, similar to previous discussion held over Amber Chadwick. As an infant actor, still closer to a prop than a true actor. Fails the notability test (WP:BIO) accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Jayden54 16:38, 10 December 2006 (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 nonnotable bollocks. Sandstein 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Photon Belt[edit]

It's WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a bit disappointing. I thought a Photon Belt would be something to accessorize your Tinfoil hat with. Leibniz 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete big SHINY bollocks ➥the Epopt 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and total bollocks. WP is not the place for pointless myths. --Sable232 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/weak delete If it's been referenced enough, even nonsense is worthy of an article. But if nobody's bothered to publish a "this is nonsense" article about it, it's not worth having a Wikipedia article about. Note that WP:BOLLOCKS is not official WP policy. --Alvestrand 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super Delete FirefoxMan 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New age OR nonsense, delete. - ∅ (∅), 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clearly mark as unscientific statement based on pseudo-religious believes. Alf photoman 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with one of those articles about newage hippy apocalypse people that drink kool aid. Anomo 04:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable woo from the early to mid 1990s. Added a reference to a Cecil Adams column that discusses it. Haikupoet 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single source, the other reference cited is a book sales link from Amazon.com (spam link?) and a debunking page. Fails notability (even for this sort of hokum) and WP:V (what little there is). I too am disappointed that I cannot accessorize this with my tinfoil hat, good entry for WP:BAD --Eqdoktor 06:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bollocks, pretty undocumented, and not even particularly funny. Goochelaar 12:25, 11 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born on the Edge of White Water[edit]

not notable Deb 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is a bio of a man with a redlink. Fix that first. --Tone 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. Slideshow Bob 12:35, 12 December 2006 (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 non-notable per WP:MUSIC. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

International Orange (band)[edit]

not even close to WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the source for the band's breakup fails WP:RS. —ShadowHalo 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ On the grounds that Django Haskins (The Old Ceremony) and Robert Sledge (Ben Folds Five) are current/former members of notable bands. Old Ceremony and Ben Folds Five pass WP:BAND in a much more clearly notable fashion than International Orange (band) does (Old Ceremony has multiple feature articles in print newspapers). Someone should remove silly blog quote from Haskins if this article passes AfD. Darkspots 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Darkspots makes an excellent point based on WP:MUSIC, but I think this article demonstrates a weakness in that particular guideline. At best, Django Haskins and Robert Sledge's articles should mention that they were briefly members of this short-lived indy band.--Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about a redirect to Django Haskins, given the slightness of the project, but Sledge was in International Orange, too. It's a Weak Keep, I suppose--I don't entirely endorse your solution, given the wording of the guideline, but that's about it. Darkspots 20:16, 15 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic needs[edit]

This personal essay contains no verifiable information. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs cleaning up and refs. Akihabara 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling "basic needs" + poverty yields a promising hit list of potential sources. The term does appear, from a quick look, to be used widely in this context. Dina 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deprodded this article; the 'Basic Needs approach' is one of three accepted methods of defining poverty. See, for example, the survey article by Martin Ravallion, [57], and The Definition and Measurement of Poverty by Hagenaars and de Vos, [58]. Hornplease 04:58, 12 December 2006 (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 slight merge to PlayStation Portable homebrew. I did the redirect, anyone who figures out what's mergeworthy here can do the merge. Sandstein 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable homebrew applications[edit]

Per immediate precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo DS homebrew. The article is mainly a list of external links, which could be speedied per A3, as it mainly consist of one wikilink and many external links. Wikipedia is not a mirror of links. Most of these links could be moved into Modifications and Add-Ons at Curlie. At worst, the most notable pieces can be included into PlayStation Portable homebrew. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a web directory. Proto::► 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge notable links back into PlayStation Portable homebrew. Archive of links can be found in that article's edit history if needed. --- RockMFR 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - What he said. - !Malomeat 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & ReDirect A smerge is also accecptable. MrMacMan 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per !Malomeat FirefoxMan 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above --MegaBurn 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothting to move to the main article that wouldn't be considered spam. If someone wants to dump them in the ODP, they can. By the way, what does "smerge" mean? Koweja 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 02:40, 17 December 2006 (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 non-notable biography. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Deprez[edit]

Notability. The only reason this person got in the news is a major prank he performs. Now Wikipedia is his following target. Luxem 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An anonymous user first tried a speedy delete, unsuccessfully. --Luxem 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Johan Deprez

For the people who understand Dutch (like Luxem): on the page is a link to articles from 'Krant van West-Vlaanderen' that clearly have Jerome the Travelling Gnome as their main subject. Same goes with the broadcast that Belgian Radio2 will air on 21/12/2006.

Yes, the gnome paté petition is some sort of a prank, so is the travelling gnome prank or the actions of the Gnome Liberation Front. Both of them are listed in Wikipedia without being disputed. I do not understand why Wikipedia should be my next (not following) target if you see that I have corrected several other articles that have nothing to do with pranks or gnomes. While some may question the neutrality of the Johan Deprez article people who actually take the time to read the articles in the 'In the media' section would see that all information in the Wikipedia article is confirmed in said publications/articles/broadcasts.

--Brugopolis 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the media section are all to "http://wikipedia.travellinggnome.net/", your own site.

None of the information in the article from the "Krant van West-Vlaanderen" (a provincial -in all meanings of the word- weekly) verifies your biographical data. --Luxem 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons I stored the scans of the original articles on my server. People that follow the link will see that they are in fact scans of the original newspaper articles

I don't really understand you problem with the fact that it's a local newspaper. Do you mean that local newspapers don't check their information, that they don't verify what they write? Other media that covered our Travelling Gnome are national. Take Radio2 for instance. It's even paid for with your taxes!

If you mean by biographical data my place of birth, place of residence and date of birth the articles I link to state my age, place of residence and the city where I was born. The only point of dispute may be my actual date of birth.
--Brugopolis 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the information in the "Projects", "How does he come up with it?" and "Memberships" sections. Do you have sources for them, apart from you yourself ? --Luxem 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, yes, the information in "Personal Information" needs a reliable source too, apart from your original research --Luxem 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the information in the "Projects", "How does he come up with it?" and "Memberships" sections. Do you have sources for them, apart from you yourself ?

For the part of 'How does he come up with it' I don't. For the memberships I can scan my membership cards but that's not what you mean. My name is featured on Mensa BE's members pages and the other memberships are verifyable if you check with the organisations themselves. Feel free to do so.

Same goes for my projects. If you check 'Het Staatsblad' (published by the Belgian governement) you will see that I did all I claim to have done at MSKK. It has to be verified by a court before it gets published in 'het Stattasblad', did you know that? For Treinfreaks.net I suggest you use the Back Machine

I read on Jean-Marie Dedecker that people call him 'brulaap'. Could you verify that or give the article up for deletion if you can't?

Why do I piss you off all that much? This seems personal... Do I know you? :::::--Brugopolis 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we've met, IRL or on the net. You don't "piss me off", either, it's not personal, I just want to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia.

Could you please thoroughly read WP:OR and WP:V ? You might understand better if you do. --Luxem 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. Vote withdrawn. We have verifiability and notability with the newspaper source cited. The article really needs some work, but it's not complete garbage. However, the subject and a friend of the subject wrote the article, so this is very much a vanity article at the moment. Also, take lengthy discussions to the talk page. Zsinj^Talk 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Regarding this edit summary, verifiability has been achieved. The website every links goes to is just an effort to centralize the sources. While I disagree with this practice, the sources do exist. --Zsinj^Talk 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing all of my above statements to avoid being pressed to the issue by Luxem. I don't see why this particular user is so hard-pressed to get the above article deleted, so I'm not going to bother. I urge the user to assume good faith.Zsinj ^Talk 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually assuming good faith on the part of Brugopolis. That's why I pressed him to read WP:OR and WP:V. --Luxem 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the newspaper articles ? Can you cite the passages where any of the information on Johan Deprez can be found ?

If you can't, which is the case, then how can you say that verifiability isn't an issue ? --Luxem 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Johan Deprez in the artcle:

Age 28, born in Oostende and residing in Brugge. Name of the store where the gnome was bought and the fact that it was handpainted. Cited as creator of gnome's biography. How he came up with the petition after seeing the paté in shops explained as well. (all this from first column of said article)
Name of the shop where gnome was bought, again. (from second scanned paragraph of the artcile)
Goal of the prank: taking people along in a fantastic story (third scan of article)
Goal of the prank: seeing how far people would go along in the story (from the scan of the Sibby-interview)

Information about Johan Deprez online:

Membership of Mensa BE
Treinfreaks.net indexpage citing Johan as admin via the Way Back Machine
PR-function at MSKK, check the pagesource to see who created the website Via Way Back Machine
N-VA and Vlaamse Volksbeweging I can not prove right now but feel free to contact N-VA Brugge and de Vlaamse Volksbeweging

--Brugopolis 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't read WP:OR and WP:V, have you ? --Luxem 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amusing, but not notable. Seems self-promotional. Akihabara 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Can I vote?) I created this article. The irony is, the original one, I flagged for speedy deletion. It was deleted. After doing further research on line, I changed my mind, because the gnome I was very aware of. It is the main reason why I keep asking for lawn gnomes for fathers day. The gnome is notable enough. I think we are all in agreement there. Isn't the man behind the gnome behind the gnome equally important?

I am in the US. I didn't remember it at the time, but Johan has been on the news (I admit, I remembered the gnome more then him - as soon as I saw the pic, I remembered the story). I want to make things clear. I do not know Johan, nor I have ever talked to him before the date the article was created. Turlo Lomon 08:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the subject of this article meets WP:BIO Deli nk 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he doesn't meet notability guidelines. Slideshow Bob 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have voted differently had he taken the opportunity to wikify his article, but he has left in all the spam about what he thinks and plans.DGG

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ending a sentence with a preposition[edit]

This is a bad thing to have a article on. Klooge 17:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Preposition stranding is a measure this problem can easily be solved by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is pointless, and since nobody is going to be looking for that on here, I see no use in a redirect either. --Sable232 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the fact that the article is here demonstrates that at least one person did look for that information under this title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preposition stranding per Fut.Perf. (Although that article might be moved at some point; "Preposition at end" per Fowler would probably be a better title.) Newyorkbrad 19:53, 10 December 2006 (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 unsourced original research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destructionist[edit]

Unsourced OR essay. Originally complete with copyvio dictionary definitions (from various online dictionaries), which have now been removed. Remaining material seems thoroughly OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically a list of dictionary definitions and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, entirely OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WtF?? --MinervaSimpson 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woo, what a nice example of original research. Localzuk^(talk) 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails on WP:OR.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An OR list of definitions. --Sable232 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. --Mig ^(Talk) 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally OR essay - ∅ (∅), 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TSO1D 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tone 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a great example of WP:OR violation. --tgheretford (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Finn[edit]

Non-Notable. See other AfD's for reference. --MinervaSimpson 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as non-notable - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing that could be salvaged and put into the group's article either. I am a little worried about why these AFD's are being posted though. Localzuk^(talk) 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article could accurately have been tagged as either ((db-band)) or as ((db-bio)). It should not be in ((AfD))--Anthony.bradbury 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD created by a sockpuppet, see here[59] ThuranX 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal reality (Jane Roberts)[edit]

"Seth, a non-physical entity channeled by Jane Roberts, says that each person is basically a "unit of consciousness" (CU), that each CU is a part of "All That Is" (as in the holographic principle)" and so on. Channeling + quantum gravity = cosmic balls. Leibniz 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a philosophical treatise which fails under WP:BOLLOCKS--Anthony.bradbury 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essay - ∅ (∅), 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable FirefoxMan 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowHalo (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge the parts about Seth into Jane Roberts, delete the rest (apparently OR and certainly not relevant to a presentation of Roberts's work). JamesMLane t c 10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems non-notable. Dr. Submillimeter 12:20, 16 December 2006 (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 to save the blushes of an over-enthusiastic newbie on a mission. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koreate[edit]

The term is non-verifiable, not-notable, and if anything is a neologism. Jeff3000 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Author also created List of Korean fabrication in Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Jeff absolutely.--Anthony.bradbury 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I originally tagged this article with ((prod)). --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism with only 366 Google hits, few of which even seem related to the use this article's talking about. Looks to me like it's utter rubbish. Heimstern Läufer 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious axe-grinding (see List of Korean fabrication in Wikipedia, by the same author: "draws up the list of Korean fabrication in Wikipedia. If you are student or using Wikipedia for an academic purpose, you MUST not use the topics below as references, otherwise, humiliate yourself in academic field."). --Calton | Talk 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes. Syrthiss 14:49, 11 December 2006 (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 early closure as speedy delete.--cj | talk 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Style[edit]

Utterly non-notable porn star. With only 1 film to her credit, fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO Tabercil 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Utterly non-notable. As said above, fails WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Tagged ((db-bio)). Eluchil404 11:08, 15 December 2006 (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. The merge details can be worked out on the article talk page as it's already marked for merging. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daytona International Speedway fatalities (AfD subpage)[edit]

Completely unreferenced listcruft. Salad Days 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - If references can be given to all of these (or at least the vast majority), it should probably be merged with Daytona International Speedway. Otherwise delete. -WarthogDemon 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wiki is not a memorial. Ohconfucius 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, wikify and reference, the subject of this list is notable, relevant and encyclopedic. I wouldn't object to merging the list into Daytona International Speedway though. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daytona is notable. Deaths are often notable. Deaths at Daytona? Almost certainly notable. It could be merged, but there's a lot of content on that page already. It does need to be wikified though. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the scope of this list is rather arbitrary, limiting to fatalities among drivers and participations at race events. Not to mentioned that the entries are unverified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would wonder why drivers and other participants dying at a race track is an arbitrary condition to impose. It would seem obvious to me that those are the people most likely to die there, and limiting the list to those people just seems the reasonable thing to do. Still, I don't know that anybody would object to adding other deaths, if you can verify them. Are there even any other deaths at the track? And if you're worried about sources, I've added some. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Daytona International Speedway. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup or merge back into Daytona International Speedway. Most of these deaths were considered notable and verification can be found. Sources need to be added. More significant in the sport's history than most "deaths at XXX Speedway", but not necessarily enough for its own breakout article. Barno 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given its prominence in the sport, deaths at Daytona are particularly notable and historical. 205.157.110.11 15:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and discuss disambiguation status on talk page of article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin (AfD subpage)[edit]

An interesting article created by Zubinhaghi - his only contribution - but not an encyclopaedia piece. Would be well-suited to a Dictionary of Names, which is where I would expect to find it. Emeraude 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Given the multiple uses of the word, it would make a good disambig page (needs some linking work). SkierRMH,08:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , expand and add a disambiguation page. I dissagree with the nom as the subject, a common south Asian name, is very encyclpedic. Many names have articles that discuss the orgin, history, background and current usage, such as well known English names like John (name), Elizabeth and William (name). There's no reason to exclude an article on a foreign name ~~for systemic bias reasons or otherwise~~. --Oakshade 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias? That's a nasty accusation if I understand the article correctly. Please read my nomination again. My point is that this article is better suited to a Dictionary of Names like the one I have on my bookshelf. Same applies to John, Elizabeth and William. (Elizabeth especially, which has fallen into the obvious trap of becoming a list.) Emeraude

I'll remove the systemic bias speculation as you seem to have issues with all articles about names in general (but I am still troubled that you singled this name, which happens to be non-English, out for deletion). On that point, I guess I have a fundamental disagreement. I find the origins, histories and uses of names very encyclopedic and beyond the scope of definitions in dictionaries. --Oakshade 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I didn't, as you say, single out this name (it came up as a random page) because it is non-English. Incidentally, you might notice that my user name is French. I find the origins of names interesting as well, but I still say they belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia, apart from possibly some very important examples that I can't think of. Same goes for surnames. Emeraude 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the point I made earlier today in another AfD debate: Wikipedia is not a sourcelist of baby names. Not encyclopedic. Delete. WMMartin 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an insult to the editors of the articles on names. These aren't lists of "baby names." --Oakshade 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep as disam When a name has other means than a name for a person, then there is justification for keeping it as a disam page, like here. DGG 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify as useful encyclopedic information. I'm not convinced that it needs to be a dab page at this point, as there is no real redirection to other articles (except Zubin Mehta).--Kubigula (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kubigula. JamesMLane t c 10:05, 15 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association Society[edit]

Vanity article about non-notable 9-member secret society in one American high school, unmentioned in school's article nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Primary author's only contributions two days in November all on this article. Gene Nygaard 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and I have a feeling it is a vanity page as well. --Sable232 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. Slideshow Bob 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Guam Public School System --- Deville (Talk) 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: turns out there wasn't anything to merge, so I simply redirected it --- Deville (Talk) 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Guam[edit]

An unreferenced list. None of the "entries" here actually link to the articles of schools in Guam, so I have no way of knowing if this list is accurate, or simply a random list of plausible-sounding names of schools. Salad Days 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If all the unreferenced articles in WP were deleted, we could certainly diminish WP by tens of thousands of articles. To what benefit? Assuming good faith of the article writers, the article needs improvement, not deletion. Hmains 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete on the other hand, the 'Guam Public School system' article appears to be the better one and has references. Hmains 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate, useful list. Merge and redirect to Guam public school system could also be considered but a complete list of schools would include non-public schools. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean merge with Guam Public School System? Salad Days 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, although my first choice is still Keep. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Guam Public School System, the one or two links that don't exist on the target article. As of right now, this article only lists public school, so there is little lost. A redirect will allow this article to be expanded in the future with additional private schools and other school information to justify its existence as a standalone article. At this point, this article adds almost nothing not in the target. Alansohn 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of Guam schools already includes non-public schools and it belongs to WikiProject Schools. Oddharmonic 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Let's just redirect it to that. Salad Days 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it's a duplicate listPatstuart^talk|edits 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oddharmonic. WMMartin 16:37, 13 December 2006 (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Charles Glennon[edit]

Delete a violation of WP:LIVING#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy & WP:LIVING#Non-public_figures and does not conform to notability guidelines in WP:BIO. Strothra 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "non-public" seems inappropriate for someone with as many reliable sources writing about him as there are.[60]~~[61]~~[62] The article should not simply be "he's a paedophile and here's who he molested" but detail the zigs and zags of one of Australia's more notorious sex-abuse cases. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, one of those is a blog. The other two are the exact same article. --Strothra 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cut and paste error on the article. This is a series of a dozen articles from The Age on his 2003 trial.

The blog is from the Poynter Institute, and is a reprint of a Herald-Sun article.

More reprints of contemporary stories: [63][64]

But you've changed your rationale, so let's discuss that. You're arguing a "presumption in favor of privacy" for a clergical child molester:

convicted four times of sexual abuse in separate cases (1978, 1991, 1999, and 2003)
whose 1987 trial was aborted after a prior restraint violation for which a top radio personality was fined
~~who when faced with new charges, fled to Britain~~

~~after extradition,~~ was convicted on 26 charges (of which three were later overturned)
is now imprisoned
may yet stand trial on new charges.

I really don't think that's what the presumption of privacy is for, do you? --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that several blogs repeated one news article does not establish notability as per WP:BIO. --Strothra 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a fair or in any way correct assessment of the sources, which are from The Age, the Herald-Sun, the Courier-Mail, and the Australian Associated Press. multiple independent sources is the wording, not multiple independent events, which seems to be your reading. One event reported by multiple sources is the only reasonable interpretation of the guideline. In any case, here's more:

--Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only two reliable sources you've provided. The links you provided above all go to blogs and are the same article word-for-word with the exception of The Age. So ultimately, you've provided three reliable sources with no links to article sin the Herald Sun or the Courier Mail.--Strothra 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Poynter Institute is a highly-regarded US journalism foundation. Their digest of news articles may meet a flexible definition of "blog" but it's little different from any other use of a wire service.

Herald-Sun via Poynter (same as [3])
Courier-Mail via Poynter

I am 100% confident that the Herald-Sun and Courier-Mail published articles on Glennon, regardless of your opinion of Poynter as a source. I believe that is sufficient to demonstrate notability. That makes five reliable sources, no matter how you're counting (and I acknowledged above that I made a cut-and-paste error, so yes, two of them are the same article. I'll strike through one so it's perfectly clear I'm not counting it.) I don't know much about the Catholic Church Resource, but it is a charitable trust founded by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, and again is operating a news digest, not a "blog". They seem a reasonably reliable source of news relating to the Catholic Church in Australia (aside from potential POV/COI issues), all the more so because they report stories like this one. (Obviously, I would prefer if I could reference a newspaper's own website archives for its stories, but they don't always give us that courtesy. In this case, much of the story took place before the web was actually invented. The CathNews site provided links to the Herald Sun, since 404'd, but they were not available at the Internet Archive.) Regardless, you've indicated that these do not count toward your total personal count, which you've stated is three reliable sources. The WP:BIO standard is "multiple independent sources", thus the standard is satisfied. It may interest you to note that I have also provided sources in the article, as I improve it:

The Fifth Estate, a periodical from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology journalism school
The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia via the Australasian Legal Institute
Not yet used: Derryn Hinch reprints his own column from the Herald Sun

I know it's a terrible hassle to go looking for sources before making an AFD nomination, but it would be nice to know that it had at least been tried. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass [[WP::Notability]] with all the news articles. Akihabara 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. Paul Hjul 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep and and all the sources. I think I would have said presumption of privacy for a single conviction, since we also do not include people convicted of a single murder. DGG 02:42, 13 December 2006 (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barbosa[edit]

Delete fails to meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Strothra 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Just because we disapprove of someone famous is no reason not to write an article about them. Mass murderers are usually the subject of lots of news coverage and hence notable. Note that there is a film producer with the same name at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1163232/ and a logistics executive at http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/news/business/?show=64603 , both of whom may also be notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as explained above. Akihabara 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination isn't correct. Meets this guideline in WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"

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

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

The result was keep, merge, and redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students in Harry Potter's Year[edit]

List and fancruft, admits to being OR, unencyclopaedic. Rory096 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Michaelsanders has advertised this and another AfD here and here. --Rory096 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as the recipient of one of those 'advertisements' you are objecting to, I think I ought to be insulted that someone presupposes how I will vote on this, and uses that presumption to disparage another editor. More importantly, I think it very unfortunate that you consider it improper to advise potentially interested parties that a vote for deletion is taking place. For the record, I did not know this article even existed before I was asked to comment. Sandpiper 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...what? Not OR in the slightest, it is an attempt to properly codify Rowling's list as a proper article for the benefit of readers who, at present, have to dig through other articles in order to get to the information (and who at present can't even find characters such as Moon or Roper at all). I admit that I am never the best at getting an article rolling - so make constructive suggestions of improvement. I am not even going to dignify 'fancruft' with a response. Michaelsanders 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not a directory ("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics") and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --DeLarge 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put AfD on Hold - its been up for about 20mins, give it some time RHB 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
- It's the concept that counts. This article doesn't have any hope of becoming encyclopaedic, especially considering things like "Fans who had recorded the documentary then used still images to read the names on the page, and discover the 'unknown students' and other relevant details" and "The information, dating from the early years of the inception of the novels, is dubious," both from the article itself. --Rory096 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm so sorry. On the Voldemort page, and others, there was advice saying that the Harry Potter articles needed less 'in-universe', more external information. The information you have taken offence to is well-known - how do you think the classlist reached the internet? Look on the Lexicon if you want to cite it. Your attitude, I am afraid, suggests to me that you have a less-than-adequate working knowledge of Harry Potter (you can't even tell a fan-babbler from an inclusionist? How is that possible?). Would you like me to remove the information? Michaelsanders 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any worthwhile and referenced information can go in Hogwart's or whatever the article is called. Proto::► 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Students. Making this a separate article is actually making it harder to find this information by having parts of it in more than one place. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much interest do any of you actually take in the Harry Potter project? Michaelsanders 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much interest does the Harry Potter project take in Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Proto::► 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the information itself is reasonably, not overly detailed. It could be improved, and I wouldn't oppose merging to the list suggested above, but deletion seems excessive. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Give Me a Break Merge per Dhartung's suggestion. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of 'list'. This is hardly a list. It has several sections of text and even mentions a source! Your deletionist anti-HP agenda needs to be stopped. John Reaves 20:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this information is interesting to devoted fans of the Harry Potter novels, it is not interesting or important generally. Only the most devoted fans care about characters not even mentioned in canon. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to record everything related to Harry Potter, or every other work of art. This is a general encyclopedia, and such detailed information properly belongs in a Harry Potter encyclopedia. —Seqsea (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't generalising on the lines of 'all people think' weaselwording, and against wikipedia policy? Do you have hard evidence that 'only the most devoted fans care about characters not even mentioned in canon'? No? Then kindly keep it out of this discussion. Your opinion, since it is not remotely representative of what Harry Potter fans, or Harry Potter editors think, is worthless. Michaelsanders 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Students as per Dhartung. RHB 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lets keep this as a discussion about the deletion of this article and nothing else. John Reaves 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books (which needs extreme copyediting, let's try not to get on that list's case) and merge any information into it, though I think most of it is there. Still, the article is not OR nor a list. I'd also like to repeat my comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter characters birthday list: Please watch the icy attitude that has been shown in the exchange between "Harry Potter fans" and "Harry Potter deletionists." Just keep a calm manner, please, it's really upsetting to see a feud over something like this. Incidentally, the merging of a number of small, unsourced articles that don't merit their own space is currently being discussed at the WP Harry Potter. Let's not attack the efficiency of the WP Harry Potter in conforming with policies and guidelines, that borders on bad faith. However, the project's scope should be seen in a wider spectrum, and obviously discussion is not and should not be limited to members of the project or fans of Harry Potter. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Students (Duane543 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge with 'List of characters'. To address the comments about content above. This is actually a documented incident where the author let slip part of her own notes used to create the books. It is factual, not in any way OR. If the entire series of HP articles was scrapped and re-written from the perspective of literary analysis (which I am not advocating, and anyway something which is currently very difficult because essentially we are stil writing about an unfinished work), this piece ought to be included. It gives insight into the way the book was created. I anticipate that this will expand when the books are finally finished and Rowling will be able to talk about the story development... without being hamstrung as she is now by not revealing the ending. MichaelSanders is quite right that this is the kind of (currently relatively rare) information which ought to included in current HP coverage somewhere. These books have been a literary phenomenon and it is absurd to think that they will not become course material in future (I happen to know they are already included in reading lists for people doing teacher training in the UK). People will be sitting in classes analysing how she developed the storylines.

This information could be merged with 'List of Characters in HP, but that article is already generating an edit warning that it is 37K long, and frankly the logical conclusion from that is that it needs/will need subdividing into separate article. A considerable part of this information is already in 'list of characters', and I would myself prefer to see one article discussing students in the school rather than have this split/repeated in two or more. So I have persuaded myself to argue to merge, but with the possible intent of splitting off a slightly different article in the future. Sandpiper 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that, "that this is the kind of (currently relatively rare) information which ought to included in current HP coverage somewhere", and I agree with you. The question, however, is not whether it is important information in the context of the HP universe, but whether it merits inclusion in Wikipedia, a general encyclopedia. We are not an encyclopedia of Harry Potter, nor are we an encyclopedia of every detail of every novel--or even every great novel. Our coverage of Moby-Dick, for example, has a short section detailing important characters, with a separate article for the most important one. Our coverage of The Lord of the Rings includes links to articles on characters important enough to be mentioned in a plot synopsis. The point here is not that we should have no information on HP, or that HP is not a good book; rather, that the focus of this article is not in line with the focus of the encyclopedia. When it comes to fiction, a general encyclopedia, such as WP, primarily should document the real-world significance of the novel, criticism, some plot summary, some information about the characters. (See WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).) —Seqsea (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the article? Or are you simply concerned with antagonising anyone who does consider Harry Potter relevant to Wikipedia? After all, Wikipedia is limitless: it isn't paper, there are no restrictions on size. We can include anything if enough people agree that it is relevant. So what is your objection to an article which, if anything, should be preferable to you people, since it aims for an external mode of writing - to document what has happened in terms of revelations and development of the novels, as well as what 'Harry does this and that'. So what is your objection? Have any of you actually read the article you object to? Michaelsanders 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout this discussion, you've taken the view that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't read the article, has no knowledge of HP, and just wants to delete it on the grounds that it's about HP. I don't know how to convince you this is not necessarily the case, but... well, it's not. External with respect to fiction refers to its implications for the "real world", not the idea that the information in the article should come from the real world. That is, our fictional articles should focus on "the impact of HP on contemporary society" not "contemporary society's impact on HP". Again, it's a wonderful analysis of the origins of the HP universe, but it's too detailed for a general encyclopedia, having very little at all to do with the real world outside of HP canon. —Seqsea (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, then clearly you haven't read anything of the above discussion either. Sandpiper, Duane543, fbv65edel, [deathphoenix]: none of these support my desire to keep the article. I have not accused them of not reading the article, nor have I taken offence at their differing stance. Do you know why? It is because they have actually earned my respect in the Harry Potter project. You have not. I take it as a given that they have read the article, the arguments here, and understood them. I take it as understood that we believe in the same basic purposes for wikipedia. We don't always agree, but we know what we're talking about, and we care about making wikipedia the best resource available for all readers - in this particular case, Harry Potter. They have, one way or another, earned my respect, and I hope that I have earned some small modicum of theirs. But you, and those of who displaying an intolerant attitude of "Fiction? NIMBY!", you have not earned my respect at all. You have my deepest contempt. Those of you who have expressed their opinion of the article so disparagingly and ignorantly("fancruft", "OR", "unencyclopedic"), who have taken a high-handed and arrogant attitude (claiming that I am 'advertising' this debate - should editors involved in Harry Potter not be informed?; "only the most devoted fans are interested"; "this article doesn't have any hope of becoming encyclopedic"), who clearly feel that various hard-to-find or paranoid "Hermione is Lily in another dimension" rubbish sites should serve as the main Harry Potter source of information, and that wikipedia should not sully itself with such topics (despite it being a paperless, limitless, encyclopedia for EVERYONE - that includes Harry Potter readers, you know) - you have given me no reason to respect you. If this discussion were taking place amongst only people who are interested in preserving the integrity of the HP articles: I would fight for the article (I feel that it is important) but I would automatically accept that the editors knew what they were talking about, and had the best interests of the project at heart. You give me no such assurance - this deletionist crowd has made its blatant snobbery towards this project clear, has insulted the work we do for wikipedia, and as such is deserving of no respect. You are welcome to prove otherwise, of course, but at the moment I see no reason to view of those contributors here who are not Potter-related as contributing anything other than an obvious distaste and terror of creeping fiction articles. Michaelsanders 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps things are becoming a little too heated and personal here for the objective of coming to an acceptable decision. But I would address the arguments above that HP articles have become too detailed. I'm afraid I don't buy this (at least in general), and I don't think others should either. Wiki is not paper. There is no point wasting cyberspace including false information, but the fact that it is not paper means we should not worry about including additional information. If editors feel that a disproportionate amount of our limitless space is being spent on fiction, then perhaps those editors should consider ways to increase the content of articles which they feel are proportionately too small, rather than reducing those they feel are too large. The size of HP articles directly reflects the interest aroused by the books. Topicality is an issue which any encyclopedia must take into account when choosing content. But particularly in our case, topicality means that many more people are intereted in writing those articles, and consequently they will be much better developed than others which might in the grand scheme be more important, but are regrettably of no interest to most. In this instance, the content ought to remain on wiki. The issue for me and some of the others I have read above, is where it ought to be placed. This is not necessarily a simple decision, as Hp is a large set of interrelated articles, and I am not certain the suggestion to consolidate into 'List of characters' will be my final word on this, but it seems the best suggestion at present.

Also for the record, HP has already surpassed just being a book, and has become a phenomenon. We will not know until it is finished how well it has been written: it is a puzzle piece littered with loose ends, and its genius will be measured by how well the story is concluded. It has been disparaged by a number of professionals, who have already had to eat their words, and I can see how they came to carelessly dismiss it. But it has already changed the literary scene.Sandpiper 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect unique entries to Students in Harry Potter's Year#Students, particularly since the tables list the students in Harry's year, as well as those above and below. This list is somewhat redundant given the existence of the target article, but since it contains a few new students not mentioned there, this article shouldn't simply be deleted: it's certainly appropriate to merge the content (Michael, please note that merging the article means that the original content is still kept, and the residual redirect ensures that you are still acknowledged for your work per GFDL requirements). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off: there are plenty of articles which effectively quote other sources verbatim (the Hogwarts Layout recently added in an intro which I think was taken straight from the Lexicon) (this may be irrelevant: looking back, I may have misinterpreted your reference to target article). Second of all: standard procedure is to tag an article as suitable for merging. And then the issue is discussed on the relevant discussion pages between the relevant editors, until a decision is reached. Had that happened, I would have willingly discussed it with all the relevant editors. I might - might - have conceded the issue, provided I could be sure that the relevant information regarding the release of the list and the names on it was preserved and easy to find. But that did not happen. Instead, this pack of fools, who have no interest or understanding or respect for what we do, high-handedly said they should delete it. And considered it appalling that I should want relevant editors involved. It is very hard to think well of them. As for the article itself, I would - reluctantly - agree to merging: providing the information regarding the names, changes, corollary ramifications, and the general circumstances of the release of the list were all preserved and easy to find and read (there are no suitably well-organised articles at present). But only if.

Thirdly, I don't care about being acknowledged for my work. That isn't the point of wikipedia. I do care about protecting information I view as important or under my aegis, and take great offence at perceived prejudices against my edits, but that's another story. I take greater offence at the intolerance of those editors who originally took offence to the article. Michaelsanders 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: yes, I think you interpreted my reference correctly after looking back. :-) Second point, yes, tagging an article for merging is an appropriate action; however, the person who nominated this for AfD genuinely (and in good faith) believed that this article was too trivial, and therefore needed to be deleted. Plenty of trivial articles get nominated for deletion, but the ones that should be merged usually end up getting merged. The one beef I really have with articles that get AfDed are those that clearly should be kept, but needed to be cleaned up instead, but that's not the case here. To your third point, it's not whether you want to be acknowledged or not, but that GFDL attribution requirements specifically state this. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This article is not about the students actually named in the books so far. The article is about the somewhat more extensive list the author made available, possibly not realizing the names could be deciphered. This is a notable series of books, of course, and the main characters are I think notable. This is about the author's composition of the books. It takes a very notable author indeed to justify a separate article on that. In this case it qualifies, and the evidence is that every one of us commenting here has undoubtedly gone to the page to examine the list.DGG 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the next page you'll have to delete if you delete this one: List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. John Reaves 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crufteriffic 205.157.110.11 15:01, 17 December 2006 (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. It appears all useful information has been alreadly brought over. Yanksox 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter characters birthday list[edit]

List and fancruft, totally unencyclopaedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Rory096 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT paper, but this is hardly 'indiscriminate' information and does not seem to fit any of the definitions listed at NOT. Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Michaelsanders has advertised this and another AfD here and here. --Rory096 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And is that a problem? if you look below you will see that while he asked me to look here, I have voted to merge. Are you suggesting that people who are interested in a particular subject should not be asked to comment when an article comes up for deletion? Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree that this shouldn't be a problem. The HP Wikiproject has a subpage specifically to notify users when articles are up for AfD, and looking at the history of articles advertised there will show you that members of the Wikiproject have voted in a variety of ways. In fact, I notice that the two recent AfDs weren't placed there, so I will place it there myself. I would also note that he asked me to take a look simply because I am familiar with Harry Potter articles, not because we agree on this subject matter (as a matter of fact, we've had our disagreements). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to make information easy to find and reference, is it not? Michaelsanders 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Yes, encyclopaedias make information easy to find, but that doesn't mean that they should include completely unencyclopaedic information. --Rory096 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedias have lists of regnal dates, do they not? So how is this topic, or similar topics, unencyclopaedic? Michaelsanders 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're comparing fictional fantasy characters to actual historical monarchs and their dynasties? Bwithh 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so you are biased against articles for works of fiction? Are you then qualified to judge here? Michaelsanders 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You've already acknowledged that this list of fictional birthdays is not as important as lists of dates relating to real people, so could you please stop playing the bias card? If we're biased for thinking that fictional dates are less important than historical ones, then so are you. Otto4711 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute importance is not a good sole criteria for inclusion. It is necessary to consider relative importance to people. I spent £50 on HP, and so did hundreds of millions of other people. Not important? Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that absolute importance was the sole criterion. My comment was addressing how Michael was calling people "biased" and implying their opinions were less valid because they were saying that fictional dates are less important than real ones. 205.141.247.28 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that if you think an article is by its subject matter irrelevant, then you are automatically bringing in a prejudice against it. Also, I was not aware that wikipedia moderated article existence/length based on importance. Shall we remove the article about Jane Grey because she only ruled for 9 days - so wasn't as important as other monarchs? Michaelsanders 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Star Wars characters shoe size? Lord of the Rings character's middle names? Indiscriminate fancruft & listcruft (flistcruft?). Proto::► 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The information is already included in character articles, which is sufficient. (I hope nobody will be inconvenienced when sending cards.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to find, however, than being spread through various articles. Would you delete a list of presidents, because that information was already included in their articles? What about the articles detailing the British peerages? The only difference here seems to be that a list of Kings and Queens, say, is historical, as opposed to fictional. Leading me to wonder whether any of you have a bias against articles regarding works of fiction. Michaelsanders 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear God - You're actually comparing a list of birthdays of fictional characters to a list of Presidents and monarchs, and claiming that they're somehow equivalent in importance? Delete as unencyclopedic, irrelevant listcruft. Otto4711 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Birthdays are actually reasonably important(in both real life and in the Harry Potter universe), more so than shoe size or middle names. This article could use a little expansion, some citations to sources, but it is neither fancruft or unencyclopaedic. If you think this list should be deleted for collating that information, then you'd have to remove the information from each page. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Birthdates may be important information within the context of a given article. It isn't the information that's objected to; it's the creation of an article for no other purpose than to list that information. Should we have a separate article for the birthdates of every character in every movie and book? Tragic romance 10:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fanlistcruft. Take it to a Harry Potter wiki (I'm sure they are several out there) and see if they'll keep it. Bwithh 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in Harry Potter wikis, or in posting fan rubbish. I'm interested in making Wikipedia as thorough, useful, easily-accessible, readable, and organised as possible. Which is why I am trying to create this article, in order to get the information in a thorough and clear, easy to find and use manner. I understand that we are coming from rather different directions here - I value the Harry Potter series and am trying to ensure that its articles are of the best standard, whereas most of the contributors here clearly have no respect for it and obviously have no desire to actually give any thought to the matter. As to why I am comparing the article to a list of Peers or Presidents: those are relevant to you. This article is relevant to those interested in Harry Potter. You may not like that, but you have to accept it. From an absolute perspective, of course the birthday list is not as important as a list of historical presidents. But relatively, it is important enough to the Harry Potter project to merit retention. Michaelsanders 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, nobody is saying that the Harry Potter series is unvalued, and is not relevant to Wikipedia. Surely this information already exists in the articles on each of the characters? Proto::► 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Stong Keep See WP:NOT#PAPER. The series has sold over 300 million books and been translated to 47 or so languages. It's is hardly fancruft when the fans represent a significant portion of the population of the world. John Reaves 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That there are a lot of fans doesn't make this anything other than fancruft. It just makes it monster fancruft. And the number of books that have sold is irrelevant to whether a list of character birthdays is an appropriate Wikipedia article. Convince me that it's encyclopedic to know that Cho Chang was born on September 7, 1979. Otto4711 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LL*Harry Potter being popular is an entirely irrelevant reason to keep the article - please read WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I wish to know when a character's birthday is. I might be interested in finding out how many birthdays are known without digging around on the Rowling site. I might be interested in which character birthday is on a particular day. There are plenty of valid reasons why any Harry Potter fan might wish to see it, all of which comply with Wikipedia rules, and which you are blatantly IGNORING. Do you hold yourselves to any standard? You are showing a blatant disregard for the interests of other readers, measuring article relevance by your own yardsticks - despite the fact that your very lack of interest in the subject makes it impossible for you to grasp how it can be relevant! That simply is not on. Michaelsanders 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I want to know all sorts of things that aren't important enough to be in Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is merely your opinion of what is important. Are you a Harry Potter fan? Or part of the Project to include and organise Harry Potter details? Or involved in its articles in any meaningful way? Because if not, who are you to judge whether such articles are important or not? Leave that to the Potter-related editors, who do know whether an article relating to HP is important, or relevant. Michaelsanders 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not merely my opinion, from the looks of the nomination... Otto4711 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, and a number of others who have little real knowledge of Harry Potter. Michaelsanders 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the Harry Potter series, read all the books, liked them (THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE IS SNAPE!!!!!!! :p), but this is not suitable for Wikipefdia. The information already exists ont he articles of each character. The information could go into the Dates in Harry Potter article. What it is not worthy of is its own article. Please try and understand there's a difference between thinking this is not suitable and hating your favourite series of books. Proto::► 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very immature.Michaelsanders 12:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers end here.

Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books RHB 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge and redirect to Dates in Harry Potter. Doesn't really fit in the list of characters article. John Reaves 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dates_in_Harry_Potter#Births and delete the article. Replication of information is not required. (aeropagitica) 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean merge and redirect? John Reaves 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Dates in Harry Potter#Births. Redirects are cheap. I'll admit to being a Harry Potter fan, and that I was notified of this AfD, but I don't think that should redistribute the weight of my vote at all. Speaking quite neutrally, this information is important but clearly the way it's been presented and the fact that it's in its own article is not doing much for it. I'd also like to reproach everybody for the icy attitude that has been shown in the exchange between "Harry Potter fans" and "Harry Potter deletionists." Just keep a calm manner, please, it's really upsetting to see a feud over something like this. Incidentally, the merging of a number of small, unsourced articles that don't merit their own space is currently being discussed at the WP Harry Potter, and this is one of them. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Dates_in_Harry_Potter#Births, this is not needed as a separate list.-- danntm ^T _C 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. TSO1D 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above Subwayguy 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect suggest if you want to know a character's birthday, check the characer's article. Danny Lilithborne 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no redirect. wtfunkymonkey 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What possible reason is there for not having a redirect? John Reaves 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging without a redirect breaks GFDL requirements unless the admin performs a history merge, and a history merge is much too complicated to perform except for exceptional cases... it's a rare article that gets merged without a redirect. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dates in Harry Potter#Births (Duane543 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as fancruft up to our eyeballs, but if necessary, merge. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The creation of an article for no other purpose than to list minor information. Should we have a separate article for the birthdates of every character in every movie and book? Tragic romance 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are probably very few other movies or books where 25 characters's birthdays have been noted. And if they have been noted, it's probably important enough to be mentioned somewhere. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dates in Harry Potter (although 'Dates' already has a section on characters birthdays, which very probably contains all this information already, so little 'merging' would be required). I'm not convinced the title really makes sense as a redirect... I always though a 'birthday list' was a list of presents I want for my birthday. But I find the arguments advanced above (broadly) that wiki should not give comprehensive coverage to a phenomen like 'Harry Potter', which probably interests more people than the majority of all articles as extraordinary, and on the lines of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect unique entries to Dates in Harry Potter#Births as mentioned above. This article is somewhat redundant with the section of the target article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge Unlike the previous AfD discussion, this is about a lit containing no unique information; though birthdays as such are mentioned in the book, they are not generally a major plot element, and finding out who was born on a particular day is merely fan trivia. DGG 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the next page you'll have to delete if you delete this one: List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. John Reaves 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as original research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myths and misperceptions about Texas[edit]

Original research. Was at one time PROD'ed after a lengthy discussion with the original author, with the author finally endorsing the PROD and then even replacing it with a speedy-deletion request, but the latter was removed by somebody else (the PROD would otherwise probably have led to deletion back then). A second speedy request was made today, but CSD doesn't apply. - Note that the OR problem does not apply so much to the facts reported as correct (those are well sourced, in fact), but to the claims about what are "wide-spread" misconceptions. No problem about stating that Texas has a coastline with the Gulf of Mexico. But what's the source for claiming that people commonly believe it hasn't? No problem stating that cotton is among Texas' traditional industries. But what's the justification for implying that people typically aren't aware of that? To forestall one possible keep argument: The case of Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS is not a suitable keep precedent, for exactly that reason: In the case of AIDS, the issue of what are and what aren't common misconceptions is the object of a well-documented public discourse and doubtless numerous scientific studies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nominator says it all. Proto::► 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and as blatent OR. meshach 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or userfy this personal essay. Although individual points are fairly well sourced, the whole point of the article is that this is a well-recognized list of widely-held misperceptions, and that point isn't supported by any sources at all. I do have to observe that Hollywood has indeed had a propensity for filming scenes that supposedly take place in Texas in the Monument Valley. A notable example is The Searchers. There are amazing scenes of a rancher's cabin surrounded by arid desert... I always wondered where the stock grazed. Actually imdb comments that "In the climactic scene, John Wayne and Natalie Wood run up the side of a hill in Monument Valley, Utah... and come down the other side of the hill in the Bronson Canyon area of Griffith Park, Los Angeles." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and a personal essay.-- danntm ^T _C 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my (way too long-winded) comments on the article's talk page. --TheOther Bob 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any specific statements that are properly sourced can be incorporated into Texas or appropriate daughter articles, if not already there. JamesMLane t c 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Proto. (aeropagitica) 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Line Therapy[edit]

Advert and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where's the article? Sr13 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted by an admin who neglected to close this AFD first... Leibniz 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not close it for them? (aeropagitica) 22:38, 10 December 2006 (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 I recommend somebody also nominate the media used for this article for deletion. Sandstein 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fated Souls[edit]

Self-published, fanfiction-like game. The article does not cite multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Multiple independant published works refereing to this topic do not seem to exist.) The subject of the article does not seem to have won any awards. This article totally fails WP:WEB. Kunzite 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kunzite 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is not a japanese-related articles.--Ongep 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame, the end (compounded by the fact that it takes place in the human wasteland known as GaiaOnline) Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there was a problem with the link to this discussion in the AfD template on the Fated Souls article (where the nominators reason for deletion instead of the link to this AfD discussion appeared). I have fixed it. --tgheretford (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Worthless roleplay topic on Gaia. I especially liked the part about the "private anime." Hilarious, guys. Moogy^(talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is honestly becoming a private anime. Creator-and-all is working with an anime source team to convert it to an anime. I felt it was only right to include it in some form or another. Is there something wrong against stating the truth behind a reasonable subject? Raftacon 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Truth" or "existence" is not a factor for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can read the inclusion criteria for this type of article here. I've not seen a "private anime" that meets Wikipedia notability inclusion criteria. It looks like any of 100 fanfiction products that I've seen and read over the internet. This one doesn't seem to meet the inclusion criteria either. When it gets animated and gets a national release, come back and see us. --Kunzite 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If you say so, yet I do still believe this is a dire mistake. Raftacon 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Moogy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP User 24.6.15.30, who made one other minor edit in the past to this article, removed the AfD template from it today. I reverted the edit. MKoltnow 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP user (who has made grammatical changes to Raftacon's statements on this AFD), has also blanked this page multiple times. --Kunzite 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked by another admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Woah, what's been going on here, exactly? Raftacon 04:53, 14 December 2006 (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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Edward Anderson[edit]

Here we have an article on an individual whose notability is - questionable at best. Those sources which do exist appear often to be fallout from the rather bitter fight over personal rapid transit in Minnesota. The number of Google hits for "J. Edward Anderson" is small, under 200 off Wikipedia. The article was startewd by one side in the dispute, and is now being edited by the other, but what we have here is still dominated by that dispute, which in fairness is probably of very little significance to Anderson in his overall career. As an academic, he should be judged by WP:PROF, and I see a serious shortage of evidence that he meets that test. Do we need a battleground on Wikipedia with a living individual in the middle of it? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ThuranX 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If J. Edward Anderson is not worthy of an article, then the same can be said of Personal Rapid Transit. I have never found a mention of Dr. Anderson and/or PRT in any other encyclopedia. Please delete them both...Avidor 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are voting delete JE Anderson, not even a week after creating it? What kind game are you playing here, Avidor? I think it's safe to say now that the JE Anderson article was created in bad faith... ATren 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am capable of changing my opinion if I am presented with facts and logic that point to a contrary conclusion and Guy has done exactly that. Dr. Anderson is not worthy of an article in Wikipedia and neither is the unproven concept (PRT) he promoted for nearly 40 years.Avidor 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is some of the most ridiculously immature behavior I've experienced on Wikipedia. I can't believe I wasted my time trying to fix the article at all, as I now see the entire situation was part of Avidor's 'my way or the highway' manipulation. I can no longer AGF regarding Avidor. In the future, Avidor, please make it clear to those of us Wikipedians who just try to improve Wikipedia that we're interfering with your tantrums, and we'll go elsewhere. ThuranX 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. The truth is I felt it was important to create a Wikipedia page for J. Edward Anderson because he was cited so much in the Personal Rapid Transit Wikipedia article. I also thought Anderson deserved his own page given the number of times he has appeared in the major media in the past. If I had an idea that the article would be challenged for notability, I would have never written it... Avidor 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Wikiglass The idea of judging merit -- especially by appeals to academic standards -- within a circus that deliberately rejects any hierarchy of competence is ... um ... ironic. Knappster 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've put some thought and research into this, and regardless of whether the article creator was acting in good faith, I believe Anderson is notable. He has been at the forefront of PRT research for decades, and is responsible for much (though not all) of the current state of PRT research. He and his invention (Taxi2000) are the subject of several non-trivial news articles ([65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70]) and are mentioned in several others ([71],Time Magazine). I don't think there's a question as to his notability. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up (and this needs to be done with care given the history of this dispute) but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. ATren 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From what I have seen, in the field of PRT, Anderson is a giant. I disagree entirely with using Google juice as a notability yardstick. I also disagree that Anderson's article should be judged solely according to WP:PROF. That is not where he is most notable. I agree that the article was created in bad faith by someone with an axe to grind. But, now that it is here, and the axe grinder visits only rarely to wreak havoc on anything related to PRT, I suggest the article is maintainable in a neutral tone that the one for PRT could never be. --JJLatWiki 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I find it ironic that Avidor created this article, and it was Avidor's herald and defender, JzG, who subsequently nominated it for deletion based on notability, when he defended Avidor's little-known, regional comic strip against nearly the same claim (Alexa rank instead of Google Juice) "citing" ambiguous "newspapers in Chicago", some obscure publication in the "twin cities"[sic], "Funny Pages", and "various anthologies". --JJLatWiki 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot about this other heralding of Avidor. --JJLatWiki 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not interested about the history of the nomination but only in the question about the notability of JEA. He's more of an engineer than a scientist, and practical achievements are worth as much as published articles; this is an interesting instance of a prominent figure with major public proposals, but which were never adopted, and is clearly less notable than if they had been. But they've been important in the (non)development of late 20th century public transit, and this is at least as much a political as a technical issue. He has been featured in news articles, the information is verifiable, and that's quite enough. I sometimes try to improve articles if I think they're likely to pass & be worth the effort, and I just did a first round on the very inflated article. I removed the considerable part of the article which was about his friends and supporters; if relevant anywhere, that would be in the article for his project. DGG 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provenance of article and of nomination are not dispositive. Needs a fair amount of stylistic cleanup, though. JamesMLane t c 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
patents A few selected patents have been added.DGG 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as ((db-nonsense)). (aeropagitica) 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with three apples[edit]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Self-published work. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Aside from that, note there were no sources as of this post. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn & something made up at university one day. meshach 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What non-sense is this? TSO1D 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is quite clearly nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per meshach. Not quite utter nonsense, although it probably makes more sense if you can see the accompanying image (deleted for license reasons) which shows a cartoon teddy bear juggling three apples labelled "price", "quality" and "time". It's just a silly graphical metaphor someone came up with for the old saying: "Good, fast, cheap — pick any two." Still completely unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2006 (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 anyone feels like merging this content somewhere, it is available on request; in this case please provide a link to this discussion. Sandstein 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black people (ethnicity)[edit]

STRONG DELETE: This article is a POV, it is the result of an unsettled dispute, there is already an African People article, a Black People article and an African American article, there is no reason for this additional black people article which is here to articulates a very American view of who and what black people are. It offers no Encyclopedic value just a POV fork. The content borders on Original research. It should be merged in African American (where this info exist) or merged back into black people where this info came from. and adding black is not an ethnic group.--Halaqah 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creation borderline violation of WP:POINT. Also, "black" is a social construction, not an ethnicity. --Strothra 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Halaqah and user:Strothra. Merge unnecessary, as reasonable content already exists at race, Bantu, African American, etc. Jd2718 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a POV fork of black people. If for some reason this article survives, it should be renamed Black (ethnicity). Koweja 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Halaqah and user:Strothra, if it survives it should be renamed as American Views on Black Ethnicity. Alf photoman 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- also see Black as a skin color identity. This is all fallout from the endless debate in the Black people article about who "owns" that term. I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but forking articles like this is not the way to do it. Perhaps, as Alf says, a new article on American views on Black ethnicity might be one way to make forward progress. -- The Anome 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion can be a sub section in the black people article, no need for another topic just to articulate a view which probably only a few African Americans adhere to.--Halaqah 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no need for a rush to judgment. The general topic is an absolute mess of arguments over undefined (or individually defined) terms. [Race] is a "myth" (or, to be more PC, it is a social construct), but racism is a reality. What is at issue in the case of a racist attack is not the reality or accuracy of categorization, but the fact that the attribution of status is made and that real world consequences flow from those attributions. One of the side-effects of this racist attack is that the groups targeted can buy into the systems of categorization used by their oppressors, and that acceptance of a social construct can have both good and bad results in individual cases. If the "Black is beautiful" movement is in the ascendant, then the social construct can have at least a transient good effect. If the negative values implicit in the social constructs are internalized by the victims of these social constructs, then the effects can be strongly negative. Either way, we need to understand the intricate structure of the dominant social constructs, and for that reason it would be inappropriate and even hurtful to stuff off reports and analyses pertinent to these fabrications. P0M 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does this relate to Black people (terminology), or is that article part of the "fallout" as well?

--72.75.105.165 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. Lacking top-down planning, a series of articles will sometimes grow up. They often will contend for territory, and they often will be attempts to patch-over inconsistencies that naturally arise in the course of bottom-up "planning". P0M 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with one of the similar articles about well black people. Anomo 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Alun 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but continue discussion elsewhere - this and related articles are an ongoing problem, and merely deleting this article won't address the underlying problems. There are ongoing efforts at the talk pages to consolidate and diversify the articles on this topic, and it seems some progress is being made. See Talk:Black people for some of the history behind all this. Carcharoth 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Carcharoth. RaveenS 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with similar articles concerning blacks. Bearly541 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge; that is, if the various articles can be merged, consideringthe difficulty of neutral POV on this topic.DGG 04:25, 13 December 2006 (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 CSD G1-patent nonsense. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twump[edit]

How can it be a "leading" video game if google does not know it? Aleph-4 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense joke article. Maybe Twump is weally a westler in the Pwide FC? Tubezone 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:24, 10 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex McFarland[edit]

Badly written hagiography ('Alex delivers the "real" truth about Jesus Christ to a confusing world'), contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless credible sources are given by the end of this AfD. Alf photoman 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf photoman. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 03:00, 12 December 2006 (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.--Kchase T 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author-Level Digital Rights Management[edit]

Bump from speedy. Not speedyable, but should be deleted. Not notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 20:27Z

Delete Firstly, article seems to be created to promote one company's product. See this link on the "Pardalis Inc" website, and cf. contributions of Pardalis, the editor of this article who has not edited any other item. So it looks self-promotional. Second, this probably doesn't meet any significant level of notability. A google search for "Author Level Digital Rights Management" has three hits, all essentially the same white paper by Pardalis, at this time, and a more generous search for "Author level" separate from "DRM/Digital Rights Management" still only has 74 hits, again headed by the same company's pages. I don;t see evidence that it's of any great notability other than in respect of this one company. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FT2, as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a suitable DRM article, unless this is a company-specific technology, in which case delete. Does seem to be promotional only, so delete. Akihabara 02:34, 11 December 2006 (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 being original research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoes - The Fire Within[edit]

This is almost certainly unsourced OR. -- BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to figure out what this actually is. Katia and Maurice Krafft are real enough. My first thought was that this was an amateurish summary of a documentary film or book, but I haven't been able to locate one by that title. At the moment I can't tell whether this is an original essay (in purpose prose) or a summary or paraphrase of something that might or might not be encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. I suspect this is somebody's school essay, but I don't see any content that isn't more throughly covered already at Volcano and related articles. Fan-1967 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accepting this as good faith and at face value; it fails WP:V, WP:NOR and as mentioned covers topic already detailed in Volcano. Doubt if there is anything useful that can be merged with Volcano. --Eqdoktor 07:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This poorly written student essay has no place on the Wikipedia. FirefoxMan 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. —ShadowHalo 23:00, 13 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Westmont[edit]

This building really does exist, and I can attest that everything said about it is true. But it is not notable, and for that reason it should be deleted. YechielMan 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if everything in the (largely unreferenced) article is true, there's nothing encyclopedic being said in it. Agent 86 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography/borderline attack, WP:BIO/((db-attack)) both refer. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Collins[edit]

Obvious hoax. Aleph-4 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --SonicChao ^talk 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, as well as all the other articles the nominated article links to which are also up for AfD. --tgheretford (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:42, 10 December 2006 (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 lack of sources, not verifiable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Saint Michael[edit]

Student "secret society"; created by a single purpose account; completely unsourced and apparently unverifiable. (If it does exist, it is doing a very good job on the "secret" part — I studied at Trinity College Dublin and have never heard of it.) Demiurge 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are references by the time this AfD ends. Alf photoman 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's real ok, you'll find it mentioned in some issues of Miscellany in the early 80s. It was (is?) a student drinking club.

There's a reference to it in the tunnels under house 43. "Society of St. Michael - 1987". I wasn't sure what it was referring to, but I guess this is it.

It has definitely been in existence for the past three years, since I started College, although beyond that I can't be sure. My flatmate in first year was asked to join. The part about many prmoinent people in student societies, etc being members might be a tad exaggerated but apart from that it seems fine. Michael Carroll

No documentary sources whatsoever. Delete.

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

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

The result was keep after a rewrite. Sandstein 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy routing[edit]

unsourced, stub-length, but I believe it may have potential, so should not be really suspect to speedy Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete, if it is sourced and improved, I will cross this out and replace it with keep. --SonicChao ^talk 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would like to see the article improved. It has potential to be expanded upon. Navou ^talk 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it hasn't reached even the stage of a draft, it's not yet encyclopedic. No objection to recreation when a draft is published. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: There is an article to be written about fuzzy routing. This currently isn't it. Either rewrite from scratch, citing actual real-world research (such as [72], [73], [74], [75]), or delete the existing article if that isn't done by the end of this AfD process. -- The Anome 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear the article has been changed significantly since the AfD for this article was initiated. Speedy keep and close. Navou ^talk 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, much of it is still nonsense: for example, the "invented in 2006 by students" bit is clearly contradicted by the presence of much earlier papers on the topic. I've now replaced the previous content with a stub, and added cites to the links provided above. -- The Anome 10:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep, since I have now replaced the previous content with a properly referenced stub, and this is a legitimate subject that deserves a fuller treatment. -- The Anome 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has potential if references are properly used and if the article's expanded. --doco (☏) 11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep. More than enough has been added. (Thanks, The Anome) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much content, but it seems referenced and notable enough to hopefully be expanded from a stub. —ShadowHalo 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The content is available on request for transwiki/merging purposes. Sandstein 08:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter camping[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a how-to guide. FirefoxMan 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemes to be made less HowToish, now, but I still say delete. FirefoxMan 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Does not pass WP:NOT per section 1.2 usage guide. Navou ^talk 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, definately does not pass WP:NOT. Cbrown1023 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as how-to guide and as not a clearly independent subject. Perhaps merge some of the information. The summary section in camping is probably enough for the main topic, but there's some information in the winter camping article that could be merged into other sections such as the equipment section in camping. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:52, 17 December 2006 (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; however, once the new name is confirmed, there seems to be a concensus to move it, so I add my consent to such a move. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACN 121 239 674 Limited[edit]

Not notable Uni club. Does not pass WP:ORG DXRAW 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- DXRAW 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep It appears that you didn't read the article. This article concerns an organisation composed of, and replacing, three uni student organisations that have not had notability problems in the past. Joestella 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Joestella or whomever is in the know: Is this shelf company temporary, or is the new org to be named something without so many numbers in it, or is this the permanent name of the new organizaton? How that's answered will decide what happens from here. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "The transitional board will choose a name for the organisation before the commencement on Session 1, 2007. The new name is understood to be "Arc"." Joestella 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd have to say weak delete. The transitional company itself is a transitional company and nothing more, and will, as near as I can tell, be effectively discarded in favor of the new org name ("Arc", or whatever it comes to be). It's not to say I'd discharge the new org - I'd likely not. --Dennisthe2 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. I don't like the name as no-one is going to look for this name. Keep and rename to the actual name chosen by students asap. Given that most students on campus are members or at least contribute funds, it is more important than your run of the mill studnet club. Possibly merge with University of NSW. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to rename it, as soon as I can confirm the new name. Joestella 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on student unions - just because this one has a provisional name doesn't mean it should be deleted, because it has that name for a good reason - the situation with student unions is in a state of flux, and I have no doubt that it will be given a name soon. enochlau (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Joestella and others. University clubs have never been held be inherently non-notable; a student union for large universities like UNSW should definitely be notable, especially given the fact that the author has chosen to merge them all into one article following the merger rather than write three underwritten articles on the old unions. As the equivalent Student Union at Sydney University (University of Sydney Union), Sydney's other large university, has an equivalent article that is not under threat from deletion, this one should definitely stay. JROBBO 03:31, 15 December 2006 (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 all per being hoaxes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits and Rampage[edit]

Per WP:BOLLOCKS - That's really the best way to describe every single new article created by User:Hawkinstone - Creator has also been found vandalising the Grease (film) article using one of this recent pages to change the cast. Everything is likely to be a personal attack. The various articles listed were PRODed but per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Collins everything else should be listed here too in my opinion. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing the following additional articles for consideration within this AfD:-

George Hawkinstone
Benny Jay
Zombie DJ

Delete all - as per nom and my recommendation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Collins. --tgheretford (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above and probability of a hoax/"no context". Cbrown1023 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all above. Looks hoaxish to me. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put them out of our misery - hoaxes, all of them. B.Wind 00:35, 12 December 2006 (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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Otago High School[edit]

Nothing about this school -- including the two notable alumni listed, and the 2002 local menigococcus outbreak leading the government to vaccinate its students -- indicates that there would be non-trivial external sources that we could use to write a good article about it. Tagged for notability since June, but no one has addressed the concern. Looking through the first few dozen results of a Google search (yielding 169 unique hits altogether), I see nothing promising. Prodded and de-prodded. Pan Dan 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to put this AFD together I noticed that the article I am nominating is South Otago High school, but there is also a South Otago High School about the same school. Participants in this debate will want to look at both articles. Merged. Pan Dan 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep for main article, delete the lower-case version. Secondary schools are normally considered worthy of articles.-gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on the school. Looking here, I see that most recent high school article AFD's resulted in no consensus. (And one recent AFD actually resulted in delete.) But anyway, outcomes of past AFD's don't have anything to do with whether an encyclopedic article can be written about this school. Pan Dan 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that's an interesting link. I believe that all normal New Zealand secondary schools are worthy of articles. I can't say that for all secondary schools around the world, because educational systems differ. I've added the word "normal" without being able to say exactly what I mean by it. However, a proposed school would not usually be worthy of an article. My reasoning stems partly from a back-of-the-envelope calculation: a school of 500 students must have an intake of at least 100 per year (probably more, because a large proportion don't stay a full five years), and when it's existed for 80 years, that's 8000 students (assuming a constant roll, which is not a very safe assumption). There are also quite a number of staff who will have worked there over the years. Many parents will also have had significant interactions with the school. Any place which has affected so many people on a daily basis seems notable. Another part of my reasoning is that school articles are often a place where Wikipedians start editing, and they then move on to more diverse articles. I've seen a number of New Zealand editors get started through their secondary school article. I realise that many editors also get started by editing articles on garage bands and that this is not a reason to keep the garage band articles, but schools invariably have official listings and websites, providing some verifiability, they are regularly reported on in local newspapers, and the articles are not (mostly) driven by vanity. It's not at all unusual for a long-standing secondary school such as this one to have a book written about their history. Such books won't be widely available outside the town that they're in, but they can be ordered through interlibrary services within the country.-gadfium 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You make some thoughtful points. The question of notability remains though -- are there external sources about this school that we could use to write a good article about it? To speculate that there may be books out there, somewhere, is not enough -- someone has to actually find those. Searches on Google books and on Amazon show nothing. Pan Dan 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to full keep, per Grutness' edits and arguments.-gadfium 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable school, more notable than many that have had keep votes here in the past. Will try to expand and clean up the article when I get a little time (hopefully later today). Grutness...wha? 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I've managed to spruce it up a little... Grutness...wha? 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, the article looks much better now. The question of notability remains -- I could write an equally detailed article (with pictures!) on many local businesses, using their websites as sources. But these are not good candidtates to be Wikipedia articles -- to show notability the sources have to be external. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the opportunity in the next couple of days to get to the local public library, I'll add considerable external sources. Not all sources exist online, you know. There are a considerable number of books that I know of dealing with the area, many of which have more information on the school which - as I said earlier - is one of the most prominent schools in the region. (And before you ask, no, I'm not an ex-pupil of there: quite the opposite, SOHS were my alma mater's biggest rivals!) Grutness...wha? 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your effort is to be commended, and I notice the improvement to the article. However you didn't list the publisher of the reference you added. I guess it's self-published? If so it would not indicate notability. Pan Dan 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Published by the Clutha District Council, I think, though the copy I read was missing the page which would have provided the details, unfortunately (hence no ISBN either). Grutness...wha? 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chance of multiple independent reliable sources is high due to nature of subject. --- RockMFR 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I would think the chances of sources would be low given that this is a local high school -- most local high schools aren't the subjects of non-trivial external sources, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. (Many high schools have famous alumni -- why would famous alumni induce external publishers to publish articles featuring the school? And the disease outbreak was really something that happened in the town, not the school.) But anyway, what's the point of talking about the chances that there's good coverage out there? To show notability someone has to actually find the sources. I looked and found none. Please do a search yourself instead of speculating. Pan Dan 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RockMFR and also a general feeling pro-schools in WP --BozMo talk 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent, and because it meets my personal notiability standards for High Schools (since WP:SCHOOLS is still not a consensus standard.) — RJH (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) "Per precedent" is not a valid reason to keep or delete any article. (2) Even if precedent were a valid reason in general, it makes no sense for high school articles, as most AFD's on those result in no consensus, and a recent one even resulted in delete. Pan Dan 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the majority of high schools brought to AfD in the last few months have been kept, in some cases speedily. Most of the no consensuses shown at the link you give are for middle schools or lower, though i do admit there are some high schools revceiving that decision. the one deletion you mention was a special case that actually ended up being redirected and smerged into the company which ran that particular private school. I make the tally 16 keeps, 9 no consensus and two deletes in the last month and a half once middle schools and the like are removed from the count, with one of those deletes being for a nineteen-word stub. To claim that this is a case of "mostly no consensus and even deletion" is misleading, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Granted, but my first point stands -- citing outcomes of past AFD's doesn't give a valid reason to keep or delete anything. Pan Dan 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. To keep this is in effect to assert more of the highly debatable "all schools are notable" line. Eusebeus 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's more a case of "all high schools with notable alumni are notable". Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To say that notable alumni (or anything else about the school) automatically confer notability on the school doesn't make any sense -- at least given what notability means on Wikipedia: see WP:N. Notability means that the topic is the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources. If having notable alumni induces external publishers to publish non-trivial things about the school, then that would show that the school is notable. Pan Dan 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOLS and has multiple notable alumni. Silensor 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleaned up version is good... passes WP:SCHOOL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New Zealand Herald shows a dozen stories about the outbreak, plus a few about other, potentialy "notable," topics. I can't read more than the intros online, but locals can look them up in the library, using an aparently reliable source, and can polish up a reasonably good article, I think. "Verifiable" doesn't mean that it has to be available to us online for free. Because of its size and age, this high school has inevitably been the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage, in addition to the dozens of government reports that show up in the first few pages of a seach. There is no reason to think that it can't be expanded and improved. --Hjal 07:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The publication of government reports has nothing to do with notability, and their content is nothing we can use to fill up an encyclopedia article. As for the disease outbreak, that's really something that happened in the town. Info about that should go in the article on the town. Pan Dan 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nom. WMMartin 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version does meet WP:SCHOOLS and conveys a sense of notability as well. Yamaguchi先生 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Williams[edit]

"Up and coming" is no claim to notability. Originally "db-bio" (CSD A7), but the original author User:AntoineJ removed it. Aleph-4 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no resources what-so-ever about this actor. Does not meet WP:BIO requirements and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:14, 10 December 2006 (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, WP:NOT a crystal ball. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partner (2007)[edit]

This article was tagged as a copyvio from http://www.salmankhan.net/forthcoming/Partner.asp, but a few random searches show no violations. So I'm bringing it here instead. It may be too early to write as it can still fall through. On the other hand, the source is reliable. No vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I tagged it as speedy G12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partner_%282007%29&oldid=90639190), the entire article was a direct copy&paste. If you look at the edit history, now the author has gone through and rephrased each sentence with a similarly meaning one. Whether this is enough for it to still be a copyvio or not, I don't know ShakingSpirit ^talk 12:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still in breach of WP:COPYVIO policy; simple paraphrasing of a single source is not acceptable.--Anthony.bradbury 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the main paragraph is almost identical to one from the cite, but just a small fraction of the text has been copied. Personally I don't think this is the kind of articles we should have in WP, but they are here so I'll have to pass. -- Steve Hart 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. A scan of Sohail Khan and Govinda (actor) suggests that the film will probably generate an article if it's released, but the information presented here is too skimpy. There simply doesn't appear to be enough information from relaible sources to create an article (even IMDB is holding off). Mr Stephen 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it should be recreated when more information becomes available. Cbrown1023 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep.; AFD created by a single-purpose account, with the intent to delete articles created by WietsE. User has been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumac Centre[edit]

Non-notable group. Carl Timothy Jones 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that this is a notable group. Read the extensive history of the project in the article. Please see related issue: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_coincidence_.3F. WietsE 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the details of your argument? Apart from accusing me of bad faith. Carl Timothy Jones 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep.; AFD created by a single-purpose account, with the intent to delete articles created by WietsE. User has been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Social Centre Network[edit]

Non-notable group Carl Timothy Jones 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems pretty big to be non-notable, but reserve judgement. Note that Carl Timothy Jones has been nominating only articles written by one user as his only edits so far. Kim Bruning 23:09, 10 December 2006 (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 bad faith nomination. `'mikkanarxi 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mischief Makers[edit]

{:The Mischief Makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD) Non-notable group. Carl Timothy Jones 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that this is a notable group. See the extensive history of the project. Please see related issue: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_coincidence_.3F. WietsE 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the details of your argument? Apart from accusing me of bad faith. Carl Timothy Jones 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that they have been primary subject of multiple on-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator's WP:SPA (and indef blocking) and the article seems to be more notable than previously thought. Cbrown1023 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:12, 11 December 2006 (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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Slovenia[edit]

Nonencyclopedic article providing no sources whatsoever. I would make it a speedy but since I am from Slovenia I find it more neutral to nominate the article here. --Tone 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this article, it could have encyclopedic value as does Greater Serbia or Greater Germany. TSO1D 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems that one Nenad Canak reports on calls for such a thing (although he doesn't actually go into any more depth than that the calls are made). It's also apparently part of the ideology of the Slovene National Party, although I don't know quite where to pull up their flag or statements on their site for language-barrier reasons. There also seems to be a group of Austrians who believe that this is a common ideology in Slovenia. These two sources will be added to the article forthwith. As a bottom line, what we seem to be dealing with is an ideology that some people have and that some other people believe to be more common. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Needs work (as a stub), may just be a fringe thing so it needs work on notability. --Eqdoktor 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. This topic is about as notable as many other entries in Category:Irredentism. //Dirak 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Should be expanded, not deleted. --Oakshade 23:25, 13 December 2006 (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 duplicate nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seager tennis closed as delete. This nomination was originally at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1. --ais523 10:52, 20 December 2006 (U T C)

Seager tennis[edit]

Non-notable, does not assert notability, or cite sources --Ybbor ^T 23:07, 10 December 2006 (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, non-notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seager tennis[edit]

Non-notable, does not assert notability, or cite sources --Ybbor ^T 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BAND. Cbrown1023 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC with room to spare. Let's have a two-for-one sale with Toxic Narcotic! B.Wind 00:30, 12 December 2006 (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 userfy. Would have been speedily deletable as nn-bio, but content is quite fine as a user page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Boozer[edit]

Non-notable autobio Subwayguy 23:10, 10 December 2006 (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, lol. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant Olympics[edit]

Obvious hoax. 54 Google hits, most saying there is no such thing. Was tagged as speedy, and probably a snowball, but the rules say hoaxes should go through AfD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if only obvious hoaxes could be speedied... (sighs) --tgheretford (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Ybbor ^T 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:-) There's obviously nothing better to do with it, right?! It actually made me laugh, because it's out of the ordinary...not just stupid like all the rest of them. → JARED ^(t) 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't BJAODN - it's not funny at all. --- RockMFR 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then you don't have a sense of humor because in Olympic context, it's hilarious! I'll put it there if you won't. → JARED ^(t) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeletePer all of the above.--Sir james paul 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Gave me a chuckle but belongs in Uncyclopedia.Chevinki

Strong delete friend of mine made it... need a speedy delete for this stuff 128.237.237.1 03:48, 14 December 2006 (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. —Mets501 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tate[edit]

Completely non-notable screenwriter Subwayguy 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that she hasn't made anything yet. Cbrown1023 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7 - only link to the article that is not related to the AfD is one from an article for the short-lived TV series Central Park West- which had a character by the name Jordan Tate. Having three scripts optioned is no assertion of notability (many times scripts are bought to be pigeonholed). Good luck to her - and when/if her scripts make it to the big or little screen, we can have an objective article on Ms. Tate... but not before then. B.Wind 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entry is pasted directly from her blog. Static Universe 23:03, 12 December 2006 (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. --- Deville (Talk) 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobijean Neher[edit]

Non-notable autobio self-promotion Subwayguy 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assertions of notability preclude speedy) - originating editor BJpoet719 appears to be Bobijean Neher, a clear conflict of interest. It is clearly an autobiography- and an unsourced one at that - with a little touch of linkspam at the end for flavoring. Oh, did I mention that the article is orphaned as well? B.Wind 00:17, 12 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crackheads Gone Wild[edit]

No recommendation; referred from the speedy deletion queue. theProject 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing at IMDB, and website is still "under contruction". - Longhair\^talk 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above 129.186.37.175 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (User Cantras)[reply]
Delete as fast as possible - with nothing at IMDB, likely hoax. The dead home site doesn't help, either. B.Wind 00:09, 12 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agartha - Secrets of the Subterranean Cities[edit]

Allegedly about a book whose "authorship remains dubious until further research can be done for this article." That pretty much says WP:OR failing WP:V. Leibniz 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOTE and I suspect WP:NOR. Falls under WP:BOLLOCKS category. --Eqdoktor 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. DrKiernan 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete "the authorship remains dubious" simply means that this book has been long out of print, and that when I created this article, I personally did not know who wrote it or how to find out. I created this article because the summary of the ideas presented in this book were overtaking the article on Agartha. If this article is deleted, it will not solve the larger problem, which is that most of the information in the Agartha article is from this book and no has bothered to find out who wrote it, least of all the person who added it. I suggest that someone find out more about this this book, because it is the most important part of the Agartha page and the information on it could not be removed without destroying the article. Mrwuggs 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, much of the Agartha page is unsourced WP:BOLLOCKS. Remove it if it bothers you, citing WP:V. Leibniz 13:26, 13 December 2006 (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. Sandstein 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Assassins' Guild[edit]

Nomination for Deletion Student society whose sole unverifiable claim to encyclopedic notability is based on original research/hearsay. Fails core policy WP:V. The first AFD from June 2006 ended in no consensus after a couple of keep voters argued that the History of live action role-playing games page identifies the guild as "apparently important" (that is the phrase used by the main keep !voter argument) for popularizing the Assassin game. However, History of live action role-playing games is totally unreferenced and may have OR problems. MIT Assassins' Guild is also unreferenced and uncertain - the Guild article does not even seem to be sure if it was founded in 1982 or 1983 (The history of LARP article makes the unreferenced vague claim that the Guild was founded some time before 1981).

According to the MIT thesis linked to in the article's own external links section (this thesis was written by past Secretary of the MIT Assassins Guild[76] and is hosted on the Guild's own webspace), the MIT guild was officially recognized as a MIT student activity in 1982 and notes that at the time, there were many other such groups at other colleges (but which did not enjoy official recognition). The Guild is described in the thesis as originating as a group playing a game known as "Killer"

In another part of the same thesis, it is asserted that, aside from an earlier game with some similar characteristics known as "Circle of Death" that was popular on campuses, the most significant event in popularizing Assassin was the commercial publication in 1981 of a booklet of rules for the game "Killer" by the influential gamemaker Steve Jackson (US). In addition, the booklet is said by the thesis to have an afterword which states that the campus game is 15 years older than 1981, and may be traced as an idea as far back as the 1950s or even the 19th century.

The MIT thesis might be regarded as a reliable source for the article (but there may be WP:COI issues given its author). However,its account of the importance of the MIT Guild to the popularization of the Assassin/Killer game seems to be clearly at odds with the key claims to society notability in the Guild and History of LARP articles. It does not verify these claims - rather it seems more to discredit these claims

Bwithh 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge with Assassins (game)? There are clubs of this type at several US and British universities. StoptheDatabaseState 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that clubs of this type can be found at most large US and UK universities. It is not especially uncommon. But Wikipedia is not a campus info booth, student activities bulletin board or a link directory. Merging or starting subsections on the history/current activities of all these student societies to that article would still be unencyclopedic unless each society can make their own special,verifiable claim to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Akihabara 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a vote. The above long explanation confuses two concepts: Assassin-style games and larps. The MIT Assassins' Guild began as a group playing the former, and it is claimed that it significantly influenced the latter. It is now a LARP group, not an Assassin-style game group. moink 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, though the Guild article does make a point of saying that the group "popularized the assassin game" whilst the history article seems to associate the guild's influencec with "Assassination style LARPs". Anyway, the claim of influence on LARPs would need to be properly sourced too Bwithh 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MIT thesis suggests that a Harvard group was the most important influential group on the LARP scene. Bwithh 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not established, which I said in more flowery form last time around. (I continue to have the same COI from being a former member and gamemaster, although I doubt this is relevant to a delete opinion.) GRBerry 22:38, 14 December 2006 (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.