< December 16	December 18 >

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZsKnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

While zsKnight has done some great stuff for the SNES emulation community, he appears to fail WP:BIO. I am looking to have this article deleted or redirected to the ZSNES article. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ))[reply]

• Delete, assuming no reliable sources are found. I can't find any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO-DESU 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This person seems notable at first glance, but fails the biography policy in the long run. Atlantis Hawk 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above concerns and of course Notability. — Seadog^Talk 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the above concerns. Somitho 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence Ong 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ZSNES, although I find an almost uncanny resemblance of this AFD with Doug Bell. bibliomaniac15 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while zsKnight is awesome, the rest of the world has failed to notice it, so he remains non-notable. Koweja 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge/redirect to ZSNES. --- RockMFR 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge to ZSNES. SkierRMH,07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, and per nom. Same thing I guess. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - The RSJ 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is the most widely used SNES emulator ever. SUrely the developers are notable at least for a stub. Milto LOL pia 03:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While ZSNES may be the most widely-used SNES emulator on the Intel platform, the developer is not notable. He has only created one product of significance, and therefore should be included in the ZSNES article and nothing but. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:21, 19 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 transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nine Dudeens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Once all the unverified, unreferenced material has been excised from these two articles, all that's left is a dicdef for dudeen, an Irish smoking pipe. Suggest a transwiki for Dudeen and deletion of Nine Dudeens per WP:V. Only reference given is to a generic definition of a smoking pipe. Tubezone 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks to User:Uncle G for adding references to dudeen as a smoking instrument, and adding points in the Dudeen article for where citations are needed for the other, ahem, stuff. Tubezone 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Tubezone 01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki I agree. Atlantis Hawk 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens SkierRMH,07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and all the rest. Per nom. — Seadog^Talk 16:35, 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 speedy close and delete per overwhelming consensus that this is an elaborate hoax. I'll be listing the "tuba" images that are not otherwise used at WP:IfD and issuing a strong warning to the apparent primary perpetrator of the hoax, User:Yeanold Viskersenn. Sandstein 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba (mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Appears to be an elaborate hoax, the references in the article do not appear to be legit, see talk page for this article for a discussion of the references and images on this page. Also see Mongolian Death Worm for a cryptid of this region with better, albeit somewhat iffy, references. Tubezone 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. I'm sure that the author has a successful career in creative writing to look forward to, though. :) Tevildo 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly BJAODN simply because of the amount of effort that obviously went into it. FiggyBee 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just an elaborate hoax. TSO1D 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Unlike most hoax situations, the article creators and contributors have lots of good-faith edits. Has anyone contacted them about this article or the nomination? Newyorkbrad 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a valid point, although many of the edits were mere cleanup (it's not unusual for editors to clean up articles that they don't suspect are hoaxes), I tossed some adw warning templates on the talk pages of the author and the people who made most of the actual contributions. Tubezone 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the nominator's conclusion, but we'll see what they have to say, whether it's adding references, or 'fessing up to some ... exaggerations. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a post on my talk page drawing my attention to this debate. I only did one cleanup edit on the article, and had never heard of the tuba before that. Having snooped around the net, I can't find any non-wikipedia-dependent citations for the tuba. The three named cryptozoologists (Coleman, Beckjord, and Zhamtsarano) appear to be legit, but I'm not sure about Chalmers. His article and other mentions of him appear to be by User:HawkerTyphoon, a major contributor to the tuba article. None of this is strictly evidence of a hoax. More suggestive evidence, however, is the fact that the "16th century painting" of a tuba with rider, displayed prominently on the tuba article, is also found on this page, only there the mount has feet. It looks to me like the "tuba" image has been modified. Geoffg 03:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everything appears to be legitamate to me. Atlantis Hawk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete everything appers to be legitimate unless you actually follow up on the sources. Rklawton 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BJAODN for sure. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. I've lost my sense of humour about this kind of crap on wikipedia, especially when the smartarse creators have put effort into making their vandalism as believable as possible. Especially when it means that honest websurfing citizens are fooled because they thought they could trust wikipedia. I would very much like to see punitive sanctions imposed against the article creators. I don't know why, but hoaxers hardly ever seem to get punished even when they're found out (while newbies who make 3 little repeat edit reverts are immediately pounced upon with user blocks). Bwithh 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some small smidgen of truth to the existence of a myth here, but there's so much original research, unreferenced content, and patent silliness (like the altered picture) here, it's hard to tell. Also, the existence of Realth Chalmers, (who supposedly reported the existence of the myth) has been questioned, but references to his article have not been forthcoming despite requests on the talk page. Mr. Chalmers is referred to on the first draft of this article. Tubezone 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to cut to the chase and take out the hoaxers, where there's much smoke that there's clearly fire Bwithh 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have opened an afd on Realth Chalmers. Also investigating other articles created by the same editors. HMS Tapir is suspect too for instance. (just needs scrubbing of tuba/chalmers infection) This better not turn out to be substantial serial hoaxing. Bwithh 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely unverifiable; irrelevant sources clearly added to lend the feel of truthiness to the article. Bwithh makes a good point, yet I'm still chuckling. "The Cricket and the Tuba"? That's funny! JGardner 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strong Delete, hoax. Somitho 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Please write some decent, encyclopedic articles, of course we will send this to BJAODN. Lots of crap articles nowadays, that's why we have more articles. Terence Ong 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Origins of the Hoax A nonsense article from the creator's user page history. Bwithh 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -> Speedy and shoot the author. Rklawton 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Bwithh's research, the doctored picture, the faked "screenshot" from an unrelated IMDB entry (looks like 3rd grader drew it), the two-man campaign to spread this by adding it all over wikipedia (and the web)...Should I go on, or is that enough? Wavy G 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Author you wrote well but you need to do your creative writing somewhere else and stick to just the facts here. --John Lake 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN sounds like a fairy tale -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I saw this one earlier, but didn't spot it for a hoax, to my shame. I've removed references to it from HMS Tapir (P335) and Buzkashi. Several apparently different users seem to have been involved in this.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Bwithh et al... SkierRMH,08:04, 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 speedy close and delete, same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology), involving the same suspected hoaxers: User:HawkerTyphoon and User:PatrickSW. Sandstein 10:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realth Chalmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Dubious article by suspected serial hoaxer. Fails WP:V. Zero hits on google books[1]. Zero hits on google scholar[2]. Zero hits in the University of Wales library catalogue[3]. No reliable hits on general google[4]. See also related afd for Tuba (mythology) Bwithh 04:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a hoax. The cited work "Chalmers, R: Dyddiadur / Journals 1805 - 1810" does not appear in the holdings of any of the World Cat libraries, which libraries include all of the major research libraries in anthropology in the US and UK. The University of Wales itself does not have a physical library, only an online one, their staff use the physical library facilities at Cardiff University. Individual members institutions of the University of Wales do have their own libraries, such as the one at Bangor. None of their catalogs list any works by Realth Chalmers. The catalogs include archives and reference works. --Bejnar 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V, 6 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See AfD Tuba (Mythology) for reasoning / Hoax. Somitho 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another hoax. Terence Ong 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - no point in waiting around when it's WP:SNOWing. Rklawton 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Speedy delete' as per prior article. SkierRMH,08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax, WP:OR.--John Lake 08:15, 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. Deizio talk 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porngata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable porn website, the article reads like an ad with an overabundance of external links. The presence of the "citation style" tag in the article as created makes me suspect it is a repost of a page previously deleted. FiggyBee 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. MER-C 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB and possible WP:SPAM as well. To that I'd also add that while Wikipedia is not censored, I find such extensive links to actual pornography sites to be in poor taste. Wintermut3 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Did some minor clean up, though I see no reason at all to keep this article. wtfunkymonkey 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just another website. Atlantis Hawk 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Links to actual porn sites? Yes, Wikipedia, isn't censored, but this just takes it over the edge. I wonder how many other porn-related AfDs I'll see today.. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Fails to assert notability, it should have db-web on it. Pumeleon^T 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Delete - I dont think this really even needs to be explained. Somitho 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, possibly even speedy delete due to lack of any assertion why this site is notable within the milieu of the billions of porn-related sites per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• what's funny is that the article DISCUSSES it's non-notability. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it's just begging for it! SkierRMH,08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (not a speedy, though). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Pumeleon. Danny Lilithborne 12:45, 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 Speedy Deleted per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koyote Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. Generates 12,600 google hits. Bobblehead 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree there is no real assertion of notability in this article, however I do believe it is notable. Atlantis Hawk 03:06, 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 OK, we can delete this before it gets any sillier. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters that reguarly wear shorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Unnecessary list topic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WarpstarRider 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. I am writing on the psychology behind wearing shorts as my English 15 college essay, and this article is cited in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Um... How exactly can you use one sentence and a list of three people, one of whom is Spongebob, for a psychology paper? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that fictional characters such as Charlie Brown and Spongebob make wearing shorts look "cool" and "hip" to young kids who watch such programs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • And you need this particular article to note that both characters wear shorts why? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Otherwise, I would not be able to prove that both characters wear shorts with only one source. I would have to use at least two sources and that would push my paper to 11 pages in length, and I only have 10 pages left on my campus printer account. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
          • You're using Wikipedia as a source? Oh, lordy. 129.89.191.226 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might wonder why you'd add a nonsense entry [5] to an article that you're supposedly using as a source for a paper. WarpstarRider 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hulk was included in my paper because I considered him a powerful influence among children, and most children admired him for his shorts that had the ability to stay on him no matter how big he got. Crystallina was also cited in my paper because of her role in the said movie. I needed at least 5 examples to prove my point, according to paper guidelines.
      • So, wait, you're using Wikipedia to construct a source for your article? That is bad. Regardless, we can't keep articles because people are using them as references. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crystallina isn't a character in any movie. Cut it out and quit wasting everyone's time. WarpstarRider 02:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was a small film unreleased to the public that she will deny. Nevertheless, it strengthens the argument in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
          • So if it's a film about a real person, why did you put it in a list of fictional characters? Koweja 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here in America, people have a right to the truth! If you want to delete that truth, you are also deleting freedom. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
          • What the heck? Wikipedia isn't bound by the Constitution, you don't have the right to have whatever you want here. Even if it is the truth. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, so it is no problem to you if this place turns into a house of lies? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
  • Not having everything which is true doesn't make what we do have untrue. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should re-word. Hiding the truth turns this place into a house of deception --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
      • We're not hiding the truth. We don't have articles like this, and we freely admit it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But to delete a truthful article such as this one would be to delete the truth, would it not?
          • Quit your disruption. We are not by any stretch required to keep this article merely because you are using it as a citation. Yuser31415 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dude, have you ever considered writing a paper thats, you know, less stupid? I mean, some poor graduate student is actually going to have to read your ten pages on the vast right-wing shorts pimping conspiracy. (by the way, delete the damn article) GabrielF 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We wouldn't have a category for this, and a list is no more acceptable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unnecessary. FiggyBee 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft what? Is anyone really going to come to wikipedia and actually try and find a list of fictional characters that regularly wear shorts. --Bobblehead 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft. -- The Anome 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Obvious listcruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nomination. Perhaps Speedy by WP:SPEEDY#A1? wtfunkymonkey 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete what possible encyclopedic value could this have? TSO1D 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - and I have to assume the defender above is kidding . . . i hope . . . ---Dmz5 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly positive it was a troll. WarpstarRider 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not see any reason this should be here. Somitho 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. Hope there are no such lists such as List of fictional characters that regularly wear slippers. Terence Ong 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep above debate archived somewhere for posterity. Koweja 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT#IINFO and because I hate freedom... apparently. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish that "You're censoring me!" wasn't something I had seen before. That's what I get for doing DRV a lot. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you've got to admit the whole "I have a film about a user that I can't prove and they won't admit to" is a relatively unique angle. Koweja 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously per all above. And the commentary from the author of this article smells like WP:POINT violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because IslaySolomon doesn't wear shorts, and Jimmy Wales is not pictured in Wikipedia in shorts either. SkierRMH,08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -LtNOWIS 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly the most bizarre example of listcruft I can recall. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, good freakin' Lord. Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and give the kid an F for writing a college essay on cartoon characters who wear shorts and for citing such a stupid article. Wavy G 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Utter rubbish with no encyclopaedic content or purpose. Doc Tropics 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vapid. Chuchunezumi 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I knew that the educational system was in terminal decay, but to depend for a grade on whether you can prove that Charlie Brown wears shorts? Oh, brother!!--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 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 delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari socolow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. Contested prod. MER-C 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Tevildo 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, assuming no sources found, I can't find any. I need to make a userspace template for that so I can use it instead of having to type that up on half the AfDs I see. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable enough. Somitho 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence found from WP:RS that this person meets WP:BIO, looks like a non-notable C-level individual from a company which likely does not meet WP:CORP, and likely a WP:COI issue given that the creator of this article is User:Absocolow. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO big time. SkierRMH,08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unreferenced material should be removed anyway. Chuchunezumi 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and might well have qualified for ((db-spam)), which is what I would have used.--Anthony.bradbury 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Atlantis Hawk 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Slp1 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable EnabledDanger 01:20, 21 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regina (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article appears to be a largely fictional copy of the Regina Richards article Shas 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to Regina Richards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiggyBee (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Damn that bot is fast... FiggyBee 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a useful search term for a redirect. MER-C 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a list which links to it, which is presumably why it got created at this title. FiggyBee 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, looks like someone changed the list. Delete. FiggyBee 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no redirect. SkierRMH,08:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no redirect as above Lethaniol 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable EnabledDanger 01:21, 21 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, serious NPOV and verifiability issues. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proven conspiracies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Inherently POV listcruft. The inclusion criteria for this article are vague, and include:

"an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law (or have the law unconstitutionally changed) at some time in the future (civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy); conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory; or actions undertaken in secret (and outside public legislative processes) to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.

Any list aiming to include any instance where two individuals conspire to break the law is going to be enormous and unmaintainable. It is hard to imagine such a list having any kind of encyclopedic value. Also, I feel that the list was created to provide some support for conspiracy theorists. Finally, the examples given in the list are very POV as an aggregate, because they come almost entirely from the US and reflect very badly on that country. GabrielF 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• IMPORTANT MESSAGE This AfD is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, with the comment "inherently POV listcruft". User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is a list of articles several wikiusers want to delete, what User:Striver calls a "vote soliciting board". This user page is in violation of several wikipolicies, see Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view", for example. Many of these articles on past AfDs are well reserched and well written, despite User:GabrielF opinion, and recently, the Allegations article had a 4 to 1 "keep" ratio. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is watched by several of the same wikiusers. Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a previous AfD exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. What the heck? Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included? We could rewrite it to use the legal definition... which would make it useless, since the legal definition includes people in getaway cars. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream consensus "proves" it, scholarly sources proves it. Just as most anything. We do not decide, we source, remember that part`? Even if the list would confine itself to the legal meaning, it would still be very encyclopedic. All list imply notability, and you know that, List of persons do not include me. --Striver 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'List of people' is defined as 'lists of people within Wikipedia', so the person in question has to have an article and has to be notable. A list of events where two people 'conspired to break the law' is going to be huge - two burglars agree to burgle a house and it qualifies! Hut 8.5 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving double standards? Of course is this list subject to notability, has anyone implied otherwise? Lets be seirous, no straw mans, please!--Striver 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listcruft, original research, list has many items that are not conspiracy theories and items that are not proven. Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory? wtfunkymonkey 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which items are not proven? Your comment is rather vague. Maybe wikieditors should clean up the article. I will do this if the article survives AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, this is OR listcruft with inherent POV. TSO1D 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is really pathetic. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... You just commented above... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting that all that is needed to make the list is "an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law..." and yet 19 natural persons hijacking four planes doesn't make the cut. Pjbflynn 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then add it, please. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It of course needs to be re-written, but it does have a place. This is of course an encyclopedia. Somitho 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place. Maybe you should try to use more arguments than "This is an encyclopedia"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who need to show why this is not encyclopedic, and you have done nothing of the kind. --Striver 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it's inherently POV, because someone has to make the judgement on what is necessary to be considered proven. You have just said "It's not POV/unencyclopedic/too large/whatever!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is poorly written you want to delete it Amarkov? Doesn't that mean that it should be tagged, instead of deleted then? Pjbflynn never said it was POV/unencyclopedic/too large here, he said it "needs to be re-written" only, and you agreed: "Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place." Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it deleted because it's badly written. I want it deleted because the subject is inherently POV. You don't get to complain about strawmen while making them yourself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep "listcruft" is not a criteria for deletion, please remember that this is not a vote. For other lists, see List of United States Presidents by height order. List is not OR, most entires are very well known conspiracies. 19 hijackers? Yes, please add them, i had them in, but somebody must have deleted it. Western Bias on wikipedia? So what more is new? Large list? Large list are great, we do try to build an encyclopedia, remember? See also List of people who have disappeared or why not List of lists. Not one single valid argument for deletion has been presented, please do not misuses afd to vent personal views or as a place to raise editorial issues. --Striver 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Inherently POV" isn't a valid reason for deletion? I'd love to see what you want, if incompatability with a Foundation-level policy isn't good enough for you. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"inherintly POV"? Who's point of view? I hate emotional arguments, explain to me who's point of view we are talking about. --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov did not answer. :( The criteria for deletion, the suggested criteria, is that people attempt to fix the article before putting the article up for deletion, has Amarkov attempted to fix this article before it was put up for deletion, has any of these users worked on the wikipage before they decided to delete it? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR: "Articles may not contain...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." Deciding which "conspiracies" have been "proven" (or if they were indeed conspiracies in the first place) is inherently POV. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list is not a "synthesis of published arguments", and you know that. Further, what "position" is this list "advancing"? --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that it is hard to prove a conspiracy? If that is your argument, then you claim that 19 hijackers did not conspire? That Brutus did not conspire to kill Cesar? Are you stating that conspiracies do not occur, or that it is impossible to prove that they had occurred? If your are simply concerned about individual entires in the list, then that would be an editorial issue and most definitely not a ground for deletion.--Striver 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are trying to initiate a discussion about what is or is not a "conspiracy" kind of proves my point. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to initiate a discussion, those a rhetorical questions to show that there is obviously proven conspiracies, and that it is perfectly encyclopedic to list them. Nobody disputes that the things i listed are proven conspiracies, add Watergate to that short list. Are you disputing that they are proven conspiracies? Is anybody? --Striver 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is commonly accepted that..." and "You can't seriously dispute that..." ARE NOT foundations for an encyclopaedia article. That notwithstanding, the nom's indiscriminate list argument is perfectly valid and more than enough reason for deletion on its own. We are now firmly in WP:POINT territory and I will not be contributing any further to this discussion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly accepetade facts are the very basis of encycplopedic article, see Sun and Air for example. And regarding indiscriminate, List of people (including List of people with disabilities) voids your argument. --Striver 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This afd is on a vote soliciting board, with a "tip" on how to vote --Striver 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cute, Striver. Perhaps you've forgotten [6]? And by the way, there's a difference between offering an opinion and telling people how to vote. GabrielF 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your link just proved my case. --Striver 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Striver [7], care to hassle someone else instead>? --NuclearZer0 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the "The conspiracy to delete the List of proven conspiracies around the Christmas season" should be added to List of proven conspiracies. ;) I'll sleep on this before I decide to vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Umeboshi 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inherently POV; the self-styled definition of "proven conspiracy" is a mark of OR. A category, on the other hand, based on a bright-line criterion like Category:Persons convicted of conspiracy based on actual criminal convictions might be useful. --MCB 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the content, this looks very much like soapboxing. Federal reserve act my arse. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JZG, like Tom, in the original AfD you voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. I agree that the criteria for inclusion is very vague, and citing Wikitionary to verify hardly helps. This list could never be complete, and it does not even include the 9/11 attacks. Hut 8.5 11:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, in the original AfD you also voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, soapboxing, irrelevant and if every person convicted of conspiracy would have a single line it would end up being gigantic. Alf photoman 13:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added 911, somebody removed it. That is an editorial issue. Inclusion is not vague, it is very specific and it is intended to be broad, broader than simply the legal act to include other notable conspiracies that are not necessarily illegal. The list ending up being big is not a problem, it has been up for a long time and has not ballooned. And the reason is simple, we only include notable people. I mean, just look at List of people, that is most definitely a list that is potentially bigger than a list of people who have had notable conspiracies. --Striver 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vague? The criteria are being a proven conspiracy. What's considered a conspiracy? Blah blah blah blah people blah blah lots of people blah blah Nixon. When is something considered proven? When it's considered proven. So, we have a bloated definition which as a result makes no sense, and another circular definition. That's about as vague as you can get, short of "The things which are in it". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conspiracy when two or more people communicate in secret. It is proven when no notable scholar doubts that it factually happened. We have several articles that are and will always be much larger than this, i have already pointed to list of people, that includes ALL people, not only those who conspired. Further, this list does not even include all those who conspired, only the conspiracy, for example, instead of 19 hijackers and their financers and OBL, we only have one, the 911 entry (or had, till somebody removed it). Does that answer all your questions? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a scholar can become notable simply because they do disagree with a widely-accepted conspiracy theory. And I doubt more than like three of the ones listed have unanimous scolarly agreement. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per striver, no valid argument for deletion.--Sa.vakilian 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aargh, why does nobody think they have to say why the arguments are invalid? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said it, "per striver". Why does not a bunch of the "delete" people just sign, as if this was a vote? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Agreeing with them doesn't mean I'm forced to like it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no need of a court conviction to prove a conspiracy, no court convicted Brutus, no court convicted the 1953 Operation Ajax, but they are admitted and proven still. And in either case, that is an editorial issue regarding what to include and not a ground for deleting. --Striver 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example are the Secret CIA Prisons, they are now considered factual by all parties, and i think they are admitted, but there is no conviction. --Striver 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Inherently POV Original research, non-encyclopaedic list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Very non-encyclopedic. Some of the conspiracies quoted are beyond argument (e.g. Julius Caesar), some are unroven, and some are purely speculative. And the list is not, and can never be, even remotely inclusive. Therefore not useful.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated that there are some "beyond argument". This is a list of them. Those who do not belong there are argumented, thus "not proven" and obviously not in the scope of the list. You can't say we should not have list of people since there is other types of animals (dogs, giraffes, fish...), you can't say we can't have a list of proven conspiracies since some are unproven. --Striver 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I think that many of the arguments for keeping it very much establish why it should be deleted.--Dmz5 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's all well and good to put that tag at the top saying that the list will "never" be complete to WP standards (a tag which I have problems with anyway), but really, are we going to open up court records and add to this list every person ever convicted on a charge that involved the word "conspiracy"? --Dmz5 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to the hospital to add every newborn to List of persons? C'mon, why do you say things like that? --Striver 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly and thoroughly putting forth a misunderstanding of List of persons, it is there to organize all the people in wikipedia, and on its face is patently not meant to be a list of every human being. This conspiracies list, however, is quite open to that kind of "abuse". --Dmz5 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument, nobody has argued that we need to fill this with non-notable events. Try, and see how it will be deleted in no-time. I find it objectionable that you are muddying the waters of this afd by stating that this list is not subject to one of wikipedias most heavily referenced guidlines, WP:N, when NOBODY has argued so. Please stop doing that. --Striver 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A highly encyclopedic topic, and some of the entries are generally accepted by historians as "proven conspiracies," such as the assassinations of Caesar and Lincoln, and the Gunpowder plot. It has some of less general acceptance, and it is proper to demand references besides other Wikipedia articles. Each conspiracy should have references to reliable sources. That is a matter for editing, not for deletion of the article. Just because there are conspiracy hoaxes does not mean that there never were any actual conspiracies, and a listing of them is interesting and useful. Edison 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Inherently POV article. We have to start getting rid of all "opinion" articles on Wikipedia, and just stick to the facts WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article can never be anything more than someone's opinion about whether something is or isn't a conspiracy, and then, whether or not it was "proven". That's ridiculous. Morton devonshire 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the watergate was not a conpiracy, never happened? 9/11 was not a conpiracy, never happened?--Striver 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Watergate and 9/11 were legal conspiracies. This article thorougly confuses legal conspiracies and conspiracy theories. The editors of an encyclopedia must be able to understand the concept of homonyms and not create a nonsensical mess by confusing concepts that sound similar due to a linguistic accident. Weregerbil 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are stating the the article is merited, there is a real list of conspiracies, but that some who should not be in the list have crept in and that the headline needs editing? None of that is arguments for deleting, that is all editorial issues. I refer you to the title, "List of proven conspiracies". If you disagree with the def inion off "conspiracy" as viewed by some editors, why are you dragging the entire list into afd? --Striver 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the improvements that have been suggested to the article (see talk) what would remain is a useless mess. The talk page also shows the desire (yours at least) to continue keeping and even expanding the homonym confusion. And please don't put words into other peoples' mouths, you rarely guess correctly what they are saying when you do that. It doesn't makes others look like they agree with you; it only makes you look like you are unable to understand what others say. Weregerbil 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for several reasons: (1) Inherently POV. The first sentence: "This is a list OR INDEX of conspiracies considered proven to have existed or officially covered-up (and or later discovered) with or without newer evidence." Considered? By whom? The editors? Uncited sources? Putting an article on this list inherently pushes a POV on a question which is contested in virtually every imaginable example. (2) A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something. A "conspiracy" cannot be proven, however. Perhaps "List of Events Related to Proven Allegations of Conspiracy" would be correctly framed, but that title makes clear exactly how much value a list of this sort has. --Colindownes 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: First off, the fact that that the word "proven" is in the title and yet there are so few references raises concerns about the reliability of the article. But more importantly, the article is simply not a workable idea. Either it has to include all proven conspiracies, which would be unmanageable, or it must be selective, which would be inherently POV. Heimstern Läufer 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an article that is based on confusing two homonyms, legal conspiracy and conspiracy theory, and then attempting to push conspiracy POV based on that confusion. No more useful than an article Cats are small furry animals that are yellow and used in construction work — confusing cats and other cats. Weregerbil 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there are a number of people on the list who were convicted of pedestrian things like securities fraud and insider trading who were charged with "conspiracy" in some form or another, but this is not the same thing as the "conspiracy" surrounding the 9/11 hijackers or, further afield, the "conspiracies" surrounding the CIA killing of world leaders, assassinations of US presidents, etc etc.--Dmz5 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that some things are not notable. So? Since when is that a argument to delete a list? C'mon! --Striver 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, expand, and add plenty of sources please. Many of the topics included in this index are not disputed. --Howrealisreal 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Edison. Really needs cleanup, not deletion. As Morton Devonshire and Weregerbil note, there are may be issues with the definitions. Currently has major POV-by-undue-weight issues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What article do you advocate keeping? List of crimes planned and/or committed by two or more people (legal conspiracy; is that useful? Would List of crimes be better?), List of things that were once considered conspiracy theories but are now considered to have happened (conspiracy theory conspiracy; empty article?), List of known events of two or more people working in secret to obtain some goal (as the article is currently defined; really?? Every time you say something to a friend without publishing the discussion fits the current definition. Every business deal that was planned before publishing it fits the current definition. You buying a Christmas present and not immediately telling the recipient fits the current definition.) What kind of an article do you want to keep? See also talk on previous attempts to clean up the mess. Weregerbil 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability makes sure that non-notable events are not going to be included, and you very well know that as an expeienced editor, how many false arguments for deletion is going to be given? --Striver 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I completely appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence in discussing this article, but I would ask you to consider refraining from simply labelling every opposing comment as "false" or "invalid". Some of your comments are bordering on accusations of bad faith.--Dmz5 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - conpsiracies exist, and can be documented from reliable sources. One of the most glaring examples of modern times would be Watergate. The current article is deficient in quality, but the subject is appropriate material for Wikipedia. -- Whpq 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I believe that the list has been poorly maintained. I had to go into and make links to the articles, or sections of articles, that the elements in the list referred to. I believe that the argument "...include any instance..." fails as only notable instances would be included. As it stands now, there are approximately 46 entries on the list. I don't believe that this is a large or unmaintainable number. I have personally edited and looked at ~30% of the entries, and had to link most of those to their respective articles. Generally, within the parent articles, the event on the list is undisputed (a.k.a. proven or generally accepted). There are a few exceptions. The Lincoln Assassination is currently unsourced. The Federal Reserve Act is highly disputed in its article (see also Federal Reserve System, esp. this diff where it is clearly disputed). The Video Poker section doesn't reference an article at all, and should be excluded from the list. Actually, any element of the list that doesn't refer to an existing article should be removed.

• As to the question of "Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included?", this answer is partially discussed above. If the topic is not generally disputed in the main article it refers to, that should qualify for inclusion in the list. General dispute should automatically categorize the topic back into conspiracy theory, not conspiracy (proven, accepted, or undisputed), thereby disqualifying it from inclusion to this list.
• As to this argument here, "Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory?", I absolutely agree, and that is the purpose of this list. It puzzles me that such insight sits behind a vote for deletion.
• Another argument in this discussion is, "A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something." These sentences seem to contradict themselves. They seem to imply that one a "conspiracy theory" is proven, we "dare not call it a conspiracy". Perhaps the common vernacular sublimely precludes such grammatical correctness. Also, we need not worry whether or not a conspiracy can be proven. Doing so would technically be original research.
• The argument "Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis" may be closer to valid. Since there is not a category setup for this, it is inherently difficult to peruse the mass of articles in wikipedia for qualifying entries to the list. I would propose that the selectiveness of the list, currently, is the result of the difficulty and time involved in scouring the whole of wikipedia to find items to include. This effort is further impeded by my above argument to the "dare not call it a conspiracy" response, that seems to remove the "conspiracy" classification from those entities, preferring to call them plots, scandals, cabals, operations, etc. We must remember that bias, and POV are not always very clear cut, and are not always to be confused with soapboxing. Indeed, a television newscast has a fundamental bias that cannot be avoided. This fundamental bias is to consider what news is newsworthy enough to be reported in the limited timespan that they have to report the news in. This natural bias can be more clearly seen on a local TV station's broadcast, rather than a 24hr cable news channel's production. I would go so far as to say that wikipedia's natural bias is a reflection of the accumulation of fundamental bias in the media. I would like to emphasize that this is not always a conscious bias, just a product of "the way things work."
• As to the name of the list, I personally don't prefer "proven" conspiracies. I would be more inclined to agree with either the term "undisputed", "accepted", "actual", or some reasonable combination like "generally accepted" or "actual undisputed" would be OK.
• As for the argument that the list is based of confusing two homonyms, I would first point out that the two homonyms referred to were "legal conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". As I have noted above, that which is theory should not be included on the list. That which is on the list and is still disputed as theory in the article that entry refers to should be removed. The homonym argument would probably hold more weight if it tried to make a distinction between general conspiracy and legal conspiracy. So, I'll take up that argument too. It should be noted that legal definitions are more watertight and restictive than the common vernacular definition. As far as I know the only definitions that are meant to be more watertight that a legal definition is a mathematical definition. I believe that the unnecessary constriction of the list to fix the more narrow definition of legal conspiracy to be inappropriate for this list, although it would be appropriate for a sublist.
• The next argument, is one I'm slightly closer to agreeing with. And that is the argument of, vague inclusion parameters. I would like to direct your attention to Candy bar. Please note that Reese Peanut Butter Cups is on that list. Is it really a candy bar? For POV inclusion in a list, take a look at this list .

I do think that this article could use a lot of work. There obviously a couple items that don't belong. I feel that the only things that should be on the list should be articles in wikipedia. This means either their own article, or a section of a larger article that the item on the list brings attention to. The items should also be undisputed or generally accepted on those main articles. I think that this is merely an editing problem and does not warrant deletion of the list. Umeboshi 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There is still hope out there! I'm glad to see a real effort to see the issues. --Striver 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to vote the other night, when I left the joking comment above. After some thought, I felt it would be better to put forward an argument that more clearly refuted the deletion claims, rather than just a quick "keep it" comment. I was only halfway (maybe 3/4) done when I realized that the darned thing was getting too long! Umeboshi 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus the article is missing the Cain vs. Abel conspiracy and the massive cover-up that followed the murder. --Dual Freq 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who conspired? --Striver 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cain, the Illuminati, Free masons, the usual suspects. --Dual Freq 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some say Cain's wife was in on it too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please try to be serious, this is an afd. --Striver 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not in the mood to be serious, you may want to look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Brasi. After that, you can come back when you're ready for a real discussion. And to think I just spent the last 30 minutes looking around to find a wikipedia policy on citing the bible as historic fact, to try and engage this thread seriously. Anyway the link should provide a good chuckle so you can get it out of you system. Umeboshi 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty hard to take a 23k list spanning from the first century BC to present yet predominantly including only examples of "American Imperialism".(using wording from the list) Come on, the article lists Jack Abramoff and Enron, but does not list the Conspiracy to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Any coup or overthrow of any government will have an associated conspiracy, none of those are listed except the ones that can be blamed on the US. The list has no historical context and has an impossibly wide inclusion criteria. --Dual Freq 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty interesting. In my high school history class, we learned about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. This was presented as a "lone assassin" acting under the pressure in an increasing environment of nationalism over many European states. We never went such detail over the assassination itself. The notion that this was a conspiracy seems both well supported in the article and undisputed. You are encouraged to add it to the list. Umeboshi 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as per above. I think this article needs to be rewritten, but has potential. How many of us here have worked to improve this article? I know I haven't, have you? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, what is with all the articles based soley on opinions, further the PoV angle of the article cannot be avoided and worst, this is most likely going to turn into a dumping group of things people "think were proven." We should avoid entire articles based on editors opinions. The worst part is its clearly meant to make the US look bad, as Dual Freq pointed out the article contains mainly conspiracies involving the US, showing the bias of it. --NuclearZer0 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I found this AfD through Travb's contribution list. --NuclearZer0 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (moved above) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not an implication that there is a conspiracy afoot to delete this list of conspiracies.--Dmz5 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that mean we can add it to the list of conspiracies, however not this list of proven ones? Travb please try to assume good faith, its quite sad when you start maknig accusations. Oddly I do nto see you giving a history in other AfD's involving deletion noticeboards. --NuclearZer0 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote was factually accurate. Gentlemen, WP:AGF and please do not read anything more into my posting. Have a great day. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. Beit Or 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOV issues. As others have pointed out, the list is heavily biased towards post-World War Two U.S. history. Major conspiracies and trivial ones are lumped in together. There is also a distinct lack of references. --Folantin 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GabrielF--MONGO 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikeeilbacher 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have noticed that shortly after I made my vote above, a couple of users who voted for deletion have been doing many edits to the article. These have been generally constructive edits. Much of the removals are ones that I would've done anyway, so they have been saving me the trouble of doing so. There are only a couple (maybe three) removals that I would disagree with, but for the most part their work seems right in tune with what I think should be done. There has been a decent bit of removal of text that didn't belong in the items, but the proper parts of those items remained. I can agree completely with those particular edits. To me, this seems to suggest that there has been a place for this list on wikipedia and that the real problems with it could be fixed by editing. I would like to spend the rest of this comment proposing better guidlines for determining what should be on the list.

1. An item on the list implies that there is an article about this item, or a section in an article about this item. i => (article(i) or article#section(i))

• This requirement helps keep both notability in the list and original research off of it.

1. Citations, references and external links are strongly discouraged from being on the list, including embeddedHTML links.

• Those types of things should already be present in the main articles referred to by the list items, so there is no need for them on the list.

1. Summaries on the list should follow, as closely as possible, the summary of the corresponding article. If the element on the list refers to a section in the article, the summary of that element should be an encyclopaedic summary of that section, or the conspiracy part of that section.

• This guidline will help keep soapboxing and original research out of the summaries in the list.
• It is obvious that this will be a bigger problem for the elements of the list that refer to a section of an article. In this case, it may be a good idea if the primary editors of the article in question approve or actually create those particular summaries.
• I think that many of the summaries could follow this pattern:

• main article: bold title ... rest of summary
• list item: [[link to article|bold title]] ... rest of summary
• It would be nice if a template could be made to help automate this.

• Having such a template would be an very valuable tool that could be used to protect from soapboxing or original research attacks.
• A potential side effect is that it might encourage attacks on the summaries of the respective articles.

1. Qualifications for inclusion of an article or article section

• This is probably the most contentious part of the problem.

1. 1. Conspiracy theories are not allowed on the list.

• This requirement should be self explanatory, as they would invalidate the list.

1. 1. The conspiracy should not be disputed in the main article.

• A good example of this the the conspiracy theory section of the Federal Reserve System. It is clearly not stated that there was a conspiracy behind the formation of the Fed. It is also pretty clearly disputed in the article by being under the heading of conspiracy theory.
• This guidline not be construed as an excuse to start disputing it in the article, merely because it got included into the list.

1. 1. 1. 1. By this I mean: unpopular item gets put on list, meeting guidelines
         2. Editors that oppose its addition on the list start dispute in main article.
         3. List item now becomes disputed according to these guidelines.
         4. Item is subsequently removed from the list.
         5. Main editors of article finally settle dispute, and article forms back into its former state (or a state that would still allow for inclusion here).
         6. Main editors of article may not know what originally caused dispute, so they don't place item on list.
         7. Editor that added item to list doesn't keep track of what is going on because they have better things to do, or many months pass while item is in dispute in main article.
         8. unpopular item is now successfully removed from list. If it comes back, loop again.

• This guideline is also not to be construed to keep genuine disputes about the validity of information in the article from occuring.

1. 1. If there is dispute in the article over the conspiracy, the conspiracy must be more generally accepted over the dispute.

• By this, I am referring to the subjects in the article, and not the editors of the article. I'm having a hard time wording this succintly, so ask me later for clarification, if necessary.

1. 1. Lack of use of the word "conspiracy" should not preclude inclusion into the list.

• Plots, plans, and operations that match the description should be included.

• This includes intelligence operations and military campaigns where it is clear there was a plan shared among "allies" but not "enemies".
• When, or if, the list starts getting too big because of these inclusions, it would be time to start categorizing and breaking off into sublists. I still think that this is manageable.

1. 1. Conspiracy or plan which is undisputed, or generally accepted, yet not carried out should not preclude inclusion.

• There is still more particulars that should be discussed, but I think this is a pretty good set of guidelines to start with. I think that with this comment and set of guidelines, I have successfully taken care of most of the arguments raised here. For the argument of what constitutes a conspiracy, as I noted above, this will be the argument that cannot be easily solved. Even so, that argument should not be sufficient for the deletion of this list. I do think that the page should be renamed, as proven is a pretty strong term. I think just the simple list of conspiracies is sufficient. Umeboshi 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i was thinking of suggesting list of conspiracies, since many seem to object to the word "proven". --Striver 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort you're putting into this Umeboshi, but I really think its a lost cause. Take for example, your qualification regarding military operations, this would include every military campaign conducted by two or more allies in the history of the world. (Or any campaign conducted on the soil of a consenting third country, or any peacetime war plan), etc. And how is it that you come to define a conspiracy as an act coordinated between allies? Wouldn't it be equally "conspiratorial" for a team of individuals to plan an invasion? Does it really make sense to call the Peninsular Campaign a conspiracy? The only way I can see to salvage this list is to do something like List of major conspiracy cases and only include cases where people were accused of conspiracy in court, but even then the list is enormous and completely unfocused as you are combining say, Enron, with a case where a guy shoots someone and then another guy helps him cover it up (conspiracy after the fact). I would accept something like List of convictions under the RICO act, but clearly legal convictions are not the point of this list. Clearly, this list is about showing that historically, massive governmental or corporate conspiracies have happened in order to lend weight to the nutty conspiracy theories that Striver loves for one reason or another. That's POV pushing and its unacceptable. GabrielF 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in advocating the inclusion of military campaigns was specifically to keep away from pushing POV. I will agree that it would make the list cumbersome. Personally, I would prefer to keep most them out of the list, but I would not want to be accused of pushing POV. It may be a better idea to resurrect the Conspiracy article and make it a real article that explains how military campaigns, plans and operations could be considered conspiracy and preclude their mention from the list. The article could then direct the reader to the appropriate categories and lists. One can hardly doubt that the Attack on Pearl Harbor or Operation Overlord were conspiracies, at minimum from the viewpoint of people who plan the suprise attack. The conspiracy article at the moment is nothing more than a disambiguation page. It used to a little better, it wasn't great but it was a decent stub. It seems what happened is that early on, it detailed criminal conspiracy, got a legal template, then split from the main article. I'm not disagreeing with the split, but after that it went downhill to nothing more than a definition and some links to other articles. When you take a look at the other articles like Conspiracy (crime) or Conspiracy (civil) there are only a couple of examples of specific cases mentioned in each article, and there is no direction to a list of events which would fall into those categories. The Conspiracy (political) article is even more pathetic, and could probably be merged into a good Conspiracy article. I do understand that the concept of conspiracy is a vague concept covering a lot of territory. I also understand that it is a human construct. I invite you to take a look at other vague, but simple, concepts that cover a lot of territory and have better articles:

• Respect
• Law
• Plan
• Art
• Crime
• Religion
• Truth
• Lie
• Slavery

These are all vague (to various degrees) human constructs that seem to require a larger explanation than just a quick definition and pointers to disambiguation links. Rather they try to discuss the topic with a small amount of detail without delving into a whole systematic exposition. While I agree that the conspiracy list seems to focus on massive government and coporate conspiracies, I don't believe that deleting the list is the appropriate answer to that focus. I have tried to create some guidlines to remove that particular focus and stay true to the general meaning of conspiracy. While the list might give a slight amount of weight some of the conspiracy theories out there, I would like to point out that deletion of the list might actually give more weight to them. This might seem counter-intuitive at first. If it can be shown that there is a history of shoving actual conspiracy in the corner, or displaying its vigorous dismissal, and if it can be shown that conspiracy theory is actively advanced in means and methods that help ridicule it, then it becomes much easier to add weight to the conspiracist view of events. A good list may help support the idea that conspiracy, while pervasive in the course of history, is full of mundane unconnected events, rather than a "topdown plan guided by the elite for generations to enslave humanity." The deletion of the list could be seen in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists as evidence that there are those that are too fearful of the list because it would clearly reveal such a plan. Personally, I doubt that any list of events in the wikipedia, conspiracy or otherwise, would ever reveal such a "master plan", as there is too much disconnect between notable events. It's part of the reason I use other methods in my own personal research on the topic. Now as far as being a lost cause, I would like to direct you to look at Tom Harrison's remarks on last years afd. He discusses the motivation that inspired it in the first place and warns that removing it would just have the effect of it popping up again in another form. I'll try to draw an analogy for you. Close by, in a small town, young teenagers used to meet up on Friday and Saturday nights in a parking lot on the edge of town. This had been the tradition for many years. One day, the chief of police got the "bright idea" to stop this, possibly because it made the town look bad or something. The result of this is that the teens just found other places to meet up, some of them outside the city limits. This made it more difficult for the police to keep their eye on the kids and keep them out of trouble. I think that policy has since changed and the old tradition is in full swing again, but I haven't been back to verify that in a while. Please don't take this as some sort of vague threat from me to force the list to pop up again if it's deleted. I'm not interested in causing trouble or disrupting the process of making a better encyclopedia. I'm just trying to impart some words of wisdom, "build a field and set the boundaries" and things will be easier to maintain in the long run. I am, however, interested in building a better Conspiracy article, as I described above. I may seek to do that later once I come up with a good plan to make it viable. Umeboshi 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm sorry the mixture of bullets and numbers don't look very good but I didn't know what else to do. Umeboshi 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - big POV magnet with no practical value. --MarsRover 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - inherently POV. The definition of a conspiracy is that it's almost impossible to prove that it really was a conspiracy. How do you know that there isn't a fully-fledged real Deletionist Cabal that holds closed meetings over articles like this on Skype or something? You just can't prove it either way. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When theoretically completed, this list will be so large as to be unmanageable and would fail in its purpose as a useful linking/navigation tool. The selection criteria are far too broad to keep the number of entries to a reasonable level. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how a list of notble conspiracies is to big for wikipedia, while a List of notable persons is not? --Striver 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said before, can you please stop using Lists of people as an argument for keeping the article? It is obviously not meant to be an indiscriminate list of the 110 billion people who have ever lived, whereas this list includes an enormous variety of things that fit the vague category of 'conspiracy'. Hut 8.5 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have still not understood why list of people is supposed to be be subjected to the notability guidline, while this is not. Could you explain to me this double standard? What makes this article not subjected to notability standards? --Striver 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, List of people is a kind of meta article, its not a list of all the people in the universe, its a list of biographical wikipedia articles intended as a convenience to help users find information in a 1.5+ million article encyclopedia. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case. GabrielF 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i keep telling that! The argument "this will be to big" is voided by the simple fact that we already have a list sooo big that it has turned into a list OF lists. --Striver 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename/merge with a proper title. This is undoubtedly encyclopedic, and I doubt even the most hardcore deletionist can disagree with that. The problem is that this needs to be flushed out a bit, and needs to be renamed to something more neutral and useful. "Proven conspiracies" sounds rather silly, but a list that links people to the gunpowder plot or the like is quite useful and easy to source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it would be best to limit the list to conspiracies to overthrow states. (Directly overthrow, anyway, so we don't have people arguing, e.g., that there was a conspiracy by FDR to let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, go to war with Japan, and thus overthrow the Japanese state.) Focusing on that category strikes me as reasonably encyclopedic; but I don't think there's sufficient commonality between the Catilinian conspiracy, the Black Sox scandal, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (how is this a "conspiracy", BTW?) and DRAM price fixing to create any sort of meaningful article or list, per GabrielF's original remarks. Choess 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a List of coups d'état and coup attempts. It isn't perfect, but it is both far more extensive and less POV than this article. GabrielF 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*A suggestion I think the only way you could save this list and stop it from expanding uncontrollably is to include only historical events generally known by the term "conspiracy" or "plot" (thus avoiding most POV issues), e.g. the Catiline conspiracy, the Pisonian conspiracy, the Cato Street conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, the Gunpowder plot, the Rye House plot etc.. --Folantin 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem is that quite a few would say that there wasn't much of Catilinarian conspiracy and that Cicero stitched Catiline up! Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this list is unsalvageable. Especially if, as it now seems, every clandestine military alliance is going to be added to it. --Folantin 10:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a magnet for POV pushers.--Jersey Devil 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So's George W. Bush. How is that a deletion reason? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Proven conspiracies? Proven by whom? Some Wiki editor who decided these items belong in the article. This article will nver get any better, and never be anything but somebodys opinion.EnabledDanger 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is absurd compilation of absolutely unrelated events with a dubious label plastered on them. It is, however, a perfect example of structural weakness of Wikipedia - failure to deal with content not based on anything outside Wikipedia (original research is misnomer, 'reserarch' is well defined activity). Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per user:Striver. ThanksRaveenS 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bloody Hell, what a palaver about such a silly `article'. Rosenkreuz 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only way this article could be made useful and interesting is if WP:NPOV and WP:V were both rescinded. There are two real questions here. The first is "conspiracies." We are fooling ourselves if we defend this article under the pretense that "conspiracy," as used here, can be defined neutrally. If a conspiracy, for the purpose of this article, was defined neutrally, it could theoretically contain all coordinated human activity in all of history, with the only criteria for entry being the old saws "notability" and "significance." Meanwhile, the convenience of the list format is that it allows for an absolute definition of an event in precisely the same way an article's title does: the article title "Boston Massacre" states, conclusively, that the event in question was a massacre, no matter how much of the article itself is devoted to criticism of this view or if the article's description itself is more nuanced. The reality is that the structual flaw (intentional or not) of this list is that it inevitably uses the common understanding of conspiracy as a nefarious plot to do harm or evil to undermine WP:NPOV by allowing an editor to state CONCLUSIVELY and without in-article criticism that an act or event is an act of violence or other deliberate harm. The second question is over the issue of 'proof.' The same analysis applies: the list enables an editor to make a conclusive claim as to whether or not an act was undertaken by a conspiracy or that a group was conspiratorial. By the nature of the list, debate over the substance of this claim must be made on the talk page of the list rather than on the article page, where the complexity of opinions on the question would be made apperant to the end-user. The assumption that the end-user will appreciate the complexity of the issue upon viewing the main article on the subject is inappropriate. In summary, there is no reason why we should create more circumstances where WP:NPOV must be bent for the sake of brevity or convenience. AlexeiSeptimus 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with very much of what you say. I have put a great deal of thought into this, and tried to find a way to keep POV out of the list. This is problematic due, like you say, to the nature of being able to define conspiracy neutrally. My solution was to keep the list from being able to make that definition in the first place, primarily by only allowing all entries to be articles. For the other issue you raise of proof, I tried to make a way to determine this, not proof but lack of dispute, by forcing compliance that it not be disputed in the main article. This helps keep the editors of the list from determining "proof". The more I keep thinking about this, the more ready I am to get rid of the list. This does not mean I'm ready to dispose of the issue that I feel is important, which is basically categorical navigation. The problem is that there is currently no way to navigate through the many commonly accepted conspiracies that have taken place in history. I would agree that including military campaigns, intelligence operations, assassination plots, and terrorist attacks to the list would make the list very large and unmanageable, keeping them off of the list is equivalent to pushing POV. Even selecting a smaller list of well known and generally accepted conspiracies also serves to help push POV. Umeboshi 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe more I think about it the more I feel that the list should be removed. Categories may be a better approach. The Conspiracy article really needs to be worked on to help explain the concept in greater detail, then direct the reader to the various forms that it occurs in. I can agree that lumping anything that falls under the definition of conspiracy into a "hodgepoged" list is unwieldy. I can't agree with the idea that there is no better way to go about this, and that the problem will just go away with the deletion of the list. The activity I've witnessed in the 911 conspiracy articles seems to confirm this. There are quite a few people who have voted to keep because they felt the information had encyclopaedic value. It may not be the majority, but I don't believe that the are the "wacky fringe" types, and there should exist some solution that would help satisfy this value. Many who have voted for deletion have provided examples of known conspiracy, so there is little doubt that they exist. This means we're not talking about conspiracy theories here, yet conspiracy theories are well categorized. Why is it that conspiracies are not categorized? All it takes is not being disputed as ocurring and not being disputed as a conspiracy. This doesn't seem to be that difficult. Having them all on one list may be a mess, categorizing them by type doesn't seem all that difficult. Why are Category:CIA operations, Category:FBI operations, and Category:NSA operations not split between known and alleged? Does a reader have to browse through every article to determine whether they are known or whether they are alleged? A student doing a paper on a synopsis of intelligence operations would have to sift through the entire category to determine whether the op was real or not. The inertia that exists to keep vague the distinction between real and fairy-tale ultimately does a disservice to the end users of the project and help keep wikipedia from being taken seriously when people want to look stuff up along these lines. I mean it might be great for lining the presidents up by height, or listing every Gundam suit known, but it seems to be really hurting in this area. I don't believe that this is an Impossible Mission, it just seems that no real effort has been put forth to make a solution for it. The ability of some to call spades, spades and ducks, ducks when they recognize a conspiracy theory seems to be inexplicably handicapped when it's time to cross the theory barrier into actuality. Umeboshi 06:15, 22 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, listcruft, no reliable sources provided, definition of having big-busts is subjective, not-encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I have no strong feelings about this nom one way or the other, but it has been suggested that it is somehow unfair not to have this article up for deletion when the article List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is. So, this nomination. This article has been nominated twice before, see discussions here and here. Previous discussions seemed to get tainted fairly quickly with accusations of bad faith and other shenanigans, so let's try to keep to a minimum here, OK? My only concern with the article is that it's performer by genre. We've had some consensus emerge recently that "model by magazine" is unacceptable (see discussion of Category: Playgirl and Category: playgirl models here, and the categories for Playboy models, Playboy Cyber Girls, Playboy Coeds of the Week and Playboy NSS models here. This may not be the same sort of issue but since previous discussions devolved so quickly an actual discussion of the article and the performer by genre situation is appropriate. Otto4711 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no good reason to delete this. The list is informative, if incomplete. If anything there should be a cross-referentce to the Playgirl model article (which by the way should also never have been deleted). [[User:JD] Dec. 19 2006]
  • ABOVE VOTE APPEARS TO BE FAKED - see edit entry by 136.159.168.221. Is there a better way to mark that sort of thing? --Closeapple 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The fact that some performers are marketed as having large breasts (as opposed to merely having large breasts) is verifiable and vaguely notable. "Playboy Playmates with..." on the other hand should go because it's unnecessarily specific. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep largely per FiggyBee. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first one and Delete the Playboy one per Figgy. TJ Spyke 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced, and as unmanageable because there is no objective way to determine exactly what qualifies as having a "big bust." Dpbsmith (talk)
• Most magazines and websites (like Score, the biggest magazine that focuses on busty women) usually consider D cup as the minimum size to be considered a big bust. TJ Spyke 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as poorly defined. The lead says it's based not on marketing, but on having DD cups or larger. However, this is totally arbitrary and is based on obviously inflated marketing. It's like having a "list of comfortable cars." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except "comfortable" is not a recognisable category of cars (but "luxury" is), whereas "big-bust" is a recognisable category of porn actress. Maybe we need a better way of determining who does and doesn't qualify for the list, but the fact that the boundaries are fuzzy doesn't mean the category is meaningless. FiggyBee 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car categories are generally applied by third parties or by reputable manufacturers, at least. This list is only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves, and the article itself says such things are regularly inflated. A better analogy would be List of big dick porn stars -- we could put a size requirement on such a thing, but it still comes down basing a list on material known to be unreliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves": there are women on this list who, undeniably, have very large breasts. Also, since what makes this list notable is the popularity of big-tit porn, the fact that any given model claims to have large breasts is significant (and may even be a valid criterion for inclusion on the list!). FiggyBee 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not every performer/model can be included with this. See Dolly Parton Somitho 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just edited the page and saw there is a hidden comment for editors, clarifying the criteria for inclusion in the list;

Please note: This should only include women who appear in big-bust videos or magazines 
(not all of this is porn), not just women who happen to have large breasts (i.e., Pamela
Anderson, Dolly Parton, etc.).

FiggyBee 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet pamela anderson is a performer known for her big breasts. Why is she listed as excluded? As for going by what porn stars have to say, we don't have such things as abstract undeniable facts around here, we require claims to be cited to reputable sources. Someone's promotional bio is not a reputable source for things that are often puffery, nor are our own observations of photographs. Such a thing would be considered original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela is not included because this is a list of peformers known for appearing in a particular subgenre of pornography, rather than known for having big boobs (which again is why what their actual measurements are is irrelevent). They are "big-bust performers", not "performers with big busts".FiggyBee 07:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why do we have the current criteria for inclusion? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per FiggyBee and Somitho. Akihabara 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't brought out WP:IAR in a while... if I recall correctly, this is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Keep solely to bring more people to the project. Yes, I'm serious. --- RockMFR 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many people want to find information specifically about big-bust sex-perfomers because this is their natural sexual orientation and their interest. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factual information to people who want to know. And it makes no sense to classify this information into some obscure or general categories that will make it more difficult for people to find the information they want. Nick367 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically, "it's useful to some people"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete define big. Do we have a single, unambiguous definition of what size bust is accepted as big? No? Indiscriminate and arbitrary, then. Also, why big bust, not long hair or big feed or someting. Egregious porncruft, begone. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable genre within the porn industry and these women are known for their breasts. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no encyclopedic value in having an article about big tits Alf photoman 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy. Pure listcruft. As noted by Guy above this one doesn't even attempt to define big. Can I do an article on medium-bust average height models too? MartinDK 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy, where is the definition of what's big and what's not, and per Night Gyr.--John Lake 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though John Lake makes a point that perhaps some criteria should be added (i.e. the models are primarily known for their bust size, or appear frequently in magazines devoted to said fetish). My only concern is that this article is likely to become populated with more and more redlinks as time goes on, as individual articles on these models tend to get AFD'd as these folks don't tend to get the awards necessary to meet WP:PORNBIO's criteria. 23skidoo 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the criterion is there of their being market as busty, and not just o.r. opinions of editors as to how pneumatic they are. Edison 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - that's a completely silly reason for deletion nomination, and it also just happens to be one of our most popular pages - David Gerard 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the article says "It is fairly common for this category of models and dancers to publish misleading measurements." Also bust sizes change according to fashion. No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Not thrilled about the content, but it seems valid per earlier arguments. — RJH (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep David Gerard makes a good point. And so does RJHall. I can't see any valid reason to delete this considering it's been through AFD twice, and kept twice. --SunStar Net^talk 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The criteria for the list are clearly defined. According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Its popularity-- whether one approves of the subject or not-- is proven by the fact that this list is the 16th most-viewed page on Wikipedia [8]. Wikipedia is not censored. Dekkappai 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep As much as I'm surprised to say it, considered the concept, this list has developed well defined scope. And as long as someone is able to watch the page, I do not see sufficient cause to delete the page.-- danntm ^T _C 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the most popular pages on wikipedia. completely agree with Dekkappai --Hexvoodoo 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's probably easier to classify who has modeled large breasts for publication than it is to, for example, determine what city or U.S. state someone is "from" when they lived in multiple cities, yet we have still "People from" categories. Also, the reasoning here doesn't make logical sense: List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is more specific a subject than this article, so it would be a delete consensus on this article that would imply AfD on the other article, not the other way around. Letting AfD-keep advocates from one article drag more general articles into their mess comes close to the "someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly" example in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Closeapple 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike the Playmates one, this is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Since many of these performers are famous -specifically- for their bust size, it's significant enough to warrant a list. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information was posted here because people are obviously interested in the material, therefore it becomes valuable knowledge to some and worth keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.126.169 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Get real. Who gets to decide whether somebodys bigbusted or not?EnabledDanger 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly, Martin. And Wikipedia, as it is currently set up, will never be a rival to traditional encyclopedias on the traditional subjects-- science, mathematics, history... At best, it will be only an easy starting point for information on these subjects. Articles on these subjects by anonymous, uncredentialed editors is never going to rival writing by experts in their fields. It is exactly subjects like this, which will not be found in traditional encyclopedias, and on which is is nearly impossible to fine unbiased, non-commercial, sourced information which is Wikipedia's strongest point. Articles like this are exactly the kind in which Wikipedia has the advantage over traditional encyclopedias and other reference sources. Dekkappai 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That I agree with. So what I was thinking was this: rather than spend time debating if something is original research, sourced etc. why not just face the facts as you described them above? Debates like the one we are having here are surreal. We are trying to apply academic principles to determine the value of a list of big-bust models. Am I the only one to whom that sounds totally surreal? MartinDK 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes, I've also noticed the surrealism that can creep up in these arguments on more than one occasion, but I suppose that's to be expected. I do agree with Wiki's original research/NPOV/sourcing rules. Just because an article is on a non-traditional subject doesn't mean it can't be well-written, sourced, etc. These are valuable policies. I do think that these rules are sometimes applied more strictly-- sometimes absurdly so-- to some subjects than others, depending on the biases of particular editors. But that's another issue. Dekkappai 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I agree that those are important policies. They just aren't very suited for debating a list of big-bust models. And if we agree that this is the kind of articles that Wikipedia does better than anyone else then maybe we should consider the criterias we use when discussing this kind of article or at least to what degree we should apply these policies. MartinDK 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I think what we're getting at here is the difference between form and content. My understanding is that Wikipedia strives to be an encylopedia in form. Its goal is to produce well-written, reasonably unbiased, appropriately sourced articles on a wide variety of subjects, like a traditional encyclopedia. However, when editors seek to delete articles like this on the grounds that they are "unencyclopedic," what they mean is that they are unencyclopedic in content, not necessarily in form. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," means Wikipedia does not seek to imitate the content of a traditional encyclopedia, only its form. So a well-written article on every pop-culture reference in one episode of The Simpsons, or a list of Playboy Playmates whose bra cup is D or above, as long as they are encyclopedic in form, are perfectly appropriate. That's my take on it anyway. Dekkappai 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Thank you. Putting it that way it becomes much more clear to me what is meant by the word encyclopedia around here. I was getting to the point where I was getting frustrated but putting it like you just did it becomes perfectly clear to me. I hope a lot more people than me read your responses to me because it really clarifies things a lot and would make many of these AfD's a lot more to the point. MartinDK 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Thanks to you too, Martin. It's been interesting thinking this thing out. Dekkappai 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep close. Just H 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per User:FiggyBee 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Figgy. Also, there are several ways to define what "big" means. Having a size D or up, inclusion in big-bust videos/magazines, self-identification as having large breasts, these are all options. All of which can be sourced. Which method should be used is a debate for the talk page. -kotra 02:00, 22 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, see WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food metaphors for race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unsourced, unverifable, similar to the racial terms AFD a few months ago Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)}_{Merry Christmas!} 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OR wtfunkymonkey 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, racial slurs have other articles here. Somitho 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This falls on the wrong side of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DICT and is just listcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH,08:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verfiable and interesting. Lovablebeautyme 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Chuchunezumi 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge where sourceable to list of ethnic slurs. JDoorjam Talk 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see anything there sourceable. If there were, i'd agree with you. Just H 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bunch of ORs. Just H 01:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like the man said, bunch of OReos.EnabledDanger 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. I created this page on the proposition that one ridiculous article is better than ten. Previously we had individual articles for many of these terms. I hope this deletion wouldn't revert us to the previous situation. BTW, for what it's worth, several of these terms are sourced in the pop culture section.--Pharos 04:03, 22 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom - neologism; not in dictionaries; no sources. Originally prod'd, but an editor with just one edit (sock puppet?) removed the prod and added more content. Rklawton 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Graving as a word may be similar to slang, but it does describe what many people do as a hobby. Yes it is related to genealogy. I am not sure why this would be considered for deletion, while an advertising page for a porn actress (not even a good one) is allow to stay. Look her up on Wikipedia, she goes by the name 'Nikki Benz' link: [9]. --Scott Buschlen 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to dry dock. MER-C 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question what does dry dock have to do with graving?[10] Rklawton 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This. :) And, Redirect per MER-C. Tevildo 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dry dock - I disagree with the proposed redirect. The article is on graving, and MW has three definitions for "graving" - none of which relate to a dry dock (or the subject of the article). Rklawton 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No redirect. Either keep or delete. --- RockMFR 07:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - neologism. No redirect. SkierRMH,08:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete - I'm the original submitter of the article, which describes an activity that is valuable for preservation and access of genealogical information. "Graving" is a term used by thousands of "gravers" - people who gather information from cemeteries and make it publicly available online. Just because a term is not in the dictionary doesn't warrant it unworthy as a page in a wiki encyclopedia. Also, the editor with just one edit, mentioned above, is not a sock puppet. {Bubbha 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete neologism. To be fair, I am prejudiced against this kind of word, and would also burn on sight all mentions of terms like "scrapbooking". Guy (Help!) 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Genealogy, the information included is useful and encyclopaedic even if the verb itself is not. Lethaniol 12:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands on 17 December 2006. However, I would hope that the term may be verified in secondary and reliable sources in order to justify a vote for Keep. Some of the information could certainly be transferred to Monumental inscription or the like. Verica Atrebatum 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: If the prime objection is the name of the article, how about keeping it but changing the article name to, say, "Cemetery research"? {Bubbha 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

  • Reply - original research. Rklawton 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply - A description of a real practice carried out by thousands of people is not "original research". {Bubbha 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO. Eusebeus 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT Delete What, are Wikipedia users now becoming the English Académie Française, deciding which words may or may not enter the language? DocWilson 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Doc Wilson[reply]

  Comment - quite the opposite. We don't do original research here. Therefore, we let the authorities (dictionary editors, in this case) decide what is accepted before we write an article. For example, thousands of skydivers know exactly what a "whuffo" is. You'll find it on Google searches, and it even found its way into a movie (Cutaway), but until Websters or the OED, or some other authority decides it is part of the English language, I don't get to write an article about it. That's how it works here, and I don't mind playing by the rules. Rklawton 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal: Your comment conflicts with your other comment about the acceptability of the word "truthiness", which is in no English dictionary at this point. Other articles like "Cryptex" or "Skitching" or "River Trekking" should then be deleted by your standards, but are given a pass. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about topics (including unusual hobbies, new ones of which are appearing all the time) to the general public, and this necessitates the acceptance of new terms to a reasonable extent. Zero-tolerance always causes more problems than it purports to solve. {Bubbha 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

    • Reply - I see no contradiction regarding expert confirmation. The word "truthiness" has been select as the 2005 word of the year by the American Dialect Society. Here at Wikipedia, the fact that other unworthy articles exist is never a valid reason for keeping yet one more. I would prefer to see the Cryptex article merged with the article about the book. However, I suspect the book article is overly long, and the editors chose to split sections out into separate own articles. If this is the case, then Cryptex would be worthy because it is central to the plot of a notable movie. The skitching article has no sources and should be either fixed or deleted for the reasons you specified. Unlike "graving", River trekking isn't a word, it's a phrase, and it describes an outdoor activity that is well documented. Please read WP:NOT for a more official response to what you think Wikipedia should include (but won't). Rklawton 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Reply First, Rklawton, I do value your input and I have learned a lot. But I had always thought that the proscription on neologism was to prevent someone from, say, inventing something out of whole cloth and posting an article about it; say, inventing the practice of walking backwards naked with a Sgt. Pepper LP album cover on one's head and coining the word "Whoojness" to describe it. On the contrary, "graving" is something that thousands of people do as a hobby, and is termed such by them. I have no objections to changing the title to something acceptable. You objected to my previous suggestion to do just that by citing another proscription -- original research -- but the simple act of describing a hobby that is actually practiced by a definite community is not "original research"; it's just statement of fact. Yes, I know I don't make the rules, but I would hope that the parameters of the proscription on neologism could be adjusted to be slightly more accommodating to the sharing of useful knowledge. Again, I would be happy to see this article being retained under a more acceptable name. {Bubbha 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep and retitle if needed. Graving has been going on ever since there were graves of saints to venerate during pilgrimages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - genealogy related hobby. - WeniWidiWiki 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I am unable to find many examples of this word being used in this context, even for what is admitedly an obscure activity. If anything can be provided to show notability, I will support a keep. - Justin (Authalic) 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As with above, I recommend merging it. Somitho 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a new member of the Wikipedia community who was been lurking here since the site's inception I have to confess that I'm scratching my head as to why this is such a big deal. I have noted COUNTLESS articles on obscure practices on these pages. In fact, I have had learned of the existance of several simply by reading these pages. One such practice, Geocaching, was only brought to my attention this year, but it appears to have been around for awhile and like graving thousands of people are doing it. If you hold true to what you say on your admin page of wanting to help others then I suggest that you give the author and his associates a chance to flesh out the article to meet the site's approval.Cyberlucy1965 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965[reply]

  Reply - good points. The AfD process takes 5 days. That should be plenty of time to fix up the article. But it doesn't change the fact that "graving" is a nelogism (see WP:NEO). If there's something about this word that satisfies Wikipedia's neologism guidelines, then this is the place to discuss it. As for Geocaching, unlike "graving" (which has multiple meanings), geocaching has over 4 million Google hits. Rklawton 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply So how many of those four million google hits are mulitiple repeats of the same article. Sorry using that doesn't hold water. It's true graving has multiple meanings but it doesn't dismiss that like geocaching that it is hobby that is practiced by thousands of people and, as Mr. Norton kindly pointed out, it is a practice that has been going on for hundreds of years. As others have pointed out here if the issue is the word being neologism then why not let the author and his associates title it something else perhaps a phrase not unlike "river trekking" which was inferred to be appropriate. Cyberlucy1965 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965[reply]

  Reply - renaming the article might be a good idea. It would avoid the neologism problem. However, it would do nothing to solve the "no original research" problem. At this point, the article reads like an unsourced "how to" guide. Rklawton 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - How does one tell when the five days are up? Countedx58 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer - five days from the date of nomination. You can click the "History" tab of this project to see the first edit to this nomination. In this case, five days are up on the 21st. Individual results may vary. Rklawton 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom. dcandeto 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - it appears that the novice editors who have joined this discussion are being solicited to do so on the find-a-grave website. The first clue was here: [11]. However, this link pretty much says it all: [12]. I would like to encourage all the folks from find-a-grave to read the following: WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:MEAT. I've also posted useful links on your talk pages over the last few days. All of this is aimed at helping you become top quality contributors. I suggest you focus your energies accordingly. The experienced editors are trying their best to show you how things work here. It's all for the best. Rklawton 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply I've read the Wikidefinition of sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and I'm not here or taking an interest in this article because I'm a member of FAG. I'm here because I have been a supporter of Wikipedia over the years, and I care, like you, about the content. I have an interest in being a contributor here, and whether I opened my account today or two years ago doesn't matter. I agree that you have made some very good points, but I think the fact that this article was nominated for deletion instead of you seeking out the contributor and making these suggestions that you have been making has been the issue. Cyberlucy1965 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - I did leave the editors welcome messages complete with "how to" links. If I thought the article might be saved, I would have tagged, prod'd, or fixed it myself. The point here is that I this article can't be saved. A group of internet users have created their own slang to describe their activities, and now they want an article about it. It just won't fly here. Asking new editors to fix their article "or else" and then having to delete it anyway is far more cruel. It's less misleading to simply point out the article's failing points, provide links to help its editors better understand how things work, and proceed to AfD. I only nominated "graving" because I don't think we could salvage it. Rklawton 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - This experience has left a very bad taste in the mouths of those of us who are users of and contributors to both Find A Grave and Wikipedia. This is beginning to appear to us as the petty crusade of one person who has ALSO solicited others to support his point of view (a definition of the neologism "meat-puppetry," I believe). I recognize the signatures of everyone who has posted in support of the article, and they are all different people. No "sock-puppetry" going on -- and no "meat-puppetry" either. The original solicitation on Find A Grave was for ways to improve the article, not hammer at the Wikipedia administrators. And then to presume to register on Find A Grave for the sole purpose of instructing us poor benighted amateurs . . . well, the mind boggles. We are NOT just a small group of internet users who have created out own slang. We are people with a common interest in a common pursuit which has its roots in changing attitudes towards death and burial in the 19th-century -- most of whom were doing it long before we had any access to the internet -- who are simply describing what we do in the most simple, elegant terms possible.DocWilson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - you won't find a single instance of me soliciting others to support deleting this article. As for sock/meat puppetry - see also WP:SPA. I just pointed out that the influx of new accounts looked suspicious. We see a lot of that sort of thing in AfD discussions. Rklawton 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with possible renaming or redirect to "Grave Hunting" Countedx58 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I used Google to search the "Association for Gravestone Studies" website referenced in the "Graving" article (the only external website so referenced in the article) and found zero instances of the word "graving". This word is clearly the product of slang primarily used within the find-a-grave website forums.[13][14] Combined with the special purpose accounts created by find-a-grave users to defend this article, and the fact that these users admit within their discussion forums that they made up this word to describe their group's hobby, and the fact that they haven't been able to produce sources that establish this word as part of this (or any) language, and I think it's clear this article should be deleted. As evidenced both here, in the article's talk page, and in their own discussion forums, I've done my best to guide these editors through the process and provide careful explanations and suggestions. Their inability to resolve WP:NEO or WP:NOR does not reflect on their lack of interest, ability, or desire, but rather on the intractability of the problem. The topic itself, and not simply the article, fails to meet Wikipedia's standards. Rklawton 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I believe that the information provided in the article is worthy as useful information. But this seems to have become a battle between Wikipedia "inclusionists" and "deletionists", and I didn't come here for a battle, but just to share information. The article is now at Wikinfo.org for those interested. I hope the article can continue here in some form or another, but if the powers that be deem otherwise, let it be so. No, I'm not leaving Wikipedia - I will still contribute as always. All the best to everyone here, and no hard feelings. Bubbha 07:05, 22 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 trainwreck. It is clear that no consensus will come of this; please nominate articles seperately, where appropriate, so that they may be considered on their own merits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable church per WP:CHURCH --Адам Райли ^Talk 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following churches which I feel qualify just the same. --Адам Райли ^Talk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote on St Mary's Cathedral Basilica to keep, as it has shown work and appears to be notable. --Адам Райли ^Talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am in no way doing this to make a point, or on an agenda, and that these are all in good faith. Yes, I did nominate one article for deletion by mistake. However, I changed my position to speedy keep. I got the list of these churches from Church stubs, not googling anything that says Church in it. This is purely in good faith. --Адам Райли ^Talk 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Calvary Lutheran Church (Willmar, Minnesota)
• Christian Life Fellowship
• City Centre Church
• Cliffdale Community Church
• Denton Bible Church
• Emmanuel Church
• Evangelical Catholic Church
• Evangelical Church of the Deaf
• Evangelical Free Church of Naperville
• Faith! Christian Church
• Faithful Central Bible Church
• Family Christian Center
• First Baptist Church of Springdale
• First Baptist Church of Sunny Side
• First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton)
• Forge Road Bible Chapel
• Garywood Assembly of God
• Good Shepherd Cathedral, Ayr
• Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church
• Holy Name Church
• Holy Rosary Catholic Church
• Ilfracombe Baptist Church
• Ilfracombe Christian Fellowship Church
• Immaculate Heart of Mary Church
• Jubilee Christian Church
• Leeds Reformed Baptist Church
• MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)
• Metropolitan Community Church of New York
• Metropolitan Community Church of North London
• Morden Alliance Church
• Mt. Olive Church of God
• Nanortalik Church
• New Creation Church (Singapore)
• Faith Community Baptist Church (Singapore)
• New Hope Wesleyan Church
• North Presbyterian Church
• Northland Cathedral
• Our Lady of Grace (Howard Beach)
• Our Savior's Lutheran Church (Burbank, Illinois)
• Promiseland West Church
• PromiseLand San Marcos
• Rostrevor Baptist Church
• Saint Clare Parish
• Saint Elizabeth of the Hill Country Catholic Church
• Saint Fintans' Church, Sutton
• Saint Frances Cabrini Parish
• Saint Julie Billiart Parish
• Saint Mary's Catholic Church (Cascade)
• Saint Patrick Proto-Cathedral Parish
• Saint Victor Parish (San Jose)
• Saint-Joseph, Le Havre
• San Martino di Burano
• Scum of the Earth Church
• Shiloh Church
• Simi Valley Community Church
• Spring Creek Church
• St Albans Anglican Community Church
• St Mary's Cathedral Basilica
• St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego
• St Paul's Church Worcester
• St. Andrew's Church, Goldsworth Park
• St. Gabriel Parish
• St. Gwynno Church
• St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton
• Delete per non-notability. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Articles that are sourced solely to an institution's own website are questionable, in my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If individual churches without any unique or defining features are held to be non-notable, so be it. I created one of the articles. michael ^talk 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The St Mary's Cathedral Basilica listed here is the headquarters of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese, which is the Episcopal See of the Syro Malabar Archiepiscopal Church. Hence it certainly shouldn't be deleted (NOTE: A little bit of vanity working here, as I created the article myself). Given this, I doubt if other important churches might be listed here too.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, as for the above; create an AfD for each church to be discussed. Somitho 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all undisputed articles. Keep and individually Afd any disputed articles to prevent train wreck. --- RockMFR 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only Undisputed Pastordavid 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep All nomination appears to be a WP:Point about churches, and the mass nomination is certainly inappropriate. Nominations in the past couple of days as a part of this have included Willow Creek Community Church and Saddleback Church. Pastordavid 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Calvery Lutheran (Willmar, MN) would be worth keeping if it was the first congregation of the Norwegian - Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church, it is certainly one of the first. I would keep this up and give someone a chance to check on that.
  • Evangelical Catholic Church is a denomination (see List of Lutheran denominations, not a local congregation, if that matters.
  • Faith! Christian appears notable as it is pastored by the national Vice-President of the Assemblies of God in Australia and is the parent organization of a college.
  • St Mary's Basilica seems notable, because of its history and current function.
  • St John's Cathedral (Edmunton) seems notable to me, because of the previous bishop, its role as a major cathedra church.

Pastordavid 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete uncontended, treat all as WP:PROD (i.e. undelete and if necessary AfD on request), to avoid trainwreck, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all undisputed as non-notable. Doc Tropics 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as failing guideline. Renom individually any contested.--cj | talk 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per suggested route above. Eusebeus 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only clearly non-notable churches, keep all others. For example, also Faithful Central Bible Church seems to be notable as it was involved in a trade-union protest action - http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/Forum_IA33_Solidarity_D2 (should be mentioned in the article, I think), it was mentioned in LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endtimes22jun22,0,5277604,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california) etc. I suspect that the nominator just googles Wikipedia for articles with "church" in the title and nominates them for deletion without studying them case by case.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep all per Agent 86 - probably bad faith nomination.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ouch, we went through this with a bunch of historic synagogues a while ago, and those weren't even this many. Mass-nominating is a really bad idea in most cases. Some of these articles aren't really worth the trouble, but the subjects may well be notable and should emphatically not be knee-jerkishly re-deleted if they are deleted now and a better version recreated later. I am inclined to keep all cathedrals and any churches with a couple of centuries of history or more, as well as anything that stands out architecturally.
  • Keep St Mary's Cathedral Basilica. In addition to its cathedral status, the article claims that it was originally constructed in 1112 AD, which makes it historic enough, even if most of the current building may be younger.
  • Keep St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton as a cathedral (seat of a bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada).
  • The article on St. Gwynno Church at Llanwynno in Wales is a worthless substub, but the church is from the 12th century and probably has historic interest, if someone would want to expand it. Here is a wonderful image of the church with cemetery in its best horror movie mood. And more images found here.
  • Weak redirect Nanortalik Church to Nanortalik. (The image is already there, and the redirect will do no harm and could have been done without the AFD.)
  • Redirect Shiloh Church to The Living Word Fellowship.
  • Faith Community Baptist Church (Singapore) and New Creation Church (Singapore) are megachurches with 10,000 and 12,000 attenders per week. That sounds a lot to me.
  • The Metropolitan Community Church of North London and Metropolitan Community Church of New York seem unusual in targeting the gay/lesbian/transgendered communities. I don't know if that makes them special enough, though. Has anything been written about them?
  • Keep Good Shepherd Cathedral, Ayr. Not historic, but a cathedral.
  • Keep San Martino di Burano. This is a Renaissance church in Burano, just outside Venice, and a little googling shows that it features artwork by Antonio Zanchi and Giambattista Tiepolo, as well as its very own leaning tower.
  • Keep Saint-Joseph, Le Havre, a modern but original church looking like a lighthouse from the outside and with a spire that can be looked up into all the way to the top and filled with little coloured-glass windows. Here are several more images. It is also clearly an important landmark in an important French city.

OK, there may well be others. Again, I really dislike mass-nominations like this, as there won't be time to research and rewrite anything that might look like it is worth saving. U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--is someone taking aim at Churches; the ones I'm connected with are historic congregations, that, I'M SORRY, I haven't had the time to expand from Stub status... MERRY Christmas, and BAH-HUMBUG to the one who submitted the Afd.... Bacl-presby 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All and relist as separate AfDs. To respond to Bacl-presby, the nominator has spent the last few days nominating churches for deletion (even to the point of nominating articles that simply have "church" in the title). I don't think it's gone so far to prove a point, but there certainly seems to be an agenda. While many of the nominated churches have been non-encyclopedic, quite a few (both those from the past few days and in today's list) are and should not be deleted. Agent 86 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I have no problem with an "agenda" per se. If a user wants to go on a mini-crusade and nominate a cart-load of churches, or cellular antennae, or malls, or college a cappella groups, more power too s/him. I do, however, agree that this list is a bit hard to digest and individual AfDs might have been more effective.--Dmz5 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All and relist individually, as per Agent 86. The range of the nominator's recent entries is too broad to accept a block nomination like this one. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All for now and relist individually, per discussion above: this way is just too confusing, and will likely give the closing admin a headache. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• I can't do blanket delete, there are notable entries in there. Keep All, and relist individually. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ALL Too many dissimilar churches lumped together in one nomination. Please withdraw the nomination and nominate separately so each can be judged on its own merits. Some are non-notable. But some are megachurches, or the largest in the state, one is St Mary's Cathedral Basilica a cathedral dating back to 1112 AD in India. Keep all listed by U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d. One "church" appears to be a denomination. Give me a break, per WP:CHURCH and common sense, with lumping them all together. These are not fungible TV masts. Edison 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ALL Since there is at least one that appears to be extremely notable, St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, I cant' be sure the nominator actually read all the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist individually. Tragic romance 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all -listing numerous churches with AfDs then not even allowing discussion per nomination is totally inappropriate. Kukini 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur, mass nominations are a bad idea. It's possible the equivalent of St. Peter's Basilica is in there and I wouldn't know it without careful scanning. FrozenPurpleCube 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and renominate individually with rationales for each. The nominator appears to have missed Charlotte Church, however. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redo nominations individually. This nomination has been unwantedly fouled up by mass-nomination. Furthermore, all church buildings are individually notable, as are all major religious buildings. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:WINP/ Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, they are about real places. --Qyd 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and relist individually those which appear to be non-notable.--Tdl1060 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. This mass nomination seems to have been in bad faith as many of the articles are clearly notable. --- RockMFR 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. This is nothing more than a communist insurrection on Wikipedia. On his user page you can see that he is a Russian atheist. It is clear from the mass-nomination that he just wants to wipe Christianity off from the face of Wikipedia, if not history and the world. Well, we are not going to stand it so welcome to Democracy. This is clearly an interesting church for its unique style. This blatant attempt to purge Christianity from Wikipedia is really getting out of hand and is becoming censureship, but we will be heard. I am the primary author of the New Testament Baptist Church article that has come under attack recently and was refered here from its Afd. Help stop the madness and vote to keep churchs on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church also.--Jorfer 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JEF, please restrain from personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of this type. It does not matter who he is, the important thing is whether the articles keep the notability guidelines and whether this nomination was a good faith one in the sense that the nominator thoroughly checked all the nominated articles against the guidelines. User pages with religious and political statements are annoying and often offensive, but they cannot be used as arguments in AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I agree with JEF; he just wants the churches off Wikipedia. It's plainly obvious he's an atheist; he created the Wikiproject for atheists! Besides that, originally, the Burnt Church First Nation was nominated; it's obvious he just googled anything with 'church' in it. BloodLinedBandLead 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the following:
  1. Bayside Community Church is a conference church, rather than one with a recurring pastor. This is a weak claim to notability all on its own. It also makes it harder to evaluate whether the notable preachers constitute an additional claim to notability. At the very least it needs its own discussion.
  2. Evangelical Catholic Church as it is a denomination, and has had a prior AFD with no consensus so it clearly needs individual consideration. We usually keep denominations, and no reason is provided for removing this denomination.
  3. Evangelical Church of the Deaf is for the Deaf, which makes it quite different from the typical church, much more likely to be notable and should be considered separately.
  4. Saint-Joseph, Le Havre has an independent citation in the article, so it needs individualized attention.
  5. St Mary's Cathedral Basilica is 894 years old, and it is a Basilica. It is notable.
  6. St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton is a bishop's throne, it is almost definitely notable, and certainly needs individual attention.

  I also think the closing admin should seriously consider declaring a trainwreck, as I don't believe the nominator actually read all the articles that he nominated, much less thought about whether the issues were the same for all of them. I certainly don't have the time to research them all, so offer no opinion on any others. GRBerry 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bayside Community Church and No Vote on the other ones. They should have individual afds if someone thinks they should be deleted, i'll be neutral towards them until then.Just H 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, especially on the grounds that mass-nominations don't allow a coherent assessment of individual cases. Some articles nominated are admittedly not notable as they currently stand, but many seem capable of being expanded to become valid entries - the list seems a random, incoherent selection. Create an AfD for separate articles if necessary, after further time to allow expansion of content and further assessment. 'Keep all' at this stage. Carbonix 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, purely on the basis that there are far far too many nominated here to have an accountable AfD process - 64 articles all getting tarred in the same brush stroke is not good - about the only way that would be acceptable is if they were all from the same originating author as part of a spamming - but these are all by different authors, some cathedrals not churches, some are total junk but some are historically important buildings deserving of articles and some of them have existed for a couple of weeks but some have an article history going back a year and a half or more. We can't just scatter gun and take out 64 articles because a few are spammy. In the case of the article that brought me here it is far more deserving to be merged into its town article than deleted. I very strongly suggest this Afd is withdrawn and the 64 looked at more closely, relisting in sensible numbers where accountability can be given to the process not just "delete them all" and doing damage to this encyclopaedia. SFC9394 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep all of these please many are notable and mass nominations like this are disruptive and unhelpful really Yuckfoo 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all due to mass nomination; also vote to keep Our Savior's Lutheran Church (Burbank, Illinois) - with 2207 members, it appears to be the fifth largest congregation in the ELCA's Metropolitan Chicago Synod, and the second largest in Cook County. The article's a measly stub, but that shouldn't be the main criteria. MisfitToys 02:53, 21 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wyka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Candidate for U.S. Representative who seems to have lost his election and has no other reason for notability Deville (Talk) 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This doesn't warrant a deletion. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Losing an election does not cause a person to lose nobility IMO. Somitho 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither does it make one notible. Pastordavid 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - also rans don't gain notariety by losing. SkierRMH,08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability can be shown, as already stated, standing and losing is not notable. Nuttah68 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe I read somewhere on wp a debate on inclusion of election candidates. I do recall reading that notability, at once established cannot be lost. However, my vote would be not to include election candidates unless they are otherwise notable. Thus, in this case, I would have supported deletion before the election. Alan.ca 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing here but an educated guy and an expired campaign platform. Deizio talk 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No longer notable or relevant. Preserving this sort of information should be done by original sources. - Justin (Authalic) 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failed election candidate. -- Whpq 22:21, 18 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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homes in South Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing more than fancruft. (trogga) 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of places in South Park, since the setting of a story is pivotal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WAF: Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. WP:FICT: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis... OR fanlistcruft from start to finish and utterly useless to Wikipedia per WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#IINFO and so on -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. King Toadsworth 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Somitho 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pastordavid 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of places in South Park; there are some things in here that would be utile there. SkierRMH,08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CanadianCaesar StayinAnon 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not very notable (WP:FICT). Also descrbes a work of fiction from an in-universe perspective -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:SkierRMH - The RSJ 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per user:IslaySolomon -- Whpq 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Canadian Caesar. Just H 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete heh, if you want to know this kind of stuff, just go tosome fansite.To much junk here already.EnabledDanger 03:39, 21 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Nozuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom - fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:BIO; claims for notability are weak; sources cited are self-created; minimal Google hits. Rklawton 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While weak, for nobility; I have seen articles far worse which have stuck around. Somitho 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I've seen worse" is never a reason for keeping an article. This guy is a one-album artist whose only release came out last month. Rklawton 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SkierRMH,08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I can't tell you how much it incenses me to see an article put up for AFD simply because the nom and the majority of AFD watchers are ignorant of the country or culture in which the article's topic is notable. Ignorance is not non-notability. [15][16][17][18] would seem to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. And [19] is an arguable meet of criterion #2, which is rather vague. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - OK, let's see what we've learned. The first link indicates that not only has this person released only one album, but it's also the label's first release. That doesn't exactly make it a major label. The second and third articles only confirm this. The fourth link mentions a "#1" spot for one of his singles, but it isn't at all clear about what list this comes from. The fifth link is from a promotional site that lists one of his singles as #1 briefly. Face it, the kid just put out his first album on an indy label and suddenly we're supposed to believe he's a notable musician? I think our doubt is more than justified. Rklawton 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If your justification for NN is not based on the music notability guideline, then don't bother citing it as a failed test. The subject passes WP:MUSIC, despite your and others' insistence to the contrary, and is therefore notable. Granted, I'd never heard of this artist before about two days ago, but I'm not Canadian. In any case, baseless deletionism bugs the hell out of me. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how he passes MUSIC? It would certainly help this discussion along. Rklawton 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I shouldn't have to read WP:MUSIC to you. #1 says been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. The first four links are independently written stories about the artist, in reliable sources such as the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Sun. here's another one from the Toronto Star. WP:MUSIC #2 says Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. The fifth link above shows the artist's single at #1 on the Canadian MuchMusic chart, and continued chart placements on subsequent weeks.

  While I'm at it, WP:MUSIC #4 says Has gone on... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country. He has already been on a cross-Canada promotional tour, and has more stops next year. Again, read the fine cites. In any case, WP:MUSIC indicates that only one of the criteria must be met to establish notability. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So you admit it was just a promo tour? By your way of looking at it, a solo act heading cross-country in a minivan to hawk his only album would qualify a musician for inclusion. That's certainly not what the policy editors had in mind. I think you might be taking too many liberties with the concept of "national concert tour". Rklawton 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although urban Canadian music is a small market, it is important nonetheless. There are plenty of other artists in the same class that have their wiki articles, which is useful for me, a Canadian. 1dsm3 12:43, 22 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 an OR list of dicdefs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing but a list of unsourced slang. We're not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. This is not a list of keywords, that's separate, this is just slang made up by players without any documentation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fancruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete - horrible unsourced fancruft. wtfunkymonkey 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could certainly be better documented but if documentation is the reason for a deletion I would contest that citations could be found without too much effort. An article like this (from the game publisher) would cover a sizable chunk of the article. Being poorly sourced makes this a candidate for improvement, not deletion. Mr Bound 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: first party sources are typically not valid for citation. See WP:NOTE WP:RS and WP:INDY. wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're still not a dictionary, though, so we can't include things that are nothing more than a list of definitions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would appear that this article is what would be considered a glossary, and a look through the corresponding Wikipedia category Category:Glossaries (where the article in question is listed) would turn up a lot of similar articles such as Chess terminology and List of Final Fantasy VII terms. While I encourage you to take a look at the second and see what this article should probably look like (because it's thoroughly well cited and decently pruned, and because personally I think it's a similar level of notability), with regards to glossaries and AFD there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus. Several glossaries similar to this (with varying degrees of citations) have survived AFDs (slang for Police here and Internet slang here). The appropriate discussion (Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_glossaries_are_(NOT)) has yet to pass into policy. I think the article can be improved and pruned, and that some glossaries are worth including. Mr Bound 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page you linked specifically states "Slang dictionaries, which contain mostly dicdefs and are not used to read an article (since we don't write in slang) are not glossaries under this definition." One of the two you linked survived on a no consensus with a lot of votes saying WP:ILIKEIT. The other has citations for every single entry. Individual neologisms without sources are considered unacceptable here; why should a few dozen of them without any sources be any better? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Tap: delete target article. It can't be regenerated This is an incomplete, arbitary and crufty list of dictdefs. MER-C 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Weak Keep Needs rewritten, but it still is a good source for terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somitho (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No verifiable sources means we're looking at original research. Therefore it violates wp:v and wp:or. If it can't pass the 3 pillars, it doesn't belong. Alan.ca 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Delete. Eusebeus 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for basically every reason. It's entirely neologisms, it's completely unsourced and unverifiable, and it is guaranteed to contain at least some OR simply because slang terms by their very nature are subjective to one group or another (and therefore any "meaning" given to them is original research subjective to the giver). I'd say speedy this article if at all possible -Markeer 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think these are dicdefs, but the article is a list of neologisms, so it's hard to verify and show notability. delldot | talk 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by virtue of being slang. --Khaim 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Original research? I'm not saying every term on the page can be verified, but many can. Those that can't? Feel free to remove them. Still wouldn't be original research, as that's about advancing a cause, but whatever. However, the existence of the article itself doesn't violate any principles of Wikipedia that I know about. Magic the Gathering is a real game, it is notable, and it does have a common vernacular shared among its players. This can be verified from many magazines and articles. (Scrye for example has done it several times). How a list of words common to a subject violates Wikipedia policy, I don't know, but if it does, how about deleting Category:Glossaries? I'd especially include the Baseball jargon ones. Or maybe Transwiki them to Wikitionary, if they belong there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being OR is not a deletion criterion, it is at most a reason for trying to improve the article. Moreover, this article has been cited by the game's manufacturer as a useful resource for players. Deleting it would put Wikipedia in the rather embarassing position of having people come here from WotC's site only to find the article they're looking for deleted out from under them. PurplePlatypus 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being original research most definitely is a deletion criterion, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is one of our most fundamental deletion criteria. And that people have been referred to an unencyclopaedic article is not a reason to keep an unencyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. If you want to make a case for keeping that holds water, rather than one that is in direct opposition to our fundamental policies, please cite sources to demonstrate that this article is not original research, is verifiable, and is not a mini-dictionary of slang. Uncle G 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, speaking for myself, I added two sources rather easily. It's about as easy for the rest of the terms that should be kept, and dump the rest. So, OR as an argument for deletion is not that applicable here. It's a clean-up issue for this article, not an inherent problem with the very concept of it. The real question is, does a list of words common to a specific subject belong on Wikipedia. And I think the plethora of glossaries indicates that there is some acceptance to their inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, then we should be discussing that, then dealing with the articles like this. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though vaguely possible article could be recreated in the future. If the article is to be saved (or for when/if the article is remade), I would recommend something in the form of List of Internet slang phrases- all entries must be referenced by a not-user-editable website, and at least two editors viligantly guard the article, ruthlessly deleting all additions that don't. (That would mean that about 98% of the current article should be commented out or deleted.) SnowFire 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOT a jargon or usage guide, and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Board and table games. Collection of fan-created terms that fails to provide the reader with any encyclopedic info helping them to understand MtG in any context except fancruft. Barno 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, because magicplayers will automatically fill in more details. Mtg is a game that is expanding in so many conceptual directions that no single individual or group can contain it all. I for instance can easily envision a mtg only wp. Besides, slang will be incorporated into wp no matter what is done to avoid it. Wp will be subject to I-wars (information-wars), and biased oppinions will collide while "fanatics" of certain ideologies try to textually wipe out other articles with "intolerant" contents. As a defence mechanism people will turn to slang so that articles with their oppinion are not found and "errataed" by the opposition.

Comment - While nearly incoherent and devoid of any reference to actual deletion criteria, the above post raises one interesting point. If this article flunks this AFD, as seems likely, could I get access to the text of it somehow? Whether you think it belongs on Wikipedia or not, this is valuable to certain people and deserves to be on some Wiki somewhere. PurplePlatypus 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in other AFDs there have been mentions of transwikiing to Wiktionary? Go ahead and do it if you feel compelled. Mr Bound 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an MTG wiki that is horrible and bad linked from the main MTG article's ELs currently. Just edit the source, select it all, and move it on over there- I'd been intending to do that myself, actually. SnowFire 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple, yes I may seem incoherent, but only because I assume others posses the same knowledge as myself. It's a constant hindrance to my communication with other people. The most coherent thing I can state may be "Keep this magic stuff, change the parts you dislike if you know what magic is about, but never think of any knowledge as being useless". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.165.63.132 (talk • contribs)

• Good idea, PurplePaltypus. here's a Magic the Gathering wiki, go wild. delldot | talk 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No can do. That site is BY-NC-SA, which is GFDL incompatible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because I'm following attempts to preserve this article if it fails AFD, can you expand what BY-NC-SA means? Mr Bound 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added it to the Wikia one rather than the mtgsalvation one; it's at List of Magic: the Gathering slang terms on that site. It's not well-linked there but I assume that will come in time. Of course, as noted above, that whole wiki is in rather sad shape, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. PurplePlatypus 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - not encyclopedic, complete cruft, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also unsourced, and WP:V and WP:RS - and also WP:OR, and OR synthesis - are not negotiable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Moreschi said. Sandstein 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Instead of deleting this article, I think the various statements should simply be sourced and cited. ComradeAF 17:31, 23 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One percenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete WP:OR, fails WP:V, maybe even WP:HOAX. Doubtful notability even if this was reconciled.Just H 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this cruft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Split Infinity (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 December 2006.
• Delete OR, doesn't seem notable, fails WP:V. --Sable232 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Random cruft; per nom. King Toadsworth 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Somitho 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect "One percenter" to Motorcycle club. Mmoyer 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, everything from this article is covered in the Motorcycle club article, with the added bonus of references. Mmoyer 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - please, useless. SkierRMH,08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One deleter to add to the chorus. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is actually a fairly well known concept. IIRC it was mentioned in Hunter S. Thompson's book on the Hell's Angels. At any rate it meets the "I had heard of it before I read the Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. I've heard of this as I have a few bikers in my family. It's definitely not a hoax, and it needs expansion; don't know quite how to go about doing this for this topic. I searched on the web before this AFD and could not find much more than this. Someone realy dedicated to the topic needs to dig harder. - CobaltBlueTony 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I agree with some of the reasons for the "keep" votes, but still, this is just cruft that Wikipedia can use without. The RSJ 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, well-known, well documented concept, google turns up thousands of hits related to this, e.g. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. That last one is from a History Channel documentary I saw which discusses the concept. I'm sure there's plenty of other reliable, verifiable sources to be found with only the tiniest bit of research. It's been around since the forties (July 4, 1947 according to one of those sources). Some of those refs may be a little trivial, but some definitely are not, and I'm sure that many more can be found. Also acceptable would be a redirect per Mmoyer, but deleting this real, important and verifiable concept while keeping all the dumptruckloads of cruft we have about (e.g.) Pokemon, one-hit-wonder bands, video-game weaponry and dead-end highway spurs would be criminal! Xtifr _tälk 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Xtifr. --Krator 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per MMoyer's reasoning. GRBerry 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed a legitimate term for some, but shouldn't the definition of a term be in the dictionary?ER^Talk 07:48, 21 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. Doc^g 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep melodic jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Is deep melodic jazz even a real type of jazz? I think not. Also non-notable. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong DeleteSmaller than a sub-stub, and completely useless article. King Toadsworth 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Seemingly, User "PEZ", who by no coincidence has also edited Coram Deo (album), created this article so that the link (he probably put) in Coram Deo wouldn't be "red" (check his/her contribs and/or article histories). Besides, Google gives only a handful of forum posts about the genre. —EdGl 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn genre, only 18 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sub-section under Jazz would be appropriate. Somitho 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn genre, probably neologism? SkierRMH,08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete - I have posted on the article discussion about the genre. More info will be added soon. If you have other sugestions i'm open to them. Yes I have added the info about the Coram Deo album. That album is "deep melodic jazz". It's a mixture of that genres and it also has the posiblity to be played by bigger bands. You can lissen the album online at last.fm. So first, please lissen to the album to see from what i'm talking about. Thanks --PET 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's plenty of genre mixing out there, but not all genre hybrids deserve their own genre name. The key is whether the genre is actually famous or not. Whether or not one band makes music in a way described by the genre, the genre may be totally unheard of. And that's the key. Now, if a google test returned much more than 18 hits, I think you'd have more to back you up. But think of it this way: Tryad released their album Public Domain saying it was under the genre "Industrial Classic Pop"; that doesn't mean Industrial Classic Pop deserves it's own page on wikipedia, you dig? -Monk of the highest order^(t) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• if you want delete it. The thing here was that the author of Coram Deo wanted to start a new musican genre called Deep Melodc Jazz. It's not just a name, it's a combination of styles that he wanted to do. So here google won't help since it's a new genre. So what would you sugges? To create a small "entry" in the Jazz Genre? --PET 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would wait until the genre becomes more popular, notable, verifyable, etc. before adding it to an article. By the way, thanks for being cooperative and not taking offense. =) —EdGl 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From PET's comments here, it doesn't seem like this genre is notable or verifiable. —ShadowHalo 22:11, 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.