< April 2	April 4 >

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7 and WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hunter[edit]

Basically, I'm not sure that Ms. Hunter is quite notable enough to merit her own Wikipedia article. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have actually met Anne, and my wife was one of her advisees, but this article fails to find any real notability for her. Out. Brianyoumans 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not seem to have real criteria on educational administrators. I think the key question is whether she in N outside MIT, and one outside source would be enough. DGG 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Is apparently 'legendary', but wouldn't need that connotation if this were true. No sources. Administers email lists of 2,000 people? Not notable. Possibly merge and redirect into MIT article if she has some meaning to them.--Dacium 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secretary who administers e-mail lists. Are the lists notable? No. Neither is she. Pete.Hurd 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:NN. Just a generic college administrator. Ravenswing 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete No claim to notablity outside a very specific department in MIT. A1octopus 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No other sources. Ab e g92contribs 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish enough notability outside of one particular department of MIT. Darth griz⁹⁸ 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable enough. NawlinWiki 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperative Reaction[edit]

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No independent references cited. Nv8200p talk 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources, hasn't charted or been otherwise recognized, too many redlinks, fails WP:BAND. Realkyhick 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're touring with the apparently notable VNV Nation. They're pretty small-time still, but notable. Ventifax 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the extent of the tour. Was it a national tour? Even then, the band should stand on its own notability snd not ride the coat tails of another goup. -Nv8200p talk 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has no external sources, but seem to have released enough albums on a decent label to pass WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 4--Dacium 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't even need to be weak -- criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC states that they have to have at least two releases on an important indie label, and this band has three. Rockstar915 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with previous poster. furthermore I'd suggest that an 'expand' or 'citation needed' tag have been place on the article before it was listed here. It is, I think, more constructive than slapping an AfD on it before any discussion takes place. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and stub to remove how-to manual material and self-promotion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji transfer and Watergraph[edit]

Non-notable photographic technique. Fuji transfer is more an how-to guide than an article. Both are really just spam for Balazsy who is also up for AfD. -- RHaworth 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --RFBailey 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More Balazsy spam. Realkyhick 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it should be deleted because it is simply a definition and description of the Fuji transfer process and is in keeping with the similar entry "Polaroid Transfer"Pbpix 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Pbpix's point. Ventifax 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment There should be an article, but this content is not appropriate. Stubbify, perhaps.
Keep Describing something is not a how-to. Stubify Fugi Transfer as it is unsourced.--Dacium 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Ben 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point made by Pbpix. Besides this process has received numerous non-trivial revues in photographic magazines. Alf^Photoman 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - both need a major rewrite but appear to describe a plausible technique. I think a 'citation needed' and/or 'expand' tag would have been a more constructive way to go first. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:46Z

Florida Trail Riders[edit]

I had tagged this for speedy deletion as advertising, but I think it's possible that it's notable enough to have an article, so I'm opening discussion instead. Leebo ^T/C 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I just cleaned up and removed schedule per Wikipedia is not a mirror. — Indon (reply) — 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Tag for sources required, they are needed to establish the claimed notibility--Dacium 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. Sources, please, but notability is there, barely. Realkyhick 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because sufficient sources seem to exist, they just need to be cited. --W.marsh 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungrykids[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organization, probably created by Brad Hines (see also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Utzchips, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_66.131.7.78 . OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, see also the Brad Hines afd. I get 74 unique Google hits, and a number of those aren't relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. See WP:ORG--Dacium 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - well designed website but seems to be an empty shell of an organization. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Brad Hines link. Realkyhick 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG --Infrangible 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegarth[edit]

Nonnotable per WP:ORG, no reliable sources about information Eyrian 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable game. YechielMan 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N WP:ORG. No sources outside of itself.--Dacium 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no independent sources. Realkyhick 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reah valente[edit]

Lacks sources that show notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionHow do I improve this site? Deniseyu 15:40, 28 March 2007 (EST)

Carefully read WP:BIO, and then add the sources that will show how this person meets that guidelien. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionReah Valente has accumulated a large International fan base in Brazil and Japan. Her lyrics are published in karoake books in Japan. Furthermore, she has her own community in Orkut, one of the largest social networking portals in Japan. I am new and would appreciate any further help you could give me. Therefore, do you have any suggestions to help me?Deniseyu 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EST)

Keep, but wikify this feels like a personal site for the artist. As written, this might be better served on a different website. I'm adding it to my watchlist; I may try & help with the tone if I have time. Ventifax 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well written??? "Then in June of 2002, she figured it all out and couldn’t deny her destiny any longer. Music was her life and she was determined to pursue it." Hardly. Most of it is completely unsourced and unverifiable. AfD is extremely hard given that it was pasted on it within 1/2 an hour! Weak Delete unless sources establish notibility.--Dacium 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs major cleaning - it passes the (unscientific) "I'd already heard of her" test which makes me think she probably is notable enough, but this reads like it's been copied from press releases. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is straight off her website: http://www.reahvalente.us/v2/bio.shtm I want to save this, but it's gonna be tough to get sources in a formal sense. I haven't found any "secondary sources" that say much at all. I've confirmed that she was in a NY band called Tied for Last, but I'm not sure my sources will survive the Talmudic wall some editors want to throw around "Original Research" on the one hand & "self-promotion" on the other. Ventifax 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs work - Again, I am not sure why the wait between an 'expand' tag and AfD was only 20 minutes but at least someone had an attempt at alerting the author. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The 2nd CD is on sale on Amazon, so there's something.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, none of the foreign language interwikis actually exist. --Core desat 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realtravel[edit]

Pure advertising. -- RHaworth 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Spammy, probably best if just deleted, or translated from one of foreign language versions it lists. BlackBear 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be or at least appear to be an advertising attempt, but it isn't any different from SideStep or the like. It needs to be revised a bit but I don't think it deserves deletion. --64.142.82.240 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media mentions seem non trivial and enough to show notibility.--Dacium 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertising, lists fake sources/interwiki links +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Hexagon1 nailed it. Realkyhick 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The USA Today article cited appears to make absolutely no mention of the site. --Infrangible 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked, sources accurate; USA article has company reference as 2 words.Talkterms 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Conscription in the United States. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:47Z

Poverty Draft[edit]

Completing malformed nomination. No reason given. — ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Conscription in the United States mikm 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Werth mentioning as per Mikm--Dacium 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Worth a mention, but not its own article. Realkyhick 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced enough, can be best handled in the context of a longer article.-- danntm ^T _C 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have heard this general claim (that the military targets poorer people) many times but I have never seen any evidence to support it (that includes the highly tendentious links the article provides). From what I have read the military remains predominately middle-class. Allon Fambrizzi 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizz[reply]
Delete Unsourced and POV. Dman727 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to one of the other articles mentioned above. Bearian 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand tennis[edit]

Article seems to be a textbook case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not notable, no references. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as textbook as can be. --Haemo 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Mhking 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as an act of kindness and delete - per above. Metamagician3000 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedily as nonsense. I don't think we even owe the creator an act of kindness -- they need a lesson that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some place to post schoolhouse pranks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy for this, obviously made up in school one day.--Dacium 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, no doubt here. Could have even gone for speedy delete. Poeloq 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely falls under that category of not for things made up at school. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must have missed the ESPN2 coverage of the Champion's Cup last week. A bit humorous, this one, written as if it were a professioal sport, but a good laugh is not a good reason for an article. Delete per above, stuff made up in school. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Seed 2.0 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it shows up on ESPN8 someday. Realkyhick 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A humorous article, albeit it alls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day. --Concordia 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hu12 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldro Ball[edit]

Article seems to be a textbook case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not notable, no references. -- RHaworth 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom says it all mikm 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notibility. Not verifiable. No reliable sources.--Dacium 04:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some schoolkids have too much time on their hands. Realkyhick 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no ghits but the page itself, goes right out and announces itself as something made up in school one day. I'll be happy to change my mind if someone shows me proof that "there are only two international federations in development, Egypt and Denmark", but I don't think that's going to happen. Pinball22 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. > Kamope < 01:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Hallowed ripples" of a swimming pool... almost qualifies for BJAODN, but not quite. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hu12 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station Road, Dunstable[edit]

Non-notable road. -- RHaworth 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of minor streets, fails notability Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:50k is not a guideline, but I can see what you mean. Poeloq 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless can be shown to pass WP:50k--Dacium 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN road in small place, very unencyplopedic entry. Poeloq 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (author blanked the page). Stifle (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles winston[edit]

Hoax. No ghits. -- RHaworth 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom mikm 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless sources magically appear Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX--Dacium 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Make it disappear into "the misty wood." Realkyhick 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hoax Improbcat 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked page, giving weight to the hoax argument. I say this AfD get snowed Improbcat 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proabable hoax. Ab e g92contribs 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Crying[edit]

Original research? I can't find any evidence this term exists other than some sources that comment that laughing and crying use similar muscle groups Steve _(Stephen)^talk 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no original research, I could not find any evidence of this phenomenon Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, not verifiable since no sources.--Dacium 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a Monty Python bit? Realkyhick 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to East Dunbartonshire. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:48Z

Tom Johnston House[edit]

There's not much worth saying about Tom Johnston House Mike 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was in two minds whether to revert the vandalism before nominating for delete. As it was quite humerous I left as is! To avoid other unnecessary looking back at history the article as originally written said

“

Tom Johnston House is the administrative centre for East Dunbartonshire Council, located in Kirkintilloch.

”

Mike 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. ~~Speedy delete~~ as CSD A1 (context) since it doesn't really say anything, or perhaps CSD G3 (vandalism) since it seems to exist "in your ass". --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The version of the article that is under AFD is the result of vandalism. Mind you, the earliest non-vandal version is an unreferenced stub with a very weak implication of notability. -- Whpq 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I guess I should look through the history more often. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the vandalism, but I'm still not convinced about the notability of the house. Is it a historic structure, or is it just a modern city hall (like Image:Bloomingtontownhall.jpg)? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is the local council offices. Apart from being named after Tom Johnson (a politician I hadn't heard of before I arrived in this area), I know of nothing notable about the building. It's not historic, I don't know of any particular architecture feature - even the council don't say much about it Mike 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into East Dunbartonshire (which is a desperately stubby article) and leave this as a redirect. -- RHaworth 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhaworth. May not be notable unto itself. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thomas Johnston. I think most people would be interested in the man, not the building. Cloveoil 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to East Dunbartonshire and/or Thomas Johnston. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA[edit]

Article previously nominated in December of 2006 (previous AfD discussion. The vote went to Keep, but the unanimous opinion of the Keepers was to give the creator the chance he asked for to expand and complete the article. The creator has not appeared on Wikipedia in the months since, nor has this article been touched since December. It remains a non-notable housing development, in the press at all solely because of its use of a name from Tolkien, and is still in violation of WP:SPAM. RGTraynor 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom -- non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember this one, and was originally a keeper - but the article's improvements haven't come to standard, which is kind of a bummer. Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No improvement since the last AfD and likely none forthcoming. I'm still a little dubious on the idea of articles for housing developments ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see a rationale - in this case, architecture reminiscent of The Shire in the LOTR novels merged into a housing development. Vaguely notable unto itself, but nowhere near enough for here. --Dennisthe2 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author has gone away, and so should this article. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I !voted delete last time, and there's absolutely nothing presented to change my mind. -- Kicking222 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' housing developments are rarely notable, and we gave it a good chance.-- danntm ^T _C 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't mean to tell me that sticking a cleanup notice at the top of an article doesn't guarantee reform! The first keep was improvidently granted to begin with, notwithstanding some optimists' visions of an encyclopedia-quality article lurking in the shades. Pop Secret 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per Arkyan. The previous decision was to keep only so that the author could be given the chance to improve it. Chance not taken. Goodbye. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows[edit]

Nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows (2nd nomination). Really doesn't assert importance, meeting WP:N or WP:A. Needs to. It was kept at the second AfD basically because it gets "a lot" of Google hits.. no actual argument was made that this meets any inclusion guideline. Needs actual reliable sources. --W.marsh 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. That was easy. MrMacMan 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to tout notability, and we are not Freshmeat or Sourceforge. --Dennisthe2 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no standard for software (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) but it doesnt pass general standards like notibility or reliable external sources--Dacium 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hits are no substitute for proper attribution. All the external links are self-referential and the article borders on being promotional. All of the edits since the last AfD have made it more spammy if anything and have done nothing to resolve concerns of prior AfD nominations. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like Spam Lite. Realkyhick 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Do NOT Delete. Article about a popular and innovative technology. The content is technical and educational. If articles like Adobe Flash are allowed than Bindows should be allowed as well. ronm4321 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means document that it is popular and innovative by the use of reliable secondary sources to that effect. Adobe Flash is "allowed" because the authors have adequately attributed the article with reliable sources to back up their statements - Bindows, on the other hand, has no such attribution. Neither "technical" nor "educational" are sufficient grounds for inclusion, as Wikipedia requires attribution. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bindows have an animal book? --Dennisthe2 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Arkyan and lack of sources. Wikipedia isn't Sourceforge. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paza Rahm[edit]

Contested prod, non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. 106 unique Google hits, and not a reliable source among them One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:MUSIC. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC failure--Dacium 04:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Poeloq 09:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McFarland Fish[edit]

No reason; was added to AfD by Majorclanger but this subpage was not created and the article itself was not tagged. 1,640 Google hits, including a CNN article [1]. Mithent 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... didn't think I actually submitted to AfD, but obviously I did. My main issue with this is that it's not an encyclopedic article at all, just a copy and paste or slight rewrite of a news article - it has next to no information about this guy apart from the single event. Majorclanger 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable in wiki sense; might become so if the trial brings out some startling new information. Delete; re-create if becomes notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs rewrite and Wiki-fixing. Realkyhick 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Springnuts. This is a minor news item that would be more appropriate for wikinews. The links are very likely to go dead soon - the one in the article already has. Re-create if something notable develops during the trial.--Kubigula (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White noise magazine[edit]

Seems to be about these guys. Appears to fail notability for web content Pekaje 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not follow Internet Notability also lacks verifiable information and sources. ZBrannigan 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable web site. Realkyhick 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N WP:V. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Seed 2.0 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contorts[edit]

This is original research and an apparent neologism. — Elembis (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neo! Hayastan 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition or Neologism, neither of which have a place here. Doesn't even have a source, and I wish good luck to anyone trying to google "contorts" without stumbling across gymnasitc-themed porn. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a legal type is needed to tell us whether this is (or was) very significant, but it seems to be notable. I found numerous scholarly discussions with well-chosen google terms (contorts+contracts+torts yields 800+). It's well-described here and here. In any case, the claim of original research is incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, merge to Grant Gilmore, the originator of the term (1974 book). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not original research, and I was wrong. The article does need sources, but at least it's not a neologism. Thanks for looking it up. — Elembis (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, and call for peer review. It's very much neologism flavored, and may be legal jargon, but it would be more appropriate (per Dhartung, above) for some legal types to come in and review. --Dennisthe2 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep assuming sources are added, as it seems they can be. DGG 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't care for some of the formatting choices the author has made, the term is genuinely used among contract scholars. Google "contorts"+"promissory estoppel" to see the legitimacy of the term. Pop Secret 10:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations added. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ourei Harada[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. Prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no assertion of notability. Not every performer qualifies for an article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular gravure (bikini) idol in Japan and in the US. The article needs to be fleshed out, but I see no reason for deletion.Haddub 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she is, good, then the article should be kept. But we need the text to say this and the sources to back that text up. Picaroon 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harada Ourei is a very notable gravure idol. Many products concerning her are available on J-list[2], cd-japan[3] and other websites where they sell extremely well. She has a proportionate amount of English speaking fans via the internet, which can be assumed from doing a google search on her name[4]. Many popular blogs have posted articles about her, like JapanSugoi [5].

On another note, this is my first edit. Ninja337 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The person in question, Ourei Harada, is indeed notable and has some media attention in Japan and some overseas countries. However, the article needs to source the notability claim! Poeloq 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - weird! (the things you read about at AfD....). Satisfies notability. Article does need some help though and was tagged early on. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tractor (band) and Chris Hewitt[edit]

Contested prod. Sixties band, but lacking in sources. Not sure if this is truly notable, or if it's all self-published. >Radiant< 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tractor is definitely real and almost certainly notable, but the bulk of the article is a copyvio from Allmusic Guide (one of the more common sources for music-related copyvios). There's been a bunch of editing since the original copyvio was posted, so I'm not sure if the result is salvageable or not. As for Hewitt, he seems to be real, and was associated with the band, but even so, the notability seems marginal. Dunno. Xtifr _tälk 08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^{take the} 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the rash step of including "things I saw at Deeply Vale in 1979" in the category of "things that exist in the real world" then this band exists.I am sure it is recalled with affection by the 20,000 or so ageing hippies who were there and even if it's fame has spread no further than this I think it is enough to count as notable.

Delete - At this point the unwikified article has had 6 months. If no one wants to take responsibility for making this a verifiable encyclopedic article, can it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tractor, not only WP:IVEHEARDOFIT, but a band championed by John Peel and signed to his Dandelion Records label really ought to be not only notable but sourceable; that they apparently have an AMG entry is a good sign. That said, if it's a copyvio delete without prejudice to recreation. --kingboyk 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless citations are added. With the massive amount of articles on the Wikipedia, there really is no time for "keep to allow a chance to find citations" and similar arguments. See also TonytheTiger's argument. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we're all missing the point of Wikipedia. Sure, the article needs cleaning. And if I have to do it, I have to do it. But the argument "this band fulfills WP:MUSIC, there exist numerous verifiable sources, but there's too many articles on Wikipedia already so it might not get cleaned up" is not appropriate. If something deserves to be on Wikipedia, for God's sake, keep the article and clean it up. Rockstar915 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tractor is a real band. The article may need to be cleaned up but not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jembay (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep if citations added before end of AfD, otherwise Delete per WP:Music. If article is to be kept it needs a lot of work. A1octopus 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, it needs a lot of work. But, per WP:MUSIC (criteria #4), all the band has to do is release two albums on a major or notable indie, and Tractor's fulfills that aspect (see here). So I agree citations are needed for the improvement of the article -- and they will be added -- but are not for its keeping. As it stands, per WP:MUSIC, the article should be kept and then improved sans a time frame. Rockstar915 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs a cleanup. Is this any less notable than an article on single Southpark episode? (And I watch southpark too...) However the tags have been there awhile...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church[edit]

Non-notable church. Author effectively admits to it here. -- RHaworth 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says it all, link says more. --Dennisthe2 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dennisthe2 Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally support any article on a religion no matter how small, but a proposed religion is NN.DGG 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure it's proposed - it seems to have been around for a while. Perhaps they're being too humble? =^^= --Dennisthe2 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and author's admission. Maxamegalon2000 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. direct author to add when it has become notable! Rimmeraj 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now separately nominated their humanitarian branch, the Good Service Network. -- RHaworth 07:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Goetz[edit]

Non-notable actor. I can't find any information that asserts notability, or even if this article is true (see the original creator's warnings). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, likely hoax. --SubSeven 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, only ghits are myspace and utube videos as far as I can see. Agree with nom and Seicer. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I used a few other search engines to verify the Google search results and it's basically more of the same. Seed 2.0 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources were cited. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¡Tchkung![edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search on google doesn't turn up much more than blogs and a few reviews, along with a "future" home page as the first result. Must be a new act - and performing in Bumbershoot doesn't make you notable, it means you performed in Bumbershoot. Fun festival, but that's it. --Dennisthe2 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found this, but I doubt that counts for anything, as the publisher is too trivial. This is quite interesting, but too short. This may count for something, as may this. There is a nice big review here, and a nice article here. I reckon they are notable. J Milburn 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on J Milburn and in spite of the current state of the article. Make sure the article is tagged and remains so until it is cited with some of this stuff. Take it down in 6 months if it remains uncited thought. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just tagged it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Random band that had a couple of releases and a couple of gigs and then broke down. Name isn't even typable on an English-language keyboard. Does not appear to meet WP:NMG or WP:A. To Tony: there are too many articles on Wikipedia to give that amount of time to find sources; better to delete without prejudice to it being recreated if someone brings along some solid references. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that attitude is based on any policy. As I see it, you just said 'Yes, they are notable, but because this article isn't going to be featured any time soon, it should be deleted.' There are lots of articles on super-notable topics that are very badly cited. For instance, just before I came here, I was reading the Prague article. That is tagged as needing more sources. Using your attitude, we should delete it, and let it be recreated if someone will 'bring along some solid sources'. I am a massive believer in sources, and probably a deletionist, but what you are saying is pure madness. J Milburn 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a little worried about Stifle's familiarity with WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This band fulfills WP:MUSIC completely, per articles and #5 (referenced in those articles). I'm not even going to go into specifics, but I'll just stick to the general criteria: The Seattle Times articles: here and here. Those are just two of more than ten. The Oregonian has written numerous articles about the band too; I have access to them on LexisNexis. This band needs to be cleaned up, yes, but fulfills WP:MUSIC and should, therefore, be kept. Rockstar915 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per my research, it looks like this article is named incorrectly. It should probably either be "!Tchkung!" or simply "Tchkung!" Rockstar915 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. From what I can tell, this is a divisive fork. Arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping (the ones that discuss deleting the article and not just Uncle G's motivation for creating it, whatever that might be), despite the lengthy heated arguing between Uncle G, Skookum1, and others, who are all admonished to be civil in the future. The articles proposed for merging into this one are not affected by this AFD since they were not nominated. --Core desat 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language names for Chinese people[edit]

(not a vote)Original research, to classify ethnic slurs for Chinese. `'mikka 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Neutral~~ After a more careful reading I am not so sure about my initial impression about the article. `'mikka 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid topic. More encyclopedic than numerous separate slurs. `'mikka 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? So why not delete List of ethnic slurs and List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity? This is not an "encyclopedic" article, but one written to undermine other encyclopedia articles, and it was ONLY CREATED in order to try and force a merge on the Chinaman article, which is about a lot more than ethnic slurs. The pretense that it was created for ANY OTHER REASON is just that, pretense.Skookum1 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what? I was thinking about this, too. But I am sure they will be outvoted to stay, so I didn't bother to waste wikipedian's time. `'mikka 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly, and wasting wikipedians' time is what Uncle G has done with the creation of this "article" (it's really a tract).Skookum1 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bad-faith attempt at an article after the author's proposed merger bewtween 'chink' and 'chinaman' failed. This information is replicated elsewhere and is not needed in a new article.Zeus1234 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are duplicate articles, which I suggested be merged into one single article, this one, which I wrote to show that they can be merged, is precisely the point. You make my argument for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not duplicate articles, despite your ongoing pretense/bias that they are. The only duplicate article around here is THIS ONE which you've created and which duplicates material in various other articles; only filterecd through YOUR OWN particular agenda. When will you stop with your dissembling about duplicate articles and any other wheedle or misdirection or misrepresentation of reintrepation of other peoples' positions (like you just did with Hong's). As I've said before, it's people like you who give admins a bad name.....Skookum1 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If, as you have stated, this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink then the fact that this is a single article about a single subject demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. The fact that the articles can be merged doesn't automatically mean that they should be merged (let alone that they document "a single subject"). There was near-unanimous opposition to such a merger.
        It would be very easy to merge the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush articles into a single article entitled Presidents of the United States named George Bush, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that the two men are "a single subject." —David Levy 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a false analogy and a bogus argument. That two other completely different articles are not a single subject does not say anything at all about the articles actually at hand. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not claiming that it does. I'm refuting your argument that the ability to combine two articles into one automatically establishes the appropriateness of such a merger. —David Levy 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I didn't actually make that argument, your refutation is yet again the tearing down of a straw man. Once again: Those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged. We merge duplicate articles. The actual subject isn't a single word, as can be seen when one stops looking solely at dictionaries and starts looking at sources that aren't dictionaries to see what they cover. Uncle G 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only straw man is yours (because I didn't make the argument to which you responded above). You claimed that the fact that "this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink" "demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one." That's a 100% false statement. It certainly is possible that such a merger is appropriate (setting aside my opinion to the contrary), but the mere fact that you were able to duplicate much of the articles' content on a single page doesn't prove what you claim it does.
        Once again, I disagree with your assertion that Chink and Chinaman are "duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject." You're entitled to your opinion, but simply repeating it over and over (as though I didn't understand you the first dozen times) doesn't bolster your argument. —David Levy 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger is not necessary, since the artices are quite big and detailed, buit a general article makes sense as well, IMHO. Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classifying racial slurs as "English language names" is disingenuous; attempting to legitimize these words. — ERcheck (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Many of these names are already listed on List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. — ERcheck (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the words are legitimate. Read the article, which tells you exactly that, as do the cited sources. These words are not necessarily slurs, as both the article and the sources tell you. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the autonomy of articles like Chink and Chinaman and all the many other listed and linked on List of ethnic slurs is well-established. The implication of his argument re the Chinaman merger and his own highly Original research article is that ALL the items on List of ethnic slurs reduced to entries on his ethnic-specific page, and ALL those articles should be merged to parallel articles for other ethnicity slurs/names? Is there a WP essay on "reinventing the wheel"? If not, there should be (also one about putting down tirebelts, which is what this article and its "mergist" agenda is all about. He's not wanting this to be an encyclopedia, but a tract.Skookum1 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is Uncle G's attempt to circumvent overwhelming consensus to keep the chink and Chinaman articles separate. —David Levy 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's an attempt to boldly demonstrate to you by example that there is, as I said, one single subject here, not multiple ones. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which just goes to show how wrong you really are, as there are more than one subject here; you just don't want to admit to that, and yo're determined to censor anybody else who disputes your presumption/delusions about it.Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am judging the article by its merits. It serves no significant purpose other than to duplicate information already contained in other articles (thereby defying a clear consensus against combining them). The usual solution to the existence of a duplicate article is to merge its text somewhere, but there's nothing to merge. Therefore, the article should be deleted (IMHO). If I believed that it had actual value, I would set aside the creator's motive. —David Levy 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You argue that the article duplicates other articles. That is the point. As I've said all along, there's a single subject here, and Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged. That you are arguing that there's duplication simply makes my argument for me. That you think and assert that my motive is something other than what I've actually said it was all along, linking to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles numerous times and pointing out that these duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses all of these names (rather than having 22 individual articles all addressing the same topic but simply under different titles), is an error on your part — one that doesn't imply anything about me at all, incidentally. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1. I did not claim that your motive is anything other than what you actually said. Yes, you believe that Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged, and English language names for Chinese people is an attempt to do so. Others disagree, however, and overwhelmingly opposed such a merger. I wouldn't describe the creation of English language names for Chinese people as a bad-faith act, but it was a consensus-defying act.
        2. I could easily combine information about apples and oranges to create a new article called Fruits commonly referenced idiomatically. That doesn't mean that apples and oranges are "a single subject" and their articles should be merged. —David Levy 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Some ethnic/racial terms are definitely very much abused in English. These include Jews, Chinese, and African Americans, and these definitely require separate articles. I would only suggest to rename it into Terms for Chinese people in English (shorter & more neutral, to address one objection). Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your position opens the door for articles such as Terms for Italian people in English, Terms for Muslims in English, Terms for Irish people in English. And, last but not least, Terms for non-Chinese in Chinese ("English" doesn't work there for obvious reasons). Is Wikipedia really the right forum to list and popularize pages that largely serve to divide and hate-monger (remember Canadian slang before it was deleted?).Skookum1 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Powerful Delete with extra force authority. I am most offend, this list of disrespect curse word is poor. Dissemination and encouragement to use racist slur may be resulting. It not appropriate for encyclopedia, not positive for glory of Wikipedia Project. Allowance of this page existence potential to damage international cultural relation. Perhaps more appropriate in dictionary of rough talk or similar publication, not in Wikipedia Project.Wen Hsing 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't discourage or encourage anything. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bullshit. It was created ONLY to discourage the separate existence of the Chinaman[ article. Stop pretending otherwise, and go to Wikipedia and look up "disingenuous" and "coy".Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please maintain respectful talking. Please never discourage existence of Chinese persons, violent downstream resulting actions are prefer to be avoided.Wen Hsing 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, since you're so polite, I take back the "bullshit" but it's still a load of nonsense (to use polite terminology when other wording is far more appropriate....). The rest of my comment stands because this article DOES encourage, openly and overtly and intentionally, an attempt to derail the Chinaman page's direction. As for the rest of your comment, while I appreciate that English is a second language for you, you have just suggested that there will be violence resulting from this. Really? I'm sure you're not meaning it as a threat, but quite honestly I am brave enough to defend the truth in the face of violence, and if the "downstream effects" here are anyone's fault, it's Uncle G's for being disruptive and contrary and endlessly lecturing others on what he asserts are their faults while never admitting to his own. Consensus is not built by obfuscation, obstructionism, misdirection, and deceit.Skookum1 07:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I am involve confusion, I intend no threatening! I support your viewpoint generally, the conducts of disruptive user Uncle G is unlike the kind family member. I have objection to comment that Chinamen should not exist, some people who are easily bring to action may produce violent act against Chinese people to achieve reduction in Chinese existence, I strongly oppose such phenomenon.Wen Hsing 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is important that you understand that the word "Chinaman" does exist and is in extensive use by Asian North Americans and others of Asian origin as a self-identifier (see Bo Yang, Frank Chin, and I can provide various webrefs to artists/performers who use "Chinaman" as their nickname/public persona. It is also important that you understand that Chinaman is not as severe a derisive - when it's a derisive - than other much more inflammatory words, and also to understand that it was the standard English usage until the mid-20th Century (see the opening paragraph of Chinaman re Fowler's Dictionary of english Usage, 1954; the section just before it is the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology, 1966 and contains a listing of completely archaic English names for Chinese people (e.g. Chinnish, Chinensian, Chinesian, etc.) none of which were derisive but, apparently given time and resentment, any one of them could have become so in the way the originally-innocuous word "Chinaman" did. There are also other uses of the word which have nothing to do with Chinese people, but rather to do with trade/imports from China (the original usage was for a ship in the China trade, and following on that for a dealer in Chinese porcelain wards, aka "china"); the ship usage ended with the end of the Age of Sail and is mostly a 17th C. usage (when other words such as those in the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology were used instead of Chinese or Chinaman). And of those uses which devolve from the Chinese people context, three have nothing at all to do with people - (1) a type of porcelain figurine in imitation of Chinese art, featuring Chinese men, (2) a type of throw in cricket and (3) a term to refer to a mentor/backer of Indiana politicians, which is an honorific, denoting power and influence, a borrowing similar to the use of Mandarin for (especially high-ranking) bureaucrats in the UK and Britain. The existence of the Chinaman article is not going to provoke violence (other than verbal violence, or "procedural violence" like Uncle G's creation of this page and his deceptive and misdirecting comments on this AFD. It is a "mild" word, and most white people that use it do not so derisively, but because they do not consider it a derisive (these are mostly rural, but include people like Jerry Seinfeld); if so, it is used in a more or less jocular sense and not with vicious intent; "chink" on the other hand, is explicitly derisive and associateed with aggressive behavior - and document as such as you can see on the Chink article; this is also the case with the other forms in THIS article like "china boy" which Uncle G seems strangely eager to document. Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.Skookum1 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize for any misunderstand due to me, I find you also may be confuse, as I am fully in support of Chinamen existence- I am one! I was disturb to read people saying Chinamen should not be existing. I fear existing Chinamen (I being example) will be victimize. I do not advocate censorship, only refinement content to improve the qualities. This current article is defame to Chinese people. I support article such as 'Chink', or article about word 'Chinaman' with objectivity and analyse offensivenessWen Hsing 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them." i.e. their associated history/variations, as is also done with various other derisives as Dago and Wog and not least Gweilo (which I consider a violent derisive; it was used by Chinese mobs killing whites in the Boxer Rebellions in the same way that "chink" was used by modern-era mobs in the United States.....there is a pretense that Gweilo is no longer offensive, even though it was created to be an insult/derogation; while ironically Chinaman was not created to be an insult/derogation, but now is widely denounced as being derisive, some going to claim that it's always been derisive, which is just not the case. And some of those same people, in my experience, are also people who claim that (because they say so) Gweilo is not derisive, or is "misunderstood". I submit that a lot of the hostile/fearful attitudes towards "Chinaman" are also rooted in misunderstanding, and also in "branding" people with guilt when they had no intention of being offensive. I take offense at Gweilo, especially here in Vancouver where we know what it means, and get to hear it in its offensive usage/context. I know comparing the intensity of "Chinaman" to any other word is not that relevant to this AFD, but the irony is there nonetheless. I invite you to visit Talk:Chinaman and also read through some of the compiled historical references so that you can see the ways in which the word was not used derisively. Often, in fact complimentarily, and in notable cases such as the Letter of the Chinamen, an important historical declaration by the Chinese in San Francisco in 1852.Skookum1 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article was created by User:Uncle G because of his failed attempt to merge Chink and Chinaman, with the intention of creating this article so as to absorb thet Chinaman page and,theoretically, wipe its archived talk pages and accompany stacks of citations/resources which are unfriendly to his point of view. I added the "merge to ethnic slurs" as a rejoinder to that; if I'd known I could have started an AFD with a merge dicussion ongoing I would have done so. Again, delete delete delete, and I do agree with Wen Hsing that obsessing over these words only promotes knowledge and use of them in derogatory ways; but Chinaman has many non-derogatory contexts and also non-ethnic meanings and an article on it has no place being merged with an article about what is overtly a slur, or as re this page merged into an article (as Uncle G wanted) that is really only a list of slurs and ethnonyms with no other context than Uncle G's original writing trying to tie them all together/comparing them (which considering he chastised "us" for original research re: Chinaman seems hypocritical in the extreme....but that's nothing new, either).Skookum1 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It didn't fail. This is a part of the same discussion. It's an existence proof that there's a single subject here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It DID fail, as anyone reading the Talk:Chinaman page can see; it was when it failed that Uncle G started THIS article and foisted a merge template in place of the merge|Chink he'd originally invaded the page with (in the middle of the edit war, as most inopportunely noted by User:Xiner who had placed a block on the Chinaman page. It got shot down; now, like so much else, he's pretending that that's not reality, that the extensive arguments against the Chink merger weren't shot down in flames as they really were.Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. This article is part of that same discussion, demonstrating my argument that there's one single subject here. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article made me laugh so hard i almost soiled my lederhosen. Which should not happen while reading Wikipedia. At least I have some new words to try out on my chink employees!Jörg Vogt 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is - Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Also see WP:Lederhosen. Jörg Vogt 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be suggesting that analysis sourced from secondary source books is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. You'll find that that quite the contrary is the case, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Rather, it is original lexicographic analyses performed by Wikipedia editors directly that is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, as per our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policies. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No that's not what I am saying at all. Please do not divert discussion towards such semantics. Consider my lederhosen.Jörg Vogt 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Our policies and guidelines, and how they apply, is exactly what we should be discussing here at AFD. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Maybe you shouldn't be wearing your lederhosen when working on Wikipedia, then? :-).Skookum1 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete - This kind of divisive drivel has no place on Wikipedia. Some of the terms already have/are developing quite thorough articles on their various usages. This is duplication in addition to divisive drivel-- A one-stop list of derision here, when more thoughtful articles are already out there, serves no purpose.--Keefer4 | Talk 04:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is those articles that are the duplication. They should be merged. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, by you and you alone. But why is it your argument doesn't make any sense to anyone else?Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will try to decipher your argument, UncleG, since it hasn't been made clear anywhere that I can see. You apparently believe that the terms Chink and Chinaman are synonymous and should be housed within the same article, and this has now extended to what is deemed "English words for Chinese people". Please, nobody accuse me of misrepresenting, I am just trying to sort things out. So, by making this point, UncleG seems to imply that the histories and usages of these words mean, and have always meant, precisely the same thing. The problem is that there is marked disagreement at the Talk:Chinaman page and article itself on this point. Additionally, there are already ethnic slur pages, which represent modern and historical slurs towards various ethnicities. Why duplicate it? One could counter that there is room here at this article for additional notes on the terms, however, some of these already have articles which will allow for this. A sort of halfway between a list and specific word article isn't needed on this topic. Why should it be? Finally, I'm not going to argue anyone's opinion on whether a precedent should be set for articles of what certain language speakers call certain ethnicities, if one believes it's a sound precedent than I guess one approves of this article. I just don't think it is, that's all.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made it clear right from the start. No deciphering is needed. Once again, just as clearly stated right at the start: The articles are duplicate articles that address what is actually one single subject — a subject that has a wider scope than just one individual word. We merge duplicate articles. We don't have separate articles on the same subject under different titles. I pointed to the sources right at the start to show that the sources treat this subject as one single subject, too. Not a single editor has actually discussed what is written in the sources that I've cited, so far.
        That there are other things denoted by the word "Chinaman" is entirely a red herring. No-one has suggested merging all of those other articles listed at Chinaman (disambiguation), only the article that has the "X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it." form, of which we have several, all addressing the same single subject in exactly the same way, with the only difference being the article titles.
        You ask "Why duplicate it?". Given that I'm the one saying that the duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses this one single subject, that question should be posed to others, not me. So I pose that question right back at you: Why are you arguing for having a whole raft of duplicate articles (which at last count would end up with 22 articles addressing exactly the same single subject, in exactly the same "X is a name for a Chinese person" form) instead of one single article for one single subject? You also state that "We have ethnic slur pages.". I suggest that you read the article and the sources, because they both tell you that these are not solely ethnic slurs. Treating them solely as ethnic slurs is wrong.
        Treating them as lists of words is wrong, too. The sources address this as one single subject, don't treat it from the single viewpoint that these are ethnic slurs, and don't treat the individual words seperately from one another. Please do as encyclopaedists are supposed to do and base your arguments upon what the sources say.
        And please, as I've asked repeatedly, start looking at sources other than dictionaries. Building articles solely from long lists of dictionaries, as those individual duplicate articles are being built, can logically (unless one performs the sort of original research that editors are performing) yield nothing except a whole set of dictionary articles. You have at least three history books cited as references in this article. That should be a big clue as to the sort of source that editors should be looking for. Such non-dictionary sources, you will find, don't divide this single subject up. That is, in part, because they are not dictionaries that give individual articles to individual words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, too. We merge duplicate articles that are about the same single subject, that differ solely in the titles used. This article is a demonstration of what the single subject is, of what sources there are, and of how many individual words it covers, in part to show those editors, who claimed that there wasn't a single subject here solely on the erroneous basis that "the words are different", that there was, and that if they actually went and looked at some actual sources, instead of performing lexicography in the wrong project, they would see what it was. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What is becoming clear is that UncleG's POV is simply the deletion of the Chinaman article, which is not to due to any duplication concerns. This assertion is backed up by what he has said here and at Talk:Chinaman and the several merge proposals that he has made. What is also clear is that he is convincing some of the legitimacy of selectively citing sources while summarily dismissing dictionary definitions and contemporary usages. The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings, as well as, in some cases, contradict them. He uses words like lexicographic to dismiss citing any usage of dictionaries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but nor should it explicitly derogate usages of words as documented in dictionaries or in contemporary culture to assist in the building of an encyclopedic article. By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position. The funny thing is that, in saying this, I have not and will never attempt to bestow that burden upon him in a reverse manner. His sources are fine, I have never attacked them on their merits, despite his defensiveness on the subject, and I have no personal qualms or vendettas with the way that anyone interprets the term from their particular POV. But his selectively picking apart and narrowing these terms to his own liking and POV, through the above means should be seen for what it is. I am really not trying to misrepresent anyone's arguments or to push/incorporate any particular POV into the articles themselves. This is just my take on what is transpiring here, there is very little you have demonstrated in words or actions to convince otherwise. Fortunately it seems most can see this, so I don't see a point in making further response to your inevitable next retort. --Keefer4 | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That paragraph is almost wholly erroneous. Taking just two examples: Merger is not deletion; it is the former that has been proposed, not the latter. And both "The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings." and "By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position." are quite clearly directly contradicted by the very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages of the various names, citing sources for such analysis. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not like anyone would have expected your agreement with my analysis, but it's good to hear some of it met with your approval, just as some of the article met with mine. You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms: "very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages", which I think is a step forward. The bottom line here: I think the article sets a poor and un-needed classification precedent (How XXX Language speakers refer to XXX ethnicity), "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.", and selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references in constructing an encyclopedic article in words here and actions elsewhere, just isn't very tasteful. I don't want to belabour the differences we have. We see things differently with respect to the article's merits and that's all. It's been a good discussion.--Keefer4 | Talk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms — That's not what the text that you quoted said at all. If you have read it that way, then you have mis-read it. Please read it again, in the context of the original erroneous argument that you made above, which it refutes. As for "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.": The argument that people that one disagrees with are censors is a propaganda technique that the Institute for Propaganda Analysis classifies as name-calling. And, finally, if you think that "selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references" is what people have been arguing in favour of, then you haven't actually read their arguments at all, or at least have mis-read them as badly as you mis-read what I wrote above. The problem here is original research, with editors constructing their own theses based upon firsthand analysis of raw quotations. Uncle G 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize if you interpret anything I disagree with you on, as a name-calling or a personal attack. It is never and will never be intended as such. Raising censorship concerns (which I am actually quoting from another editor on this page) is not name calling, although I suppose anything could be considered name-calling if one hunts for a source that says it is. Again, the fact that you now differentiate between the terms by virtue of their historical/derogatory usages, as you allude to above with your referencees in the article (I appreciate you pointing me to those passages in the article which I overlooked-- my opinions are not static and stubborn), clearly means that they are not synonymous. And certainly I think it prudent to substantiate allegations of original research with examples of how they have been incorporated into the articles at hand. On the merits/precedent of this we disagree, but hey that's why this discussion page exists. Have a good one.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhile the article does seem to be very negatively focused, perhaps some NPOV cleanup as well as making it a more historically based article could make it more acceptable, although I am not personally sure of how this may be done. Maybe more of a history of slurs, but that still seems very negatively focused. I think there is a lot of good information here, just portrayed under a very negative light. Flipping sides again, we can not hide from the negative things, and the only way to stop them from occurring is to educate others upon the issue. I'm not sure where I stand exactly, but I really feel there is a use for this information somewhere. Redian (Talk) 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are already detailed articles for Chink and Chinaman (well, with chinaman we've been too busy fighting obstructionists like Uncle G to expand it properly, so for now it's even more negative than this one, partly because of a block caused by his and other hostile-editors warring against the page) and there doesn't seem to be a call for the others, unless Chinee perhaps in the same vein as Spic and Dago. Uncle G created this article because he didn't like the direction the Chinaman article is going, and that's all there is to why this article exists; it has no reason to exist except as a way to screw with a debate on an existing (and valid) article and derail its pending content because he doesn't like what that content is going to be.Skookum1 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this article serves no purpose, therefore it is unencyclopedic. How many people will be looking for this on Wikipedia? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, cats are evidence that there are some things in nature that serve no purpose. You do raise a good arg though on the search factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cats kill small birds and other animals, therefore keeping their numbers in balance. Every animal is an integral part of Earth's ecosystem. Also, nature is free to have things that serve no purpose (even if it doesn't, it's free to), as it's not an encyclopaedia. We on the other hand are. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article offers some interesting information, however is written most likely in bad faith and the information is already contained in other articles. Apart from this, the title is very misleading in my opinion. Poeloq 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but keep Chink etc etc with "see also" links between the various slurs, as long as they're watched carefully for NPOV. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not bad faith. Nor is it original research. This is a good faith demonstration, by example, of the merger that I suggested at Talk:Chinaman. This is what Chink and Chinaman should all be merged into, because they are all duplicate articles that are addressing the same subject under different titles. (Note that all of the individual articles are of the exact same form: "X is a word for a Chinese person. Sometimes it is pejorative. Sometimes it isn't. People disagree. Here's a laundry list of incidents where people have got into hot water for using this word.")
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but unfortunately several editors are doing lexicography here, as can be seen at Talk:Chinaman/Skookum1's sources where editors are collecting a corpus of quotations that contain certain words, and then performing their own firsthand analyses of these words and what people may have meant when they wrote them. That's lexicography, and is exactly the sort of work that belongs in Wiktionary, where it is welcome.
A proper encyclopaedia article, in contrast, should have sourced analyses, not analyses done by Wikipedia editors directly, and this one does. Hence the reason that it isn't original research. You'll find, for example, the analysis given in the article that "chink" has been used as an "innocent slang term", on the very page of the source that is cited for it. This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected. It's a summary of the analyses by Mencken, Lewis, Isaccs, Tchen and the others whose writings discussing this subject are cited in the article.
(Notice also from the talk page discussions, and the discussions above, that the main aim of this mis-placed lexicography is to contradict what the secondary sources actually say, because editors disagree with what the sources say and want their own analyses to be reflected in Wikipedia. Zeus1234, for example, asserts that these words are all slurs, even though we have a cited source, Lewis, documenting the fact that they have been used without intent to slur by some people. Ironically, it is that promulgation of a single view, and not this article, which states right from the start that there's more than one opinion to be had, and presents several of them, that would be non-neutral.)
It's not even original research in terms of being a novel synthesis or presentation. Ironically, the novel synthesis and presentation is exactly what those who want to do lexicography in the encyclopaedia are creating. If one looks at the actual sources that discuss this subject, rather than trying to do one's own primary research from quotations, one finds that they don't discuss these words individually. They discuss them en bloc. Lewis discusses "Chinaman", "Chinee", and "chink" in the same breath, for example. Tchen discusses "John Chinaman", "chink", "heathen Chinee", "mandarin", and "celestial" all together, for another example.
These are not separate subjects, and should not be dealt with piecemeal, with editors doing original lexicographic research in the wrong project, in individual articles. The way to deal with them is to use sources, who have already done the analyses, and to deal with the single subject, that the sources themselves address as a single whole, in a single article — i.e. exactly as here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How typical of Uncle G to say something like "This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected." complain (elsewhere) about my writing 5000 word essays in the course of refuting his various inanities. But more to the point, he's claiming that the materials compiled on the resources sandbox he would so dearly like to have deleted are "a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1" which is entirely a misrepresentation of the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling. There is no analysis on the compiled resources - a comment here or there, a speculation but always noted as such and not meant for article use (it's not as if we haven't been subjected to Uncle G's "analyses" - not the least of which on the article overleaf) - but rather just a huge index of tons and tons of weblinks to dictionary definitions, literary and government usages, and more examples of sages of Chinaman which Uncle G and certain others at Talk:Chinaman were in open denial about. No - not open denial at all; open accsation, open hysterics, and lots and lots of posturing like the grandstanding just above. THIS article is Uncle G's "collection of firsthand analyses" of materials he's carefully selected; the materials I and others compiled about Chinaman were come up with because we were accused of not having proof that non-offensive usage of Chinmaman ever existed. In actuality, the non-offensive uses are more commmon historically but because of the edit war and obstructionism (including this "red herring war") these realities have not yet been added to the article as we (meaning myself and other editors actually trying to work on the article, instead of war on it.....), and continue today in use by Asian-American/Canadian authors who use it not as a derisive but as a summation of the Chinese archetype (Bo Yang), or of the historical experience /identity of being a North American Chinese (Frank Chin) But all that Uncle G has wanted is a focus on the 1990s and afterwards denuncations by politically-correct ideologues, and held hard to the idea that Chink and Chinaman should be merged "because they're the same thing". Failing the Chink merger he wrote this article - a "collection of his analyses" - and presumes now to complain it's encyclopedic while undermining the encyclopedic content and the discussion surrounding it elsewhere - and as soon as writing it he nailed the merge template on Chinaman (I checked, there were only six edits at the time of "nailing"). The curious part, considering his pretention to being on the moral high ground, is that he didn't bother to place the template on THIS page (I did once I noticed he'd decided it was unnecessary). That's just sloppy on his part I suppose, but he's full of such sloppiness (there was no merge template on Chink either, not one for Chinaman, but rather for Chinky). I'm not going to bother (like he does) hunting down his various wild allegations and crazy "logic" - all just puff-n-stuff posturing like what's above - but maybe another admin than him around here might opine on how ethical it is to create an article only with the intent of forcing another article to merge with it because you'd failed in efforts to control the other article. It's obviously not ethical, it's obviouly an insult to the work of other editors (in so many ways; what I compiled were not "analyses" but RESOURCES which he wants to maintain don't exist, or are as he's said "irrelevant". They're not; he only wants them to be, and he wants to silence the debate by "leading" his own article into the fray. And then turn around and accuse US of being "incivil". As if he wasn't. At least we're logical and not trying to hide truth or undermine the collective work of other editors. And we're not even admins, and he is...."A single article, exactly as it is here" is his position, and it's a LIE and a MISREPRESENTATION and entirely deceptive as to his motive/purpose in creating this page, which was for one reason only - to try and force a merge when he couldn't get his way. For the SECOND TIME.Skookum1 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty much that whole paragraph is erroneous. I'll pick just two of the many examples: You didn't create the list of quotations in response to anything by me, since in fact its creation pre-dates my addition of the merger suggestion. And the only mention of "irrelevant" by anyone in the talk page discussions is yours, here, where you made the same statement about HongQiGong there as you have done about me here. In fact, neither of your statements is true. As you've been asked to do before, at least twice, please stop inventing arguments and attributing them to other editors, and please adhere to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Assume good faith is what you did NOT do in your interventions on Talk:Chinaman and in your various edit-attacks on the article. And it's also what you were not operating on when you created this article. As for "inventing arguments" that's your bailiwick, boyo, not anybody else's, just like you invented this article because you failed to win the arguments you brought to Talk:Chinaman. And I did not specify it was YOU who was the reason why the resources were compiled, and don't misrepresent me further in claiming that I did (but you have a habit of misrepresnenting things said by nearly anybody else, it seems....). Your use of "our" before citing the Wikipedia essay on what you yourself don't have indicates your proprietary attitude towards Wikipedia that's throughout your pretension on this page, and in your creation of this article. Assume good faith is clearly missing in all your own arguments, inclding your many attacks on my arguments using TWISTED versions of what I said, or what you CLAIM I said. See below for me turning your own words back on you (as before so often).Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling". Once again: Please stop. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How very typical of you to post a link that doesn't go to what you've titled it......deception and misdirection from you we're getting use to, those of us who know your negative and interferential track record at Talk:Chinaman. To other editors/readers: The actual link to the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled is HERE, not where Uncle G wants to send you, which is to another passage on THIS page (which everyone has already read, Uncle G, and don't need your help). The REAL link that should be there is what you hate and want to have wiped off the record; but it's all web references, all out there in the public eye, despite your one-sided attempts to pick and choose evidence which suits your one-note agenda. It should also be noted that I didn't title that page "Skookum1's Resources", that was done by User:Xiner and IMO should have had a less personal sandbox name because other editors contributed to its contents, even before Xiner created it in order to move the mounting evidence against the case being foisted by Uncle G et al.Skookum1 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Skookum, I can't believe you actually accused others of "open hysterics". Have you taken a step back and actually read the volumes of ranting you're written in various Talk pages? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your calling my writings "rants" is a demonstration of those very hysterics and the typical misrepresentations/accusations that went along with them and is in fact one of those covert personal attacks you seem to specialize in, but let's not make this arena for our own particular views of each other, OK? I do think your position is based in hysterics, although not as much as Uncle G, and I wasn't so much referring to you as him and 4.x and the other useless interlopers on Talk:Chinaman. But if the shoe fits, wear it (mine are 15Ds....).Skookum1 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in serious need of your own blog, my friend. My "position" is only based on facts. You, on the other hand, have a tendency to declare how bored you are with an article and then proceed to write a two-thousand word comment on the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give it a rest, Hong. Your position is not based on facts, rather on the denial of them and you have consistently evaded and misdirected questions as well as data/references that you just happen not to like and claim are "irrelevant". And attacks on my writing style, which happens to be very prolix, is just more stock-in-trade of your penchant for "covert personal attacks" which is one of your stock ways of avoiding questions and/or avoiding issues/evidence that disagree with your own prejudices, and you DO have prejudices. Claiming I'm bored with an article when I obviously feel strong enough to write at length about the issues facing it is just yet another patronizing dismissal like so many before, all written to avoid answering the questions and issues raised by your own comments.Skookum1 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Xanga accounts are free. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only more passive-aggressive-cum-patronizing comments that I should go elsewhere. Why don't YOU, Hong?Skookum1 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Uncle G seems to have forgotten that Chink can be used to refer to anyone of East Asian descent, and not just Chinese people. This makes it an innapropriate inclusion in this article, and make it quite different than 'chinaman.' read the 'chink' article for sources on this.Zeus1234 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain here. It is interesting, and provides some background information on the names, and seems encyclopedic, but I'm not entirely sure if it fits here or at Wiktionary (Uncle G raises a good point above) - the latter owing to the lexiography factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is what the article Chinese people is for, if we ever get around to expanding it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The emboldened word says "delete", but your actual rationale says "keep and merge". Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you are misrepresenting what Hong is saying too; here's your own words to eat, I suggest with an nice bitter chili sauce: "As you've been asked to do before, at least twice, please stop inventing arguments and attributing them to other editors, and please adhere to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive." (quoted from above). Hong chose to vote "delete". He did not vote to "keep and merge" - although you'd certainly like him to.Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - HongQiGong's stated rationale is that the content belongs in Chinese people. That's a rationale for keeping and merging. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're not really capable of letting Hong speak for himself, are you? The equation Chinese people=Chinaman is also spurious, and was also shot down on Talk:Chinaman, just as also your attempt to equate chink=chinaman, which led to your creation of this article.Skookum1 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is saying chink=chinaman except you. —Cryptic 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you haven't been paying attention; that's EXACTLY what Uncle G tried to maintain on Talk:Chinaman; that we shot him down is why he created this article, which is (now that I know the term) very obviously a POV fork.Skookum1 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear duplication of List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent]. Xiner (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent Wiktionary material. Delete all three articles, as I presume Uncle G's already transwikied this and the salvageable bits of Chink and Chinaman. Keep this one only and merge the others into it as a distant second choice: encyclopedias don't describe specific words; the closest they come is describing concepts, and there's only one concept here to describe, ergo one article. —Cryptic 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? And how would the cricket throw usage, the figurine usage, and the Indiana politician usage of Chinaman it into any of this? How would chinaman's original meaning as a ship in the china trade, or (devolving from that) a dealer in porcelain/china (cf. http://www.thechinaman.co.uk) - how would this fit into your scheme of things? How could all the titles in modern writings (Bo Yang, Frank Chin) fit into Wiktionary, or profiles of the rapper who calls himself Chinaman, or the comedian who calls himself The Chinaman???? S All this belopngs in a Wiktionary definition, which no doubt will be subject to edit warring by Uncle G there as well????Skookum1 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't fit into a merged article. That's ok, though, because they don't fit into a separate article at Chinaman, either, and in fact aren't in it at present. We deal with the situation by including a link to Chinaman (disambiguation) via ((redirect|Chinaman)). The only place where different concepts represented by the same word should be on the same page is on Wiktionary. —Cryptic 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really??. Seems to me I've seen a gross or more of disambiguation pages which "represent different concepts represented by the same word", and it's point of fact that the disambiguation page got created/designated as such because of the dispute (before Uncle G came along) about the original Chinaman article; there's a case to be made, because of the necessary content discussing the word's history that the disambig and main page should be one and the same, but that's a separate merge discussion and not quite relevant here (and I haven't field it yet, until now). Point is not so long ago there was only one Chinaman page; the variability in itsmeanings and contexts are why the disambig got split off (although it took a while for it to get the "(disambiguation)" part of its title, as the split-off Chinaman article from it had its own paranthetical qualifier ("racial term", which was not correct and got ditched also). That a word can evolve away from its original meaning/context into something as obscure as, oh cricket and Indiana politics, is in itself of encyclopedic (not dictionary) interest. And in point of fact while they look the same, "chinaman" and "chinaman" are two different words, no kidding, if you break down the syntax between the china trade/dealer meaning and the ethnic meaning (from which all other usages derive, e.g. the Politician and the cricket pitch) the one's syntactical frame is "China + man" (where "man" equals either a ship or a merchant) or "Chinese + man"; sure, they're "identical words" but their meanings and origins are so opposite/apposite that there's encyclopedic content right there that goes way outside the bounds of what can be represented in Wiktionary. And AFAIC moving all three to Wiktionary is just another way of censoring Wikipedia that mergists and ideologues are trying to do all over the place. Tell ya what - why don't we merge the whole damn thing (Wikipedia) into Wiktionary?Skookum1 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you truly think that disambiguation pages should be part of their primary articles, then you clearly have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored. —Cryptic 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "I have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored"???? You've just played your agenda, which is already clearly stated as mergist/deletionist, but saying I should be ignored because I dispute your definition of what disambig pages are for? Hmmmm - why not just have me shot instead?Skookum1 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as it's referenced and is a clearly appropriate merge target for chink and chinaman; whether it then proves suitable for onward merging won't really be clear until that's done. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment immediately above (made at the same time you were making yours) about the other non-ethnic usages of Chinaman, and also about performers and others who use it in the modern era as a self-identifier.Skookum1 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read many comments here, and am more than ever convinced that we should use this title to amalgamate all these closely-related articles. I see a lot of passionate argument, and a lot of calmness from Uncle G (which is normal for Uncle G, he is very good at this kind of thing) and others advocating retention. We need to collect all the information in one place, sort it, weight it, and then decide if that's the best title. Of the various articles, this is the most neutral and the most comprehensive. It's not a tough call, in my view. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad-faith attempt by Uncle G to get around previous deletions. Realkyhick 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article has no merits that are not already contained in other articles. This is a "bad faith" article, period.Skookum1 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no previous deletions involved here at all, as you can see by looking at the deletion log, so this is hardly an attempt to get around any, of whatever faith. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a POV fork. Author's intentions do indeed play a part in the deletion:

“

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus.

”

falsedef 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no a POV fork. You don't have another article on thye same topic, "Ethnic slurs for Chinese people". You have only separate article for each slur. An overview of the multitude of terms is an independent topic, and is not new in published research. `'mikka 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about?? There's already, as noted above, List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. There are lots of separate-slur articles for all ethnicities, don't pretend there aren't.Skookum1 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And would you like the date stamps for (a) Uncle G's last edit prior to the merge at Talk:Chinaman or its article, (b) the inception of this article and (c) the posting of the merge template on Chinaman??? I shouldn't have to dig them out for you, as they're clear as day and you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Falsedef is TOTALLY RIGHT concerning the passage he's just quoted about "POV forks" - I didn't know that term before but that's EXACTLY what this article is, and EXACTLY what Uncle G did. Give your head a shake if you can't see that.Skookum1 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a dynamite afterparty. I'm gonna hand out chill pills and vote Keep on this one; I don't see what's invalid or POV about it at all. JuJube 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from distribute the "chill pill" (slang words euphemise harmful poison). Legal repercussion will result.203.27.90.236 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've just made a legal threat, which perhaps accounts for your hiding behind an IP address. This is a blockworthy offense, more than most.....for the record this IP address traces to the Australian Capital Territory.Skookum1 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And PS - I don't think you know the context that JuJube was making; it wasn't a reference to libel chill; a chill pill is sort of a tranquilizer, and not "slang words euphemize harmful poison". A chill pill is a tranquilizer, not a poison. Lies and misdirection are what's poison.Skookum1 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the 'reference to legal repercussion' comment was more like a 'Hey dont give ppl drugs, you might get arrested dude' than an 'I'm gonna sue you bitch' comment. Though its hard to tell, I wish there was a minimum english proficiency requirement for Wikipedia Jörg Vogt 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would exclude about half the native English speakers in the world ;-). At least.Skookum1 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting that there's no article on libel chill....I suppose it must be in Wiktionary, but it seems eminently suitable as an article topic, no?Skookum1 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, I don't even know what "libel chill" is. Some of you really do need to take chill pills. Then I'll throw down a facedown, and that'll be it! ^_^ JuJube 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please open your eyes, and your mind, and have a read (esp. Uncle G's posts/edits) on Talk:Chinaman and the related disambig's talkpage (not sure ifh he's there as there was bait-and-switch between the two pages, as the disambig page had originally been the plain-name Chinaman page).Skookum1 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Skookum1, please stop at once this quite long and boring personal attack, for which you may be blocked. The louder you shout, the less people are listening to you. If you have something agains user UncleG, please there are the corresponding administrative pages for personsl dispute resolution. A wikipedia article must be judged by its resulting merits, not by discussions in talk pages. Mukadderat 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request' I would like to ask an admin who happen to see this page to start deleting all texts that are irrelevant to the merits of the current article: history of creation, editors intentions, etc. are irrelevant to the basic principles of wikipedia: verifiability, notability, citing sources and no original research. Mukadderat 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Skookum is saying is totally relevant so that people can establish that this article is indeed a POV fork. This may not be obvious until, as Skookum suggested, you look at the corresponding talk pages and edit histories.Zeus1234 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that only about 10% to 20% of each of Skookum's comments are relevant. He usually has a point, but it's all hidden in between comments about how people who disagree with him are prone to hysterics and are generally hiding some evil ulterior motives which he always sees through, or comments about how he's missing the sunshine outside and how he's bored with editing an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speaking of soft-pedal attacks - Hong is always claiming (like Uncle G) that my posts are irrelevant, but that's only because they don't want to see the relevance (other editors do). As for the weather remark, that was to a friendly editor who'd asked me to do something, but I'd been dealing with the inanities of this page for hours and needed a break - and if you lived in the rainiest major city in the world that just came through the rainiest, gloomiest March in history, you'd want to have gone out in the sunshine too.Skookum1 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the above is a perfect example of what I mean. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And your response here is a typical example of your sniping; say something about someone, then when they defend themselves or explain to others why the snipe is just a snipe, attack them for defending themselves...Skookum1 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And as another editor here reminded me via email, those who dwell on attacks on your writing style are people who have nothing valid to say, so resort to writing style-attacks because it's all they can come up with to throw mud in the water further.....Skookum1 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Deletion of posts on an AFD? Now that's unprecedented. And that I have to point at Uncle G's motives and behaviour in order to explain why this page is a piece of redundant twaddle is entirely because this page is entirely a creation of Uncle G and no one else. But why is it that YOU, Mukadderat, are attacking what you claim is a "long and boring personal attack" when Uncle G's (and HQG's) ongoing attacks on my writing style, my personality, and more, go unchallenged. It seems to me you've taken one side while ignoring the other. But I'm learning pretty rapidly in Wikipedia that people who don't want to see what they don't want to see will claim it's not there, and what they want to see they wilol, if necessary, invent - or grossly distort. I have been subjected to repeated attacks on this page, many of them "soft-pedalled" but still attacks, and you haven't had a problem with that. One-sided persecuttion combined with active censorship is what yo'ure asking an admin to do. All very ironic because the whole issue with the article this one was created to eradicate is focussed around censorship and manipulation and ethnoparanoiac hype.Skookum1 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Furthermore, my critiques of Uncle G on this page have to do with his conduct here as much as anywhere else, such as his circular and tautological arguments about duplicate articles as rejoindered by David Levy (apples, oranges, and fruits referenced together), and the many, many times he's misled the community on this page with assertions either about articles or about the contexts of arguments, or in a glaring case of misdirection above, labelling a link with something that's not what the link indicates. Smug, sniping comments abound from Uncle G on this page; but I'm not asking an admin to censor them because they're "boring" (and they are). But you want Wikipedia to censor debate, just as Uncle G wanted to censor an article and, failing that, created another to suit his tastes. It's that article that should be deleted, not any of my posts discussing why, or defending myself against Uncle G's puerile sniping and ongoing deceptions and misrepresentations on THIS page; that reference is necessarily made to the Chinaman article and its talkpage is because it was in THAT arena that Uncle G didn't get his way and so "came over here" and made his own sandbox. "It's my shovel and bucket and you can't play!". And from his little sandbox, he throws sand at anyone trying to come in and fix it (or, because it's in the wrong location and doesn't have proper zoning, tear it down).Skookum1 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fairly well written and well referenced. And the endless personal attacks on User:Uncle G are not very complelling reasons for deletion. Edison 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going with Keep here, despite my abstention above. In review of the...well, I can't call it a debate any longer. But at any rate, in review of the above, the only reasons that would compel deletion are, as near as I can tell, personal attacks against Uncle G. To echo Edison, above, that isn't very compelling, and in fact flies in the face of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - and then slaps both in the face hard and repeatedly with about four reams of paper. But, that statement aside, while we still have a dicdef problem, we have a more compelling reason to keep: the fact that it provides a fairly comprehensive etymology against these terms that can be fleshed out. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion, but I hope that you aren't implying that I've engaged in personal attacks. —David Levy 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likewise.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, you guys are being quite civil. =^_^= I guess I just dissent from the other consensus, if not indirectly. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And your are being misled if you think the etymologies here are comprehensive. They are anything BUT and have been chosen and written out by Uncle G with a decidedly POV tone (such as his interpretation of the reason/effect of song titles, which I just deleted as being obviosly POV and OR as well. The comprehensive ethmology for Chinaman can be on that page, for Chink on that page, just like Gweilo has its etymology and isn't submerged into the ethnic slurs page (but perhaps it should be, as it's not even an English word....). The selective picking of evidence here, with stuff that Uncle G doesn't like being branded "irrelevant" or just ignored (as with all the evidence he ignores/castigates at Talk:Chinaman....and actually he rarely attacks the evidence, as he rarely answers to evidence but instead starts complaining about the way other people write; which is the tactic of somebody who has nothing valid to say, enit? And don't pretend that only Uncle G has been criticized (not attacked); how can you not see the various defamtory attempts of his on this page, and also his misrepresentation of what others are saying (whether it's me, David Levy, Keefer4, or anyone else). This article continues to be his own tub-thump about what he sees as linguistic prejudice; but he's unwilling to examine his own. And THAT is inherently POV.Skookum1 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Shut up, Skookum1. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I'd imagine you'd like me to "stop" confronting people with the truth that they are so ardently in denial of. See WP:Civil.Skookum1 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only "truth" I see you confronting people with is that you are making personal attacks. Perhaps you, too, should read WP:CIVIL, because it's self-evident by your own actions that you've forgotten how to behave that way. At any rate, I am going to agree to disagree with you, and end my participation in this with my signature. If you like, you can even have the last word! --Dennisthe2 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. very negative tone. Seems to inspire bizzarely fanatical debate.Aleksi Peltola 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if necessary merge into a ethnic slurs page.: What a mess. Big POV problem. Inspires hateful discussions. Unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. No legitimate reason for deletion. Not OR.Biophys 02:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is OR, and is also a POV fork, which is worse. How OR it is can be seen by the material placed by Uncle I which I deleted as being obvious editorializing/interpretation, albeit using carefully selected cites.Skookum1 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why Chink, Chinaman and this article can't coexist. The latter seems to be a reasonable overview summary with potential to bring a big-picture perspective. However, I see value to the two other articles giving detail not appropriate in the summary article. In a paperless environment why worry about some minor redundancy. The beauty of WP is the ability to cross reference. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that there is a lot of heat and little light being generated by personal attacks on writers. Uncle G is persistent in supporting his position, but he is a well respected and prolific contributor to WP, who should receive at minimum the common courtesy due to us all. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G supports his position by misrepresenting it, misrepresenting the contents of other articles, misrepresenting the contexts of the other articles, misrepresenting the comments even of the oth3er participants of this page (and I don't mean myself; and David Levy is not alone in rejoindering him for presuming to mirepresent his posts), and misrepresenting the nature of the resources; and misrepresenting even a link, so as to make a personal attack rather than to actually feed that linhk to what it was titled as. He invokes Wiki principles while outreageously violating them. Such behaviour is not "common courtesy" and he's not the only one here with copious contributions to Wikipedia. Just because he's obtinate in his deceptions and misdirection and posturing doesn't mean he's being persistent in any kind of admirable way; he's persistently misrepresenting people, misrepresenting the words that are the focus of the debate, and even citing Wiki guidelines while actively editing them to suit his position. I can't believe you other people who've been sucked in by him. No, actally I can, unfortunately.Skookum1 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's quite "cute" that in his just-recent edit, he calls David Levy's response "bogus" and then elsewhere talks about how "our Wiki guidelines and principles", as if he were the spokesman for Wikipedia, and he consistently uses "we" and "our" around here in a way no one else does; and in this case it's again really UGLY for him to say "our Wiki guidelines" when, in the course of citing one recently, he went over to WP:NOTE and changed it so it would fit his cite (and postscript, as I just looked at WP:NOTE how curious that another POV-flavoured edit was just made by Kevin Murray, similar to Uncle G's, and is another case in point of people obsessing over guidelines and principles while actively editing them. That's called moving the goalposts in mid-game, baby. That's meddling, it's dishonest, and it's typical; he's made edits on pages/talkpages in question that have nothing to do with the deceptive edit comments that accompany them with him. He's a wheedler and dissembler and also a slanderer of other people's positions here, over and over and over. If that's a personal attack and I get blocked for pointing out what is SO OBVIOUSLY THE TRUTH about his conduct, then I cry SHAME!! and will in future regard the campaign here to "sell" this page (Uncle G's pet project, and full of misrepresentations as a result and by default) as a prime example of passive-aggressive/hyperbureaucrat mentality passive-aggressives who throw rule after guidline after rule after guideline at other editors, hiding their own agenda behind technicalities and the a pretense of procedural propriety, with no thought of principle but of using the "system" to get their way and to soft-attack others whose input they want to silence, and if the person stands up for themselves to the calm-faced aggresion of those talking principles loudly and repeatedly while not actually applying them to their own behaviour/posts.....why, then accuse them of personal attacks, even better if you can provoke them with your obstinacy into saying something angry; it's classic passive-aggressive behaviour and also of "nattering nabobs of negativity"; as always with passive-aggressives, they control their language so as to not seem aggressive, but revel in accusing others of aggression. Skookum1 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, your reference to my work at WP:N is unwarranted slander, and as a matter of fact I oppose Uncle G there; however, I respect his dedication, while not always his opinion. Your attempt to link us in cabal of sorts demonstrates your mendacity, ignorance, or both. You brought this battle to the WP:N talk page and have only attracted more attention to your erroneous position. You are the best argument for your oppositions' position. --Kevin Murray 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two key passages of Bo Yang's speech, linked on that article page, as they're very a propos of the conduct and attitudes of Uncle G here:

- - - Chinese people simply don't understand the importance of coopera- tion. But if you tell a Chinaman he doesn't understand, he will sit down and write a book just for you entitled The Importance of Co-operation.
    - Chinese people can be extremely convincing when they talk, thanks to their remarkably nimble tongues. If you believe what they say, there is nothing they cannot do, including extinguishing the sun with a single breath of air, and ruling the world with a single flick of the hand. In the laboratory or examination hall, where no personal relationships are involved, Chinese can produce impressive results. But when three fiery Chinese dragons get together, they can only produce about as much as a single pig, or a single insect, if that much. This is because of their addiction to infighting.
    - Those of you who live in the United States know that the people who harass Chinese people the most are other Chinese, not Yankees. It takes a Chinaman to betray a Chinaman; only a Chinaman would have a good reason to frame or slander another Chinaman.
    - And I stress that the use of "Chinaman" there is Bo Yang's own, his choice of translation for zhuong guo ren. Source page is http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mszonyi/280/280doc/Bo_Yang.htmlSkookum1 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for pointing at a very interesting article by a prominent person. Being a former citizen of the Soviet Union, I very much understand what he is writing and why. I would recommend to read this essay to everyone. But what this has to do with this vote? Man, your passion will break your heart. Cool down. `'mikka 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It has to do with the conduct of this page's proponent, and also with the use of the word chinaman by chinese themselves; in this case Bo Yang himself has chosen it even though the original Chinese is "ugly Chinese person". The pretense of the page overleaf is that somehow all these words were coined by english speakers to defame/degrade Chinese with, but in actuality "Chinaman" has been used all along by chinese people themselves, both in North american and without; just by those with less ideological/political pretensions; that this page (the article) lumps non-derisive terms with derisive terms, but dwells on the derisive ones and on the derisive aspects of those that can be both is a demonstration of its POV-ness, and it's not-so-hidden agenda. I'm sure Bo Yang himself would find this discussion very revealing.....in fact maybe I'll email him about it.....Skookum1 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'm "outta here" for the day as I've got real-world things to do. So have a field day, boys; let the insults and put-downs and misdirections and misrepresentations fly, couched in nice soft-spoken language as usual.Skookum1 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You already said this on another Talk page about 15 minutes ago. On what other Talk pages are you going to announce your exit for the day? Go on and lead your life already. There's sunshine out there to enjoy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You just can't stop making personal snipes, can you, Hong? Taking shots at me when you think I might not be around to answer reminds me of past conduct of yours....and it's grey-bright outside today, not sunny (yet).Skookum1 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole point of my reply was that I know you're still sitting there browsing on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge elsewhere, then Delete. Merge any useful material into other articles, then delete. The references to this being a 'fork' agrees with my reading that there is something not quite 'right' - it is a somewhat stilted 'background' on some dicdefs. That a combined article on multiple terms would be a good overview/orientation is kind of obvious. That doesn't seem to have been the result here. I read Gweilo and Chinaman and wonder why it the quality isn't as good here. Could a combined overview be part of a China-related project, Chinese outside of China, though even that might end up having to be several articles, e.g. Chinese in Malaysia, Chinese in Indonesia. Shenme 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The pretense held by Uncle G and his claque is that this page is NPOV and cited; but I've gone through and marked LOTS of POV comments and phraseology that are uncited, and taken out DUMB material like "Chinawoman" (google that, if anything it's a neologism used as a name by a woman in Nelson BC, but in all my readings of North american history I've seen it maybe THREE times; usually women were also "chinamen"); editors who want to understand why I think this page has a POV agenda, and has been structured to hide or ignore material that disputes the principle author's very blatant agenda are invited to review my recent edits of this morning, and of lst night, and Uncle G's reversal of last night's. Important non-offensive uses have been buried within passages about offensive terms, e.g. what's "chinaboy" doing right next to the ship/porcelain usages anyway???? No doubt Uncle G is going to remove my additions, and tell me that Mark Britten doesn't exist, and won't read Bo Yang's article (that's now cited in situ) in which Bo explains why he chose to use "Chinaman" in his English translation. All kinds of lists of pejorative claims/words have been idnividually cited, as they're clearly interpretations of Uncle G and not in any source provided; fine to provide a source, even better if it actually states what the person citing it is claiming it's a cite for. Picking and choosing cites/authors who agree with him, while deliberately leavingt out so much else that doesn't, or masking it under cover of mentions of other things, or demanding fact templates for things he KNOWS exist (like the comedian "The Chinaman" and yeah, I had his name remembered wrong but Mark Britten exists and is very real, despite someone's attempt to delete the original stub within two minutes of its creation. Anyway, the bandwagon and tub-thumping from Uncle G will no doubt continue today; I've added important bits and challenged and zero'd in on blatantly POV material and structure in this page; the Chinee section was moved to its own, as again (as with Chink before) Uncle G was trying to postiion "Chinaman" alongside more overtly discrminatopry words so as to obscure its ongoing non-offensive nature to many people. Oh - "many" is a weasel word, like "some" - funny that he gets away with using those, but whenever I do Hong Qi Gong jumps all over me and deletes them. Everybody here knows what a double standard is, and what hypocrites are, so there's no need for further comment in that department.Skookum1 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Colleague, what you said just above is a normal process of editing wikipedia articles. Of course, we don't claim that UncleG wrote absolute truth. You pointed out or fixed prtoblems with his article, very good. This is how wikipedia works: no one is perfect. At the same time it is a fact of note that in English language certain nationalities have a disproportional number of ethnic slurs. (How many English ethnic slurs you know for, say, Kurdish people or Albanians? and how many for African Americans?) Therefore this topic is of curiosity, and if there are books that cover this topic (I assume the books quoted in the article are such ones), all the more the article deserves to be in wikipedia. Mukadderat 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article, apparently, is not specifically to do with ethnic slurs, however.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So its author claims.....Skookum1 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chink is currently used as a general term against all Asians, not just Chinese. The article title is very restrictive and misleading. Right now, the article says it's about English names for Chinese people, but it's really just covering ethnic slurs. If this article were to be NPOV, then it'd have WAY more information about "Chinese" (the word), since Chinese is the accepted English name for Chinese people. Its very disproportionate and is trying to mash all these terms into Original Research categories (Chink and related names has and had words of no relation to Chink in etymology). It's a POV fork, since Ungle G is really just trying to associate terms through his own POV, by creating a new article and hoping all the other ethnic slurs will get merged into it. Some of the information was just verbatim copy and paste from other ethnic slur articles. You'd pretty much have to rewrite all the titles in this article to maintain NOR. These words have their own context. A big part of understanding slurs is understanding their different contexts and histories, which this article fails to do so appropriately and probably couldn't do since some of the words have no association and OR context (e.g. ricer does not belong in this article, since it's a general term for Asians, not a term for Chinese).falsedef 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I'm bored with this silly game where rational intelligent people like Falsedef and Keefer4 and David Levy are insulted and told that they said something different than what they said, and then the "if you make a lie big enough and tell it often enough people will eventually believe it" crowd repeats its mantras of "duplicate article" and "Wiki guidelines" and "citability" and false claims of NPOVness. Hopefully the deciding admin here is fully capable of seeing the paucity of the arguments of the promoter of this page and his defenders (who, funny, all say the same things, and never really talk issues, or when they do simply obfuscate them). In any case, last night's reversal of my attempts to introduce balance to this article were all labelled "damage" by Uncle G, and places where I placed fact templates on his qualifications of material from various sources - choices of wording, things left out, things not admitted to, things distorted - ALL was obliterated by the self-appointed author of this nuisance of a pag, all while wrapping himself in the Wiki flag, while enforcing a clearly POV edit agenda on this page. Claims from him that it is NPOV are now ridiculous in the wake of this edit. Many of the things he claims are cited are NOT in the citations not in the way he has presented them, and corrections of unsubtantiated editorializations of his that present a different perspective than "the English language is very racist against Chinese people" were all taken out (that's the real title/subtext of this article, as is painfully clear by now). Furthermore, here he is over on the WP:NOTE page insisting on mutiple, substantial references; yet few of his POV citations here, i.e. citations supporting POV wordings and choice of content, few of them have more than one cite. And if Pearl Buck says something about the 19th Century - if she said it in the way that Uncle G is presenting it,that is (which I find doubtful) - where are her citations?? A lot of these interpretive comments from modern historians/politicos, also, are NOT borne out by actual evidence. The basic point is that he's only citing one for a lot of these, not the "multiple" cites he's rewriting the guidelines for, apparently so he can take out one-point cites of things he doesn't like. But in this case he's taken a lawnmower, as he has before, to any attempt to substantially change the content/structure of the page to a more NPOV level. I've been wary of legitimizing the page by trying to contribute to it; now that my latest round of attempts to instill balance into it, and to correct his LIES and challenge his FALSE interpretatinos and editorializations of what evidence he chooses to cite (and the deletions of evidence he wants to have ignored), I think it serves as ample evidence that this page properly belongs on User talk:Uncle G/Sandbox and nowhere else. He's behaving with "ownership", and isn't that a very big important wiki guideline? How come he's not wrapping himself in THAT one? Anyone here who's had Uncle G tell them that they said something other than what they said, or watched him "answer" a question which you hadn't actually asked, or listen to him expound "duplicate article, duplicate article" without being able to prove it, must inherently realize that it's the same as his false citations and misrepresentations of citations; it doesn't matter what someone else says, even a cited work - it only matters what Uncle G says it says. There's also the highly POV juxtapositioning if items - like the mention of Frank Chin being tucked in between the kid's taunts and other derisive material, and branding Chin "in the amelioration camp" (an inherently POV statement, as it suggests that amelioration of the term was needed); as is also the case with hiding the original ship and porcelain dealer meanings of the word in amidst a bunch of other derisives, immediately followed up by "china boy", which of course directly connects to the relevance of the ship and porcelain dealer meanings, doesn't it? Other similar obfuscations and downplayings abound, and biased langauge is everywhere, even the structure of the article is biased as he lumps unrelated terms together; Chinaman and Chink should be separate sections - but then they're already separate, and much more thorough and much more NPOV than this article; and don't presume to equate terms that shouldn't be discussed in teh same section, except in terms of painting them all with the same garish and ugly POV brush. His lumping Chinee and Chinaman in the same section is the same thing as trying to merge Chink and Chinaman articles; lumping chink and ching chong together was ridiculous, and there's more such garbage now all over this page. I tried to straighen this out, but he branded it "garbage",which far more aptly as just used by me fits his material overall, and reversed it all so as to keep to the ethnic-slurs basis of his view of all these words, and his obvious hatred for anyone who disputes his version of things, despite the pretense of calm and citations and wiki guidelines and rule-pulling/waving. But oh well, it's clear that any attempt to legitimize this page with real content, whether now or after the AFD is closed and (god help us) this article survies, it's Uncle G's personal property and he's NOT going to allow anyone else to reshape or contribute to its contents, unless through his POV lens. I surrender to his supporters, who have helped me see the one true light: Uncle G is godlike in his wisdom, Uncle G is calm, Uncle G is a superior being, Uncle G is right and anyone else who's against him is mean and stupid. yeah, uh-huh, ok. see ya later.Skookum1 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Skookum, I support the deletion, but you have to realise that these long drawn-out comments and replies have the potential to move an AfD toward a "no-consensus" decision. Maybe this article will be deleted, maybe it won't. But basically, what I'm saying is this - if you want to see the article deleted, make your point clear and then refrain from making these long comments. I can almost guarantee you that most people have stopped reading your comments in their entirety. I know I have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - OK, Hong, but you never read my comments in full, and always disregard them; other people do read them, even if you can't/won't. But in the case of the "above" it was such a cleaer violation of NPOV in this latest policing of the page it had to be spelled out. I have my own writing style, and debating style; it's time for you to stop attacking that, and stick with the issues. And the issue here is, thank you, "delete delete delete".Skookum1 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freckles (game)[edit]

verifiablity problems. Not a single admissible source Mukadderat 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS. Wish I hadn't read this before lunch. Realkyhick 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dear lord... SpookyPig 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I actually did a google search. No hits except wp mirrors. - Aagtbdfoua 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

55 Squadron ATC[edit]

The cadet squadron does not appear notable. Previosuly deleted, but deletion appears to have been speedy. Bringing it here for a fuller hearing, but believe it should be deleted. TeaDrinker 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. — ERcheck (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original admin who speedied this (along with a bunch of other cadet squadron pages) I'll give my rationale: There is nothing inherent about being a cadet squadron that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N. There is already a list of them at List of ATC squadrons and that, in my opinion, should be enough. Sasquatch t|c 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless externally verifiable information can be presented demonstrating the impiortance of this particular cadet group outside its members and its direct geographic area. In my book, groups like cadet groups and scout troops have to do some pretty significant things before they 'deserve' a wikipedia article. -- saberwyn 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous precedent has been to delete these, and I believe it's right. There's certainly nothing inherently significant about an ATC squadron. Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santo caserio[edit]

very poorly written article about nn band, fails WP:MUSIC, also WP:VAIN Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - yet another garage band. So tagged. MER-C 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday slaves[edit]

Poorly written vanity Page SpookyPig 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ZayZayEM 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Vanity articleCoaster Kid 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ab e g92contribs 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent School, Inc.[edit]

Not notable, not referenced. The creator removed prod but didn't expand or improve the article in a week since then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominee's statement, and so says Google, twice. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not referenced. SpookyPig 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all schools are considered notable. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even 'saturday schools'? I don't think so - can you point me to the relevant guideline?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a source for that guideline? Vegaswikian 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes no attempt to assert notability and is totally unreferenced. Vegaswikian 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eikaiwa managers[edit]

This is POV/OR unencyclopedic content. Current article is pseudo-slander. No real article can be formed on this articles topic. Page on Eikaiwa exists and can contain any encyclopedic information on Eikaiwa management. ZayZayEM 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soapbox, fails WP:ATT. Information of this sort can probably be found in WP:RS (IIRC, at one point the US State Department published warnings about English cram schools in Korea), but it doesn't really belong on separate "Criticisms of"-style pages like this. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As soon as possible. This kind of article makes wikipedia look like a joke. MightyAtom 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neier 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources provided. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. -- Hoary 03:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close, procedural keep; if you're going to nominate the lists within these categories, nominate them separately. --Core desat 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of topics by country and Category:Lists of topics by region[edit]

OK, there is no easy way to do this, because our deletion templates are being to smart and preventing me from doing it right (namespace confusion). So I am filling this AfD 'by hand', and yes, it should be at AfD, not at CfD and not and MfD. I filled it at MfD first but consensus was to move it here (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by country, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by region). I am proposing to delete all lists articles in those categories (and than categories themselves), but lists (articles) are the primary target. The reason for deletions is: few of those lists are maintained and they are a relic of the past: each country (and region) has way to many related topics to fit on one page; this is what country (region) specific categories are for. Later we may want to consider getting rid of all lists here, but for now, just think: an average country has thousands of related articles. A list with thousand entries is cumbersome and useless, as the categories were designed to automate the process. Most of those lists are not maintained. If you really like them, we can archive them or tag as historical... but basically they are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten junk pages.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can understand that you may want something done, the fact that there are so many lists tends to point to me that this isn't something that can be handled well in AfD. Some of these lists may be unmaintained as you claim, some may be redundant to categories. Some, however, may not? Reviewing them all to find out which is which? Not something I think could be handled in a single AfD even for the country. I suggest coming up with a different plan to handle this problem, perhaps soliciting some feedback through the Village pump. And since you haven't added the AfD template to all the subpages, I don't think this discussion can proceed anyway. I suggest you withdraw this and look for another solution. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of the AfD template on the subpages is really just a sign that they ought to be placed there, not a reason to abort any discussion here - otherwise we're getting a little overly fixated on letter by letter process - as a general rule of thumb. That said, I agree that this situation is a little complicated and I too doubt that an AfD nomination like this is the appropriate way to handle the issue. By posting up a category and saying "This is supposed to be a blanket nomination for all the articles contained therein" is putting a bit of a burden on participating editors by expecting them to go through the categories and checking out the articles. I know it seems like a lot of work on your part, but as the nominator you really should be nominating the individual lists themselves, not as a category. You can bundle them into a mass nomination if you'd like but FrozenPurpleCube is right, your best bet is to withdraw this nomination and figure out the best way to approach the situation, perhaps by seeking input from other users. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I don't think the main reason for closing this discussion is the lack of the template, if that were the only issue, I'd just say to start adding them. The real problem is indeed, the complicated nature of this proposal. It's just asking for trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all and speedy close - the two categories contain close to 200 articles. There is no rational way to come to consensus on 200 different articles in a single AFD. If the nominator has specific concerns about specific lists, it can be discussed on the talk pages of those particular lists or in a more tightly focused AFD. Otto4711 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close-Mass nominations like this are a bad idea. AfD isn't really the place to get community consensus on the existence of a given type of article. Maybe take it to the village pump?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close It is impossible to make a rational decision on this mass nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter involving an actual policy change in what sort of categories should be made, and is not suitable for AfD. The obvious way to start is to delete the unmaintained ones and see what's left. DGG 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all and speedy close. Absolutely agree with the above comments. I have sympathy with the principle behind the nomination, but AfD is far too blunt an instrument to deal with a big decision like this. AndyJones 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Agree with above. I hate to say this because I respect the nominators' contributions, but to give delete as a preference here would seem to me utterly cynical. — 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics for precedent. –Pomte 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a similar situation. I do not think any of us voting above would object to individual lists being nominated separately at AfD. AndyJones 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. —Cryptic 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgotten realms[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon that was previously deleted and re-created Mysdaao 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources which either assert or support notability. --24.68.187.88 07:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. and no sources +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 - it's the third time now it has been recreated. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:51Z

Burnett and Vennard[edit]

Contested prod from a while back. Non notable british comedic duo. Burnett and Vernard on Google gets 10 unique hits, basically all wikipedia or MySpace related, including a post of Vennard who boasts we're everywhere, including Wikipedia. The prod was removed by single-purpose account Musicsorcerer (talk · contribs). Incidentally, the last url shows that musicsorcerer is the email adress of Vanguard. Page creator is also single-purpose so there are very strong reasons to suspect WP:COI issues on top of the utter lack of third party reliable coverage. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Jungle (band)[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BAND as it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the band itself Ga rr ie 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator, reasons above.Ga rr ie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No establishment of notibility. No sources at all. Not verifiable.--Dacium 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non-trivial publications about this band are added before the end of this debate. A1octopus 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources, but Internet sources for older bands like this are few and far between. Keep if sources can be found. J Milburn 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd be more inclined to be merciful if the full name of the vocalist was provided. As above, will change my vote if sources can be found. Lankiveil 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as author, for following reasons: Have updated page as requested, including name of vocalist & correct year of EP release (from album sleeve), and also that the EP was also sold through independent record shops across Australia (hence its entry and persistence in then-official national "Australian Alternative Top 10"). The notability criteria which Garrie originally nominated as a reason for deletion (that notice now restored - apologies for my accidental removal during another edit) specify that commercial album release and chart entry qualify as controversial though significant-enough reasons for retention. As to verifiability of sources, J Milburn's comment about Internet sources for older bands is very true, especially for Brisbane bands which have often been omitted from current musical history due to Sydney/Melbourne bias in earlier decades: Hence, I don't expect many corroborating sources to be found. I can truthfully swear that I was NOT a member of the band (!), and actually possess the album & still listen to it occasionally. I believe that deletion of this article from Wikipedia would merely contribute to the loss of pre-Internet history, and invite anyone else with any additional information to enhance the article accordingly. CouchTurnip 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAIN, University of Queensland[edit]

Non notable student association.Ga rr ie 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as above.Ga rr ie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. one of hundreds of clubs at the university. Rimmeraj 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable student club. Lankiveil 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Big Game[edit]

Wikipedia is neither Merriam-Webster nor Urban Dictionary. Zero sources, and I don't believe this article will ever rise above a (very poor, OR) dicdef. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search did find a couple of cases where the phrase was used in this sense, but they were dwarfed by the number of cases where one was talking about either a big sports event or hunting. --Alvestrand 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide to slang. Recury 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete thinly veiled attack page. JuJube 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:54Z

Upfunk Creek[edit]

Band fails WP:BAND in that they have to date won one local council music competition and published their music on myspace.com. Ga rr ie 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Ga rr ie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN MySpace band. WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Upfunk Creek features the lyrical genius and engaging delivery of frontman Jamie Beaton, the musical entente of guitarist/vocalist Grant Arthur, salivating grooves from bassist Gene Taylor, slinky tones from keyboardist Laura Altman, slithering skin patting from drummer Mike Solo, and the brilliant, mind-blowingly endearing cuteness of horn players Richard, Steve, Matt and Justin." Yeah. Delete. Lankiveil 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have not created this page to advertise a band that i am a member of. I am a huge fan of this band and for the moment I have just copied what they have written on their myspace and included one of the highlights. I am working on the proper article and will include their entire list of highlights and awards, airplay info, and radio reviews. I request the deletion warning be removed as this is just the layout for the moment.
- Comment, can you please specify how this band meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC? Lankiveil 12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I heard them being described on Triple J as a "fresh discovery" and I personally quite like their music. However, the article must be the contributors original work. Improve or Delete--Trogador20X6 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Triple J calling a new band a "fresh discovery" does not establish notability.--ZayZayEM 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al_Hidayah[edit]

No insight into the topic seems to be more of an advertisement for a group. Uses a coimmon arabic word without defining any context. ZaydHammoudeh 05:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - group of people with no assertion of notability. Also another case of "so what?". So tagged. MER-C 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Err. The nominator is creator of the article, and doesn't seem to have much knowledge of AfD. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. utcursch | talk 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagyoga[edit]

Reason:::Vagyoga is a invented technique for grammer of Sanskrit which has its applications in Yoga and Meditation. Several people from all over the world follow this technique. you may please visit to www.vagyoga.com Vagyoga 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above person believes that they are nominating the article to be featured... they seem to be promoting it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed, the nominator certainly doesn't seem to be trying to convince us to delete this! The AfD nomination likely should be closed due to the apparent mixup (and it does seem to at least nominally pass inclusion criteria) but that article is in serious need of cleanup and help, it's messy and confusing. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note there appears to be some mix-up; the article was moved to Gurudeva Vagish Shastri by Redvers and then nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. Currently, however, Gurudeva Vagish Shastri is just a redirect to Vagyoga, and there appear to be two unrelated AfD discussions. (And also User:Vagyoga is not the nominator.) 131.111.8.104 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Little Rock School District in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:55Z

Washington Basic Skills Math-Science Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many that have nothing distinctive or of wide-scale interest. Delete. Doesn't pass SCHOOLS. - Denny 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:SCHOOLS, is nothing special, no assertion of notability. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Alison as copyvio. WjBscribe 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordeal ritual[edit]

Article is completely original research and personal opinion. —dgies^t_c 07:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, though an article on Russian students in the United States or somesuch might be interesting, and if that is created, this can be undeleted and merged. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:59Z

Rodnoi Ugolok[edit]

no assertion of notability Chris 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:VSCA. It's most of those - an advertisement, non-notable (a club at a university? of course that deserves an article), and invites readers to join. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion on what else to do with this article can be done on its talk page. --Core desat 03:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of ethnic groups[edit]

I am questioning the usefulness of this article/gallery. Galleries should not be welcome on wikipedia and should exist on commons instead.

There is also the matter of weather or not ethnicities can have flags. Flags are symbols of countries. Unless the country claims to exist the verifiability of the Flag is compromised which prompts "original research".

-- Cat ^chi? 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR issues aside, this should probably be renamed to List of cultural flags -- Cat ^chi? 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and page has been boldly renamed to List of cultural flags -- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to include sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question This is a good idea and I agree, but who is going to do this? If it doesn't get done within the timeframe of this AfD, should this comment be considered as a "delete" or a "keep"? As for where to get the sources, many might be found on the Image pages for each flag, but I don't have the time to do this myself. Finally, this follow-up should not be construed as criticism of Hexagon1's comment. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone interested and dedicated enough will surely come by and try to help if a ((sources)) template is placed there. If there are no improvements in a significant timeframe, let's say 9 months, then it can be relisted. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think this could be a useful page if it is suitably referenced. Thunderwing 09:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the article's many contributors receive courtesy notifications as recommended by the AfD procedure. From looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of ethnic groups, this doesn't appear to have been done. The nominator's original research concern is a valid one (who decides on official flags for unofficial groupings) but I think that's more of an editorial issue than a deletion issue.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notion of "Flags of ethnic groups" falls under Original Research. The LGB flag is widely used but it is not universal. Flags of countries represent large groups of ethnic peoples. The german flag represents the majority of the German ethnicity but not some Germans (such as the ones that live in the US with US-only citizenship) -- Cat ^chi? 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, notification is not a requirement, it is a courtesy, and is not a reason to halt an AFD. Second, flags most certainly predate the modern notion of the nation-state extant since the Peace of Westphalia, and many entities that are not countries have flags, ranging from the UN to subnational groups including states and cities, and private entities as well. It would probably be better to use this article to list the articles on ethnic group flags that are in Wikipedia. Galleries are indeed now deprecated to commons. --Dhartung | Talk 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True re: courtesy notifications, but I think they help the AfD process in terms of making a good decision for Wikipedia's purposes. They also help morale and improve the perception of fairness and openness; they're something I always do when nominating an article for AfD. Finally, multiple editors have cited the need for references and concerns about original research; the existing contributors probably are the ones that would do the work and know where some of the sources are if the article is kept. As for the galleries question, that would extend beyond this page to a number of similar articles -- see Category:Ethnic flags and Category:Lists of flags. I wonder if anybody has looked at a strategy for this whole issue you've raised? I see there's a WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology; I'll post a note there. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on notification: The AfD nomination procedure is very specific on edit summaries -- no edit summary was used when this article was tagged for deletion, so nobody with this article on their watchlist knows of this AfD. I note that dozens of different editors have made over 150 edits to the article and over 30 to the talk page with no mention anywhere of a need to delete this article. I'm not trying to be difficult or critical here but I do want to see the right outcome for this AfD, whatever that turns out to be. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ethnic groups are usually not legal entities which is the prerequisite for the use of a flag. In some cases the flags in this category might be used generally recognized entities, but those would then belong in a different article.--Caranorn 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. As a gallery, it does not belong here and should be transwiki'd to Commons. As a list, it should indeed be kept, with sources included. Flags are not only symbols of countries, and it is nonsense to say they only exist for legal entities. When there is not a legal entity, there might be more ambiguity about whether it is fair to say a particular flag is the flag of a group, but this does not make the questions of OR and NPOV any harder than many topics on Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure organizations can also have flags. Red Cross has a flag. I am not saying ethnicities cant have flags. Ethnicities cant have official flags. Basically I or anyone can design a flag for my favorite ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if only you use the flag you design, it wouldn't be notable enough to be included. However, if it is more notable, then lack of official status (and some of these do have official status in one sense or another), is a reason not to describe the flag as an official flag, not a reason not to document the flag at all. JPD (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does me designing a flag or someone else matter? If the flag is notable - it will be notable for other reasons than representing ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you get a WP:RS to say its the flag of that ethnic group, it goes in WP, remember we work on reliable sources, not any objective truth here. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the flag may go to the article of the ethnic people. But putting them in a gallery like this makes it look like these flags represent an ethnicity universally. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree wholeheartedly with JPD above. Lexicon (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This, like the other flag galleries on Wikipedia, is a useful vexillological resource — much more useful than a list of text entries would be. In terms of adding sources, I question the usefulness or need of adding them to this article -- essentially an illustrated list. Instead, should they not be included on the article for the flag, or if it has no article, with on the flag image page itself? --ScottMainwaring 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition of providing references/sources to document the adoption of the flag or its history. Acadiana is an example of this being done, a short description "adopted by the Louisiana legislature" would be how I'd put it on the page. The question of what to do about a gallery of flags is not too convincing to me, I think such is appropriate for an Encyclopedia, but if not, let's start here instead. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source it's certainly a good start of an article and if fully referenced would appear to meet all criteria for inclusion at WP. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a collection of original research. --Pejman47 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain what you mean? A lack of sources does not equal original research, and I know several of the flags could be sourced. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just sourced a few of them. More to follow, just a matter of finding the cites. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that some sort of recognized organization has indeed adopted these flags as representative of said organization. Citations can be shown for the adoption of a flag as representative by a government, corporation, or other organization. How does an ethnicity adopt a flag? And how does one determine the official representative group for said ethnicity in the event of conflicting claims? Jim Miller 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern, while a reasonable concern on the subject of individual entries, doesn't mean there is a problem with the page. Several of the entries could be sourced to recognition by official governments (such as is the case of the Acadians I already mentioned), others might qualify by common recognition (if a bunch of sources say "This is what People X consider their ethnic flag" who are we to argue?). So, I think you might want to revise your delete statement. FrozenPurpleCube 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this last night, and just re-read this "article". It is not an article at all. It is a gallery, as noted in the original RfD. It might be fine as a category. If someone were to actually write something, I would suggest it is an article, but it currently has zero content. I maintain my opinion of Delete given that there really is no article here at all that discusses "Flags of ethnic groups". It's a list or a gallery, and fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Jim Miller 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction between gallery/article here as needless, presenting this information in visual form is quite reasonable, but if you for some reason think it needs more information on the page, that's a trivial addition already done on a couple of pages. See the category for examples. That's more of a content issue though, than a problem with the subject of the article itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect that some of these are thingsmadeuponeday on the basis of logic not actual use, but this is for the talk page of the article. Some of the individual items may be OR but not the page as a whole. DGG 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make sure the flag is well referenced and is notable (either by having gotten publicity, or by being the official symbol of a group (whether recognised as a government is not relevant) that clearly has notability). ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a symbol of an organization rather than ethnicity? We would need a source that the flag universaly represents an ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have a point. I'd be fine with your proposed move to List of cultural flags... in fact why not be bold, do that, and withdraw the nomination? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason for deletion.Biophys 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Caranorn. This stuff belongs to Commons, it is not even a list, is full of OR, open to abuse of all sorts and edit-wars. Take all that stuff to Commons.. Baristarim 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Commons does not need edit wars either, thanks very much. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Pointless and inane to have this sort of article in an encyclopedia. Ugh. metaspheres 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly! This is useful and interesting. I made a Coptic keyboard and used the Coptic flag as an icon. I corroborated it with an external source. No reason to delete this. -- Evertype·✆ 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a list of flags of the member states of the UN encyclopedic? Yes, I've never seen an encyclopedia that didn't have a list of such flags. This list has a different scope but the idea is the same. It just needs many more references. "List of cultural flags" sounds like a decent title. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non notable club as per past AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECA Football Club[edit]

Non-notable Sunday league football team that play in a public park. Past precedent on Wikipedia is that these teams are very much non-notable (e.g. #1, #2).

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Colquhoun. Qwghlm 08:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Placidcasual345 10:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Sunday League team. Tangerines 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:SNOW. Literally something made up by a schoolboy one day. kingboyk 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Vestria[edit]

Alleged micronation. Lack of references suggests that it is merely something made up in school one day. -- RHaworth 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One cannot simply claim that "I am a separate country" and expect to be accepted as notable. Agree with the nominator's concern over lack of referencing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Look at how few Google hits there are, none of which are related. Not only that, but the information in it is wrong- it has claimed a large segment of another country as its own. We need to delete this (and I would say all traces of it, but there are none) from Wikipedia. In fact, I reckon it would pass as a non notable group, so speedy delete if anyone else thinks it passes. J Milburn 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete made-up fake country, no sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFT and WP:CB. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Raheny. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:00Z

Raheny Business Association[edit]

Non-notable local organisation for a small portion of one city StuartDouglas 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, only notable in a very small area. Does not provide a lot of info as to why it needs an article, but it does have a source or two. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hebewebe[edit]

Nearly every sentence in this article has at least one thing wrong with it. An annonymous IP took the proposed deletion tag down without discussing why. -Haikon 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No decent sources, but it certainly does seem to be in use, in various forms ('Hebewebe', 'HebeWebe' and especially 'HeBeWeBe') Perhaps it would work best as a redirect to Martin Luther King Day? I think Wikipedia is not a dictionary covers this. J Milburn 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, poorly written, if it's deemed to be notable enough it should be on Wiktionary, not here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statement, "It's origins are unknown by this author." indicates a problem with WP:V. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:01Z

Servants For Haiti[edit]

Fails WP:V, 4 non-wiki ghits. Only sources are self-published. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, no press comment, notability is questionable. EdJohnston 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Closure overturned to Delete by unanimous DRV. Xoloz 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Drop shipping. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:10Z

Doba (company)[edit]

I originally speedily deleted this article under criteria G11 (as it was tagged) and A7. The article's author objected so I have restored it and brought it here for wider consideration. cj | talk 10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like an A7 to me, too. —Cryptic 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search makes it look to me like this may well be notable. Have a look at this, was an interesting read. Lots of Google hits, hard to know if any of them confer notability though. Seem to be some reviews around- this and this are two good examples. I would say that, in its current state, it is perhaps speediable, but, as a subject, probably isn't. Can't really tell if it should be kept- there are a lot of mentions, it is just not awfully easy to find any very reliable ones. J Milburn 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company has a well know status through out several communities seen by doing a search at Google or Yahoo. A look at the Alexa rating does provide some incite (while limited) to the status of the company too. The CEO, Jeremy Hanks, has helped author a couple of books as well see the main one. A look at inventory.overture.com also shows the name Doba receives a substantial amount of search traffic. Another look at search results on Google and Yahoo shows that lots of other companies (including eBay) are paying to show up on for this search term. And as Milburn noted there have been some reviews and other news articles written reguarding the company. The answer isn't going to obvious I guess, but it does not seem to be clear enough to make a deletion decision. Ryskis 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a barn burner, here....however, online visibility doesn't necessarily assume notability. See entries at RipoffReport for substantial entries, and/or feedback posted here. Affiliate links and/or paid traffic isn't proof of notability, either. This appears to be a G11 entry. Rec'd AFD. --LeroyWilkins 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a G11 or A7. Reading the content of the article makes it seem like a far stretch to say that this is blatant advertising. The content is more biographical and unbiased than any advertising speak. Hirank 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be biographical, but autobiographical, which would qualify for deletion. See reference to Conflict of Interest--LeroyWilkins 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leroy, I disagree with you on this one. This doesn't seem "autobiographical" to me. And in any case Leroy, autobiographical isn't a valid reason for deletion, even if it was. You can reference the criteria for deletion page: Criteria for Deletion Hirank 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See the following entries within Conflict of Interest: 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. This article violates numerous conditions for entry (as previously mentioned), at least three so far. --LeroyWilkins 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. - Aagtbdfoua 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terraworld Online[edit]

Non-notable online game. It garners 599 ghits (120 unique), but they're rife with topsites, forums, and unedited, fan-created "review" sites like Gameogre; I'm unable to find any secondary, reliable sources at all in order to verify any of the content of the article. As the article has remained tagged ((primarysources)) since December 2006, neither, it seems, can anyone else. —Cryptic 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Delete per nominator's reasoning. Highly unlikely that any reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons listed above, but also note that the only reference sourced in the article is a link to a store where you can buy in-game items. --Dariusk 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources citing its notability. --Scottie_theNerd 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nomination. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, though if an article about a category of MMOs such as this that isn't too broad were created, it could be a good merge target. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:13Z

Tactics Arena Online[edit]

Non-notable online game. It gets ~27000 ghits, but I can't find any that aren't directory entries, fansites, and forum posts, none of which are the sort of reliable source we need in order to justify an article here. The article as it stands cites only primary sources, and has been so tagged since December 2006; I suspect legitimate secondary sources don't exist. —Cryptic

Delete: Finding decent sources for obscure MMOs is not easy, but I suspect that there are none for this. They are all just too short- too trivial, and they all just copy off one another. If someone can find sources, then keep. J Milburn 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Moorjani[edit]

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

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

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

I do not believe this person to be sufficiently notable to need a Wikipedia article. FisherQueen (Talk) 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just as dying is not criteria for notability, neither is not dying. I can see her becoming notable, but a couple of websites documenting her recovery isn't enough. I don't like the way the article is written, either- not sure what it is, it reads too much like a charity leaflet, or a poster trying to make you join a church. J Milburn 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have put notifications on the talk pages of the three major contributors to the article. I would have thought it a good idea to approach these relatively new editors with some kind of explanation, and so did it myself. Shenme 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I feel that her story is noteworthy, and worthy of being here. She is not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything. Merely provide information to a phenomena that is already written about on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2007— Doctorko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I am not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything, I am merely trying to provide information about a subject that is already written about on Wikipedia (by expanding articles on Wikipedia). Why do I not get an article? In short, your argument makes no sense. The stories are not about her, but about her near-death experience- you could argue that they were, in fact, about her doctors. Perhaps she deserves a mention in a larger article somewhere, but unless she is notable beyond her experience (perhaps through her consultant work) then this article should go. It is also rather POVish. Phrases like "truly an inspirational" and "most sought after motivational speakers" just aren't helping this article's case. J Milburn 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This lady is fast becoming very noteworthy in this part of Asia. (And we in Asia have started to rely on Wikipedia more and more). Perhaps if we can edit her story to meet your standards, you would consider leaving it in? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2007— Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment:I notice the wikipedia entry for Anita Moorjani coming up near the top on the google search. It looks like there is a lot of demand for information on her, as her google hits have also gone up dramatically just over the last few months. It would be great if she could be kept in wikipedia, perhaps with just a bit of editing of the article. She has been on the radio in Hong Kong several times, she has come out in many press publications throughout Asia, as well as many internet news articles. It would sure be appreciated from us on this side of the planet! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Indigo lady (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2007— Indigo lady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you add links to the internet news articles to the article, that would help. Recury 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and any possibly salvageable content be merged into Near-death experience (examples of famous NDEs? I dunno...). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being sucha novice in using wikipedia. But we have added the links to the story showing the various publications where Anita has appeared. She is still being interviewed by more publications as we speak. Sorry for not adding my signature previously. Indigo lady 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) — Indigo lady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, the sources added demonstrate notability. Recury 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe her experience merits having an article. Many people every day recover from seemingly insurmountable odds. Her case is no different and thus no more notable. My other problem lies with how the article is written. It reads like an e-mail chain letter. Anything worth while should be merged into Near death experience.--Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but it needs sterilizing and rebuilding from the ground up. There is an interesting story there (not so much the not dying - I've not died, and I don't have a Wikipedia entry - but the weird career she seems to be building out of it), and she does have the multiple non-trivial etc etc. However, at the moment this article seems to boil down to spam for her website, with a window-dressing of sources to stop it being db'd. And having so many possible sockpuppets involved isn't doing the 'keep' case any favours - obviously, they may well all be genuine but it seems odd that so many people with an interest in the same subject would all create accounts on the same day. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The "sources" attempt establish some borderline notability, but I do have to point out that they are all scans of articles posted on her personal website. Given the newness of the editors involved I will assume good faith and guess that they don't see a problem with this, and for future reference should note that referring to the article itself, preferably with a link to the website if the material is online, is what should be done, and posting information from your own website appears suspect. That said, I do not believe the coverage constitutes enough notability to warrant inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references appear to be promotional material originating with the individual. The article is very promotional in tone. Many people have nearly died but recivered, so that claim in itself is not all ta=hat remarkable, and her claims of mystic revelations are not verifiable. Edison 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the three main contributors all seem to be SPAs, with the original creator being a likely relative. If she turns up worthy in the future, then somebody not directly involved writes the article. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on meeting the formal requirements. I recall some of the recent discussions on sexual fetishes, where the postulated impossibility was used as an arguement. I supported them on the basis that the belief in them or even thought of them was notable, and I guess the same holds here. My reaction would be to delete as commercial spam if not hoax, as she charges HK$150 to hear her speak, which seems incompatible with her claims of newly-attained knowledge of relative insignificance of the material world. But we already have the established justification of "notable hoax" so I suppose we can have the justification of "notable spam." Yes, I did add a comment to the article talk page, and the bare fact to the article DGG 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hello. I just want to comment on the HK$150. That's only about US$20. The money goes to cover costs of the venue, and the promos to announce the event. Anita doesn't get paid for speaking. Hong Kong is a very expensive city. $150 is actually very little. Just thought I'd let you know. THANKS! Morganjeffrey 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
COMMENT If I may just add one more thing - Anita has now been approached by the BBC who are considering making a documentary on her case. Just to let you know something about her - she is very generous with her time and information (while not actually promoting anything). She speaks freely when invited, and has been speaking at Rotary Clubs, various women's groups, etc. Her experience seems to have created a lot of (ongoing) public interest. One suggestion - perhaps if we could be guided as to how to edit the article to meet wikipedia standards, would you consider keeping it? Just a thought. Whichever way, we leave the decision of deletion to your professional editing capabilities. Thanks.Leelawong 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Leelawong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I apologize for excessive POV comments here; what I added to the page itself was neutral. DGG 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:15Z

Outdoor Cannabis cultivation[edit]

Wikipedia is not a How To guide Alex Bakharev 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, we're not a howto guide. Second, the article is written in a POV showing that the author is aware of one very important detail: the primary audience lives in the United States, where it is illegal to even possess marijuana. I could be wrong about my concerns, but I'm under the impression that this alone would put WP in a really bad position. --Dennisthe2 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep per the following discussion. Thanks for the enlightenment. =^^= --Dennisthe2 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This isn't remotely a how-to or recipe, but a technical description of a process; normally I'd support a merge to the main article, but that would make it way too long. Dennisthe2, if you're concerned about describing a possibly illegal act on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't read Heroin manufacturing, Ricin manufacture or Nuclear weapon design in that case. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to grow cannabis, even in the US, but only to grow/sell it without a licence; it's farmed commercially worldwide under licence (mainly to make canvas and for fish bait). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with article below~~ - I agree with iridescenti's reasons for keeping, and I further believe that merging it back into the main article would result in too long an entry. For this reason, I propose a merge, not with the main Cannabis article, but with Indoor Cannabis cultivation (see AfD discussion below) to create a general Cannabis cultivation article (it is currently just a disambig. for these two and another article anyway) with the information from these two current articles as two main sections. Redirects from these two to the cultivation article could then be set in place. Together they can provide a complete and encyclopedic view of the topic, and I don't see the need for two separate articles unless they individually become significantly larger than they now are. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing my vote to Keep due to the discussion below regarding the reason for splitting. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Is it just me, or is both the creators and deltetors forgot there's wikiversity and wikibooks that exist? This is the third time today where I suggest to transwiki to wikibooks! 142.58.101.27 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic there? It's totally inappropriate for Wikibooks. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject and verifiable RaveenS 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.This article includes a lot of interesting information. You must consult with biologists before deleting it.Biophys 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable and certainly not a how-to guide. The legal argument is without substance, as even literature explaining in detail how to grow marijuana is legal to publish and distribute in the USA. See this site for examples. TimVickers 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my comments for the below section. Xanucia 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. this is not an how-to article. Frankly, I thought from the title that it would be, but then I read the article itself. It is an apparently objective description of the cultivation of a notable plant. There is adequate sourcing; there is undoubtedly more available, since only published books were used. As for legality, NPOV is demonstrated as the article specifically discusses this aspect. The existence of the two articles is justified by their length, most of which is specific to the individual method. DGG 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am definitely not an author of the article, I Wikipedia:Split it along with Alternative Cannabis cultivation, and Indoor Cannabis cultivation from Cannabis cultivation. It was marked ready to split, and discussed on the talk page, so I did. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsure why nomination was made, doesn't appear to make reference to any wikipedia policy I can find which allows for deletion. Cloveoil 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete; maybe move all or part of the article to Wikibooks.--dannycas 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a good article, no reason to delete it. It may be more appropriate for wikibooks, but a cannabis cultivation wikibook was already started and then deleted by some guy. If someone else were to start a wikibook (I dont know how things work over there) I would assist in moving things over there for it.
Keep Can't see the reason for deletion here either. Adamantios 21:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:16Z

Indoor Cannabis cultivation[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how to guide Alex Bakharev 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much of a how-to guide to have on Wikipedia. If it was made into an article about in-door cannabis cultivation (its history, notable growers, etc) and a lot of the how-to stuff was cut back, then maybe, but I can't see that happening. J Milburn 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a howto. I also would like to echo my concerns for containing this information on WP due to the primary audience problem (see the AFD for Outdoor Cannabis cultivation for my concerns). --Dennisthe2 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and per the Outdoor Cannabis cultivation AfD, changing my vote to Keep. --Dennisthe2 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This isn't remotely a how-to or recipe, but a technical description of a process; normally I'd support a merge to the main article, but that would make it way too long. Dennisthe2, if you're concerned about describing a possibly illegal act on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't read Heroin manufacturing, Ricin manufacture or Nuclear weapon design in that case. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to grow cannabis, even in the US, but only to grow/sell it without a licence; it's farmed commercially worldwide under licence (mainly to make canvas and for fish bait). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with article above~~ - See above AfD for full comment, but basically... I propose a merge, with Indoor Cannabis cultivation to create a general Cannabis cultivation article (currently a disambig. for these two and another article) with redirects from these two. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing my vote to Keep due to the discussion below regarding the reason for splitting. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.This article includes a lot of interesting information. You must consult with biologists before deleting it.Biophys 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. Although the style could be improved it isn't simply a how-to manual. See (see the AFD for Outdoor Cannabis cultivation for my response to legal concerns). TimVickers 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's encyclopedic and informative and therefore suitable material for Wikipedia. Xanucia 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.as above. The existence of the two articles is justified by their length, most of which is specific to the individual method. DGG 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsure why nomination was made, doesn't appear to make reference to any wikipedia policy I can find which allows for deletion. Cloveoil 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, No Merge - I split the articles from Cannabis cultivation for reasons stated on the talk page of Cannabis (drug) cultivation. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete; maybe move all or part of the article to Wikibooks.--dannycas 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup so that it's not a howto. The topic itself is quite clearly one about which a featured article could be written eventually (although I'd bet good money it never will!) Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see the reason for deletion. Adamantios 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this information is actually illegal to propagate in the US. Jtrainor 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely not. It's not illegal to grow cannabis in the US, provided you have a licence (there's even a US Government sponsored cannabis plantation at the University of Mississippi), let alone talk about it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to NBA Draft; can be un-redirected when more information becomes available. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:18Z

2008 NBA Draft[edit]

Nothing can be said of note about the draft until next year that is not POV and crystal-ballism. All of the information on the page is already on NBA Draft Thomas.macmillan 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just also added 2009. 2010 redirects to NBA Draft. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both per crystal ball, redirect them to NBA Draft. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal Ball.... SpookyPig 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Crystal Ball. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I suggest reading: WP:CRYSTAL. This article doesn't violate it at all. The event is certain to occur, the information in the article is verifiable. Broadcast rights and eligibility requirements are not POV. It's a stub now, and that's perfectly appropriate. --JayHenry 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Christian IV of Denmark. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:19Z

Christian 4[edit]

I propose deleting this page because there is already a far more complete page on Christian IV of Denmark. Boreanesia 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost a test page, duplicate article, badly built, no mergeable content, improperly titled (one does not refer to a monarch like a Terminator sequel). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian IV of Denmark, plausible enough search term.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, obviously. 96T 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Choate Rosemary Hall in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:20Z

Edward J. Shanahan[edit]

Template fixed Ng.j 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. The school is notable, the Headmaster is not. No real sources, Googletest brings up 500 results for "Edward Shanahan". —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment headmasters of the very few most notable schools can be notable, but there has to be more information. Most people in such positions publish something. DGG 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. - Aagtbdfoua 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:51Z

Lazy mule[edit]

Recipe for tequila shooter. No sources, no assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this probably should have been PRODded. Contravenes most of MoS, uses second person pronouns, NN, is a recipe for goodness' sake. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod was removed by anon IP. I almost deleted it as an a7 speedy, but there's no clear policy on non-notable drinks :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks-Cookbook section. 142.58.101.27 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no indicatation of this drink's notoriety. The inventors don't appear to be notable either. Ar-wiki 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Robot kit. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:52Z

Lynxmotion[edit]

Delete No encyclopedic value The Talking Mac 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - second person, NN, no sources, pretty much NN. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Picaroon 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System(anatomy)[edit]

Probably made with a typo, orphaned page, for deletion. Snowman 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Redirects for deletion, but maybe it's eligible for speedy? Delete --Dhartung | Talk 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete R3 (implausible typo). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Chaudhuri[edit]

Not notable Ng.j 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE - I did not nominate this article, I was simply fixing templates when I came across it. This seems autobiographical, cleary very self promotional, and I'm surprised it has been around so long. --Ng.j 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiographical, promotes subject. Reads like an inspiring profile, but not an article. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiographical and utterly unencyclopedic. An embarassment for us all that it's been around since last year! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promotional flyer. This article has POV problems across the board. Also, the subject does not appear to be very notable. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (Wikipedia is not a directory), but the topic is encyclopedic so a new article is welcome. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:54Z

Restaurants in Jordan[edit]

Non-notable page about restaurants in Jordan. I can't even make out what the main feature of the article is to be about. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even a directory, it's a list of restaurants. That's it. --Dennisthe2 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:21Z

Divine magic (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Unreferenced; near-orphan; game playing minutiae (WP:NOT) kingboyk 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Spells of Dungeons & Dragons page, which already contains most of this infomration, so just redirect may well serve. FrozenPurpleCube 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. There isn't anything here that isn't said better in that article. Note that the Spells article has a link to this one, and that link should be removed if consensus deletes/merges/redirects it. -- GJD 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete and do not redirect. Seems like a pretty unlikely search term to me. --Iamunknown 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete redirect I'm sure this is on some D&D wiki already so no need to transwiki The Placebo Effect 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect. Contains no information about the subject which isn't covered in Spells of Dungeons & Dragons already, the only real difference is the ability score used and the capability of casting in armor. :P Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 02:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger Per above. - Denny 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:22Z

Micropreneur[edit]

Inappropriately listed as a G11 speedy, when not a company. Quite possibly a neologism; sent to AfD for further input. Xoloz 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary or delete - there are a fair few Ghits on it so it may be enough of a genuine word that they'd want it, but it's certainly nothing more than a dicdef. Frankly, I'm amazed it's survived three years. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to be used by this company, and there is a nice article here. I think there could be a good article on this word, but I am not sure whether it would be suited to Wikipedia, or whether it should just have an entry on Wiktionary. J Milburn 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not appear that the creator and substantial editors of this article have been notified about the AfD. [WP:AfD] says that providing such notice is seen as civil. This guidance is often ignored. Providing this notice should be the responsibility of those initiating the deletion process. I will do this myself tomorrow, time permitting, if no one else steps up to do so. Also, I'm not sure of the exact impact here but it seem worth noting that Muhammad Yunus won the most recent Noble Peace Prize for his work on micro-credit. Edivorce 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and do not transwiki to Wiktionary, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The intro text to Category:PajamaNation (category nominated for deletion), into which this has been otherwise inexplicably sorted, reveals that it is a "(c)ategory for grouping together articles relating to the pajamanation global series of enterprises, including national and international initiatives, concepts such as micropreneur and microjobs." In other words, this is spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided the notices discussed above. Edivorce 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow speedy as A1, A7, G11, G1, W12, XRF99 or any other criterion that makes it plain that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company by writing about some neologism you just created. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:23Z

Fereydoon Family[edit]

I don't think we should have articles about every professors in the world._→AzaToth 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete nothing on this page or his own website to indicate he's any more interesting than any other nanotechnologist - although they're few and far between enough that that in itself may be notable... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable RaveenS 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Siba 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep First of all, we do not have articles about all professors, only the notable ones. Full professors holding named chairs at major research universities, and Emory is one, are almost always considered notable. They generally publish a good deal. The article lists six books is way more than the average for a scientist. (The most heavily cited one has been cited 284 times!) The main publication work of a scientist is in journal papers, and he has published 161 papers; the most heavily cited of them was cited 547 times. (I have added the top 10 to the article) . This is notability by the specialized criteria of WP:PROF, by the general notability guidelines, and common sense.

He has met much stricter criteria than we can use here--the successive promotion review boards, the grant boards, and the many peer reviews for publications. His peers have decided on the notability, and we record it.

Funny: half the notable scientist bios we see here have been nominated because of sometimes outrageous self-advertising, which detracts from their real accomplishments; half are excessively modest, and get here because they don not display them. I think it careless to nominate a senior academic for deletion without at least checking Google Scholar; though not very accurate, it would have shown about 200 results, many with hundreds of citations. The appropriate action upon seeing this article would have been an "expand" tag. DGG 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Named professor at important university, papers with 500+ citations, fellow of a major society, any one of which alone would be enough for a clear pass for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:25Z

Regis Brodie[edit]

Article was on prod for a bit. Certainly sourced with a complete bibliography of the gentleman's work, but it isn't clear whether he meets "the Professor test." Also, the text reads like a resume. Xoloz 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - needs a major prune and rewrite but if all those exhibitions are genuine - and it wasn't just that he contributed one piece to someone else's exhibit - I'd say he passes. Someone needs to fix those links though - I'd be surprised if "United States of America" should really be a redlink. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The professor is not just a professor, but also an author, director and a major "name" in the ceramics field. All of the other major ceramists in the country know who he is. The potters from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_potters certainly know who he is. Would be very surprised if even one did not know who he was. User:Blanketyblink 12:12 PM, April 3, 2007— Blanketyblink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - He's in the category because he's put in there automatically by the wiki software, not because of any great achievement. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to Iridescenti - Perhaps he is in there because of the wiki software, but question his accomplishments? Okay, I am a potter & have met most of the potters on that list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_potters). I have also written & edited quite a few wikipedia articles. I just get different usernames because I continually misplace the passwords. User:Blanketyblink 11:19 PM, April 3, 2007— Blanketyblink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - You do know I !voted keep, right? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The range of works, both publications and exhibitions make this clearly N -- The text lists what he did, and he did a great deal. DGG 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP standards for artists would be more appropriate than those for professors in this case, I think. The number of major exhibits listed puts him way above the minimum for notability. And the two magazine articles with his name in the title make a clear pass for the general standards in WP:BIO. —David Eppstein 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I helped write much of the article. I suppose I don't pretend to understand Wikipedia & its policies for inclusions. I have seen many living "artists" (part-timers with dubious clout & little or no body of work) included. This is an artist who has shown in many major museums in the US & world & is a known artist in the field of ceramics. Acceptance into museums is the highest achievement for an artist (as opposed to privately owned galleries which may insure sales for an artist but not necessarily any kind of longevity of exposure for future generations). If Wikipedia does not accept this artist, one has to wonder... —User:Trippydude, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:26Z

Fry's Remixies Vol. 1[edit]

Album doesn't seem to exist. I searched for it and no results appeared. Also, the article just lists the number of remixes made by the user who started this article. esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Is he trying to sell this? --Dennisthe2 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The user that started that page has been editing pages to links to his/her MySpace of remixes of songs he/she made, from what I observed. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hooboy.... --Dennisthe2 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; please contribute this at the Romainian Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:29Z

Roţi dinţate[edit]

I'll start off by saying that I'm not sure if this is the right process for this, please correct me if I'm wrong.
This article appears to be a translation into another language of a section of an article Gear#Mechanical advantage that we already have in the English Wikipedia. I think it was loaded into the wrong language Wikipedia by accident, and should be deleted from here and moved to the correct language 'pedia. ArglebargleIV 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the appropriate language as per the nom. What language is this?... --Dennisthe2 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...erm, yeah, that's me. --Dennisthe2 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My guess is that's Romanian. Seems to be about gears, and my arcane wisdom allows me to intuit that roţi dinţate means "toothed wheel". I suspect that someone wanted to translate the existing head article about gears into Romanian, and created this in the wrong namespace instead. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Cosette, from Romania, and I want to translate Gear [[6]] in Romanian language. I now my translation it's in a wrong place, but I don't know how to move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozettt (talk • contribs)

- Comment - I left a note on Cosette's talk page above. Cosette, if you have questions, let us know! --Dennisthe2 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Business process outsourcing in the Philippines. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:33Z

BPO Services Association Unlimited (BSA/U)[edit]

Non-notable business association. Article appears to be created as part of an advertising campaign. The sole editor has coi with company name. The prod-tag was removed by ip account but no other action has been taken to address deletion concerns. Ronz 16:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was COMPLICATED. I'm going to treat these articles as one, more or less, and reach a decision about their disposition on that basis. There is not a consensus to delete all these articles in these debates. However, the debaters here have not done due diligence and examined how we have disposed of the same question for other, perhaps more established, chart listings. For example, we have things like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart and Pop 100 (US) and so on, a very encyclopedic treatment of the topic that rises above an obsessive listing that changes every few days - an approach that would be unsuitable for an archive of knowledge. This aspect is dealt with by the articles such as List of number-one albums (UK), List of number-one singles (UK) (and its subarticles) and Number-one dance hits of 2007 (USA) and other similar articles.

I am therefore going to DELETE Polish National Top 50, and KEEP Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006 and Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007. The List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits is pointless as it stands, and might have more utility about 10 years from now, so I shall DELETE it, and recommend that a template navbox be created to go at the bottom of the surviving articles.

I would recommend to those maintaining these articles that they get a very clear view of what is obsessive cruft and what is encyclopedia material. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just found Template:PNT50. Someone should do something about that. Splash - tk 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50[edit]

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this applies to all of the Polish Top 50 nominations. The underlying concept of the top hits in Poland seems notable enough to warrant a page. Moreover, a website may well be a reliable enough source for this sort of data; that the compilers of the Polish Top 50 have a cheesy looking website on home.planet.nl is neither here nor there. If this site gets a data feed from another source, that source should be cited though, if available. I do think that the several pages about Polish hits ought to merge into one.
With Gwen Stefani and Justin Timberlake on the charts, I am mighty glad not to have to listen to Polish radio. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - I think the article is notable - if it is completely re-written to actually explain the history and methodology of the Polish music charts (article needs categories too). As it stands now its definitely a copyright violation as its probably updated every week with the current top ten by a music chart fan and those images can't possibly adhere to any fair use/image guidelines. - eo 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some images are untagged as copyvio.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt if this is notable. It looks like wikicruft with copyvio. Appleseed (Talk) 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree the Polish National Top 50 article needs to be re-written but why are articles with lists of #1 hits in Poland nominated for deletion??? Addie555 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming these can be verified as really being the Polish charts. If that's the case, they'd be a list of songs achieving a significant thing. The claims of "wikicruft" are very odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reference is creator's homepage...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, is there an authentic Polish singles chart we can source information from? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know, and no reference other than creator's claims like below has been presented for or against. In essence, there is nothing disproving it is not a WP:HOAX...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Polish National Top 50 is an official Polish singles chart! Addie555 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: eminently unencyclopedic, verging on advertising. Biruitorul 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic content. --Lysy^talk 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits[edit]

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I don't know why this page should be deleted. It's just a list of Polish #1s. There are lots of pages like that that list #1 hits in other countries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addie555 (talk • contribs).

Delete. Not notable. Wikicruft. Appleseed (Talk) 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic content. --Lysy^talk 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are two other listings below. -- User:Docu
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007

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

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

The result was SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006[edit]

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these lists are informative and there are many, many similar lists in WP for other countries & genre charts. The only thing I'd suggest is removing the italics from the song titles. Removing the article from the AfD nom list is bad, bad, bad, tho!! - eo 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Wikicruft. Appleseed (Talk) 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why pages concerning Polish National Top 50 should be deleted. Addie555 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming references can be found. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic content. --Lysy^talk 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are two other listings below. -- User:Docu
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007

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

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

The result was 'SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50'. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007[edit]

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these lists are informative and there are many, many similar lists in WP for other countries & genre charts. The only thing I'd suggest is removing the italics from the song titles. Removing the article from the AfD nom list is bad, bad, bad, tho!! - eo 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Wikicruft. Appleseed (Talk) 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming references can be found (I don't speak Polish, so I'm not going to be much use here). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic content. --Lysy^talk 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are two other listings below. -- User:Docu
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006

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

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

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Norris[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Also suspect a major WP:COI conflict of interest problem with this article.RJASE1 ^Talk 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources for notability. --J2thawiki 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible Userfy. Instinct tells me that the creating user - Norcomm - is the subject. Definite COI if that's the case, but it does beg the question. --Dennisthe2 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Musician. Google shows a disbarred lawyer, a professor, an electrical engineer, and others with this name. The only hits that appear relevant are this WP page and self-posted material. Lacking multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO, it appears that this person's magazines are noted enough to pass WP:ATT, but the person is not. It does appear to be a WP:COI situation. Barno 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This person is not listed on the Norris disambiguation page (he's not James E. Norris for whom the NHL's Norris Trophy is named). If the article is kept, he should be added there; if the result is redirect or delete, there'll be no need for action on the dab page. Barno 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:35Z

List of fashion photographers[edit]

This is redundant, since the list lacks commentary, and there is a Category:fashion photographers (linked to in Fashion photography) that is more comprehensive. Calliopejen 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nominator. Much better suited as a category. J Milburn 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as better served by category. Daniel Case 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I looked at the original deleted article, and it looks nothing like the current article. Therefore, G4 does not apply. Citations indicate notability, and The Freechild Project has been kept. Further discussion should be held to determine if this should be merged to The Freechild Project or not. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fletcher (2nd nomination)[edit]

Article Adam Fletcher is recreation of a page deleted previously. Notability not established; probably autobiographical in whole or in part. Bringing to AfD instead of speedy delete because I don't know what the content of the earlier article was and because article is related to The Freechild Project, which is the subject of another ongong AfD discussion. orlady 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! The templates are not set up for doing a new AfD (instead of a speedy delete) on an article deleted previously. When I used the template for a first deletion, the old closed deletion debate came up. With the template for second nomination, nothing works properly, probably because the previous debate was on an article that was deleted already.--orlady 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have cleaned up the AfD nomination for you. J Milburn 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Not having see the original article, the present article has citations that indicate notability, and I will discuss further if it is thought appropriate to consider it here. DGG 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not notable, although not really a repost of previous content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if The Freechild Project is considered notable and kept. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Possible merge to The Freechild Project if notable, but I'm not convinced the two articles, together, are notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I just listened to him at a youth rally in Denver, and he's awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.88.121.211 (talk • contribs) 15:17, April 7, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:36Z

Ultra Vires (UofT newspaper)[edit]

Non-notable, and no worked on in a long time to make it not a stub. No sources cited. Delete GreenJoe 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale with the former Cornell school papers. My research only indicates notability for the legal term ultra vires and not the UT newspaper. Luke! 18:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:36Z

Big Ten's[edit]

Most of the information in the article is a joke; I've already tagged it as a hoax. There is a restaurant/bar near the University of Minnesota campus called "Big Ten" (not "Big Ten's"), but it's hardly notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia Eco84 | Talk 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete mostly nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Embarrassing it's been around so long. - Aagtbdfoua 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zine[edit]

It's not notable, and fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete school newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at this time. It does attempt to establish notability by claiming the use of bathos. Though for the most part, lacking references, it appears to be heavily based original research. Although under the controversy section, claims of the Zine content controversy being picked up by independant media does mildly satisfy notability guidelines. Luke! 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they need to cite sources. They fail to do that, so their claims could be lies. GreenJoe 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly sources are always needed to support claims. That's why I haven't recommended deletion yet. I'm going to see if there are such sources. Luke! 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the chief contributors to the moral turpitude of the university student are alcohol, debauchery, and literary journals. Or per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pigeon Dissident[edit]

Non-notable. Fails WP:NOR. GreenJoe 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my rationale with the former Cornell school papers. There is no claim to notability here. Luke! 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how any University or College's internal pulbications can have notability outside that University or College. A1octopus 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Sun Network. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:38Z

Udaya News[edit]

Been here since March 2006 and it is still a stub, despite being prodded (and rejected) and then later speedied (by me, I didn't know it had already been prodded) (and rejected). I am unable to find any information to expand it. It could be merged or redirected to Sun Network, but I think it may be more appropriate to delete. Iamunknown 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:39Z

The Poisoning[edit]

This band is not notable in the slightest, their only claim to "fame" is they once opened for Trashlight Vision. The article is vanity and was created by the band's drummer[7], it is used merely for promotion purposes. Deathrocker 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Google is showing me nothing. J Milburn 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If once opening for Trashlight Vision were a claim to notability, then I would write an article on my former band (regular opening act for Sneaky Feelings and also occasional openers for The Chills and David Kilgour). But it isn't, so I won't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like "just another MySpace" band case. - Deathrocker 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey punch[edit]

This is, I believe, the fifth nomination this article has received. Although reliable sources do exist for this article, it's not the sort of thing that is suitable for Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales himself has opposed to this article's existence, trimming it down hugely in one edit. The angry dragon article was deleted because such a definition belongs in Urban Dictionary, and the donkey punch is exactly the same: it may be slightly verifiable, and although Wikipedia is not censored, just because something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion. This is about a fake (there is one mere claim in the talk page that it has been carried out in reality) violent, illegal and misogynistic sexual act, with no claims for notability. The talk page and the previous deletion archives have much information and debate on the article and its validity. While articles on things like a band with an album and an EP that has supported a major artist are deleted, articles like this one along with its notorious siblings rusty trombone, Cleveland steamer and Dirty Sanchez (which belong on urban dictionary, sure, but not here, and I may well list for deletion if this is successful) are, as some have noted, what makes a mockery of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Let's get rid of the donkey punch once and for all. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep, but would be delighted if someone could come up with valid grounds for deletion. Unfortunately it is a genuine sexual practice - see this NON WORK SAFE LINK for more than you ever wanted to know about it. Much as I would love to enforce WP:IDONTLIKEIT in this case, this article is sourceable and far more than a dicdef. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Iridescenti said, it is well sourced, and is more than a dic def. The fact that it hasn't happened isn't grounds for deletion. I can't really see your issue with this. Obviously, it isn't the kind of thing that many people want to read about, but neither are most things we have here. J Milburn 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely the fact that Jimbo Wales edited this article when he could have just deleted it is an argument in favour of keeping it? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm primarily responsible for the article in its current form (see history if you like). I'm not sure where this prejudice against what should be in an encyclopedia comes from as Wikipedia is not censored. Certainly the fact that it's fake isn't something that has any bearing on its notability. I did a similar WP:HEY on autocunnilingus but I'm letting that one go (after trimming there's only one WP:RS). But as sexual terminology goes, this one actually figured (in meta-slang form) in a national scandal and one of the sources is a US Senate page. I don't know how often sexual slang, no matter how real, makes it to that lofty height. Call it stupid, call it ... irresponsible, but it's a "real" fake, and it's a notable fake at that. What Jimbo did was exactly right, he excluded the pointless wankery, er, original research from the article. It's the kind of article that attracts the "Howard Stern mentioned donkey punching on his show last night" additions. But we seem to have that under control now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced and well written. No valid reason given for deletion. DCEdwards1966 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dhartung. All four previous nominations have resulted in keeps, and the article has never been stronger than it is now. The nominator implies that this article is comparable to the article on "angry dragon", but this article is clearly neither a dicdef or a neologism, and the implication that Jimbo supports the deletion of this article based on his improvement of it seems odd to me. --Maxamegalon2000 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. The fact that something is lewd and apocryphal does not mean it should not be included. Consider it a modern version of a Catherine the Great and her horse story. -24.68.187.88 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. For no other reason than that following four failed nominations for deletion, a fifth nomination, without more, should be foreclosed. Surely some kind of claim preclusion can attach to that kind of consensus. Indeed, WP:SK states speedy keeping is appropriate if "[t]he nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it . . . . Examples of this include . . . making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Pop Secret 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - let me reiterate and expand on my arguments. Firstly, the link posted by irisdescenti does not show a genuine "donkey punch"; merely a punch that stops short of hitting the female on the back of her head with any real force as the link states. Secondly, I am neither a vandal nor trying to disrupt the encyclopedia (I've made a good article from scratch and have contributed positively for a long time). Thirdly, although this may have been mentioned in multiple third-party reliable sources, is it truly notable? If this weren't sexually/controversially charged and was a so-called 'boring' topic with the same number of references, would it still pass the notability test? Is Wikipedia a place where such jokes can thrive? How is 'donkey punch' not a neologism? I actually think Wikipedia loses a lot of valuable information through deletion, yet articles like this are allowed to exist (and yes, I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not censored, and of all the policies and guidelines). Fourthly, to quote the talk page, "Not only does this kind of gratuitous prurience threaten to destroy the good work you people have done... eventually, you're going to find yourself slapped with lawsuits when a young boy pulls a stunt like this on a young girl, and the girl's mother finds out the he got the idea for it on Wikipedia. Trust me. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but, as a JD, I can guarantee you I'd take that case. If you want, I can show you all the cases in which you could be held liable." Finally, the fact that Jimbo did not want an article about the concept of the donkey punch as it is currently held is a good sign that it should be deleted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I certainly do not believe in censorship in general and on Wikipedia (articles on real sexual practices carried out by more than a tiny minority of people should certainly be included), but having disgusting jokes in an encyclopedia makes a mockery of it, as I have stated.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If I may fairly answer your objections, research: First, we use neither the somethingawful description or the porn movie as sources (although they'd actually be helpful resources for the article, best not open the floodgates). I wouldn't describe it as a "genuine sexual practice" except in the broadest sense, where a subject of pornography counts as a "practice", but it's certainly a genuine subject of pornography (ridiculous and ultimately more of a joke than a route to orgasm, but you never know). Second, I don't see your nomination as disruptive, and WP:AGF should apply here, but people are always trying to get rid of stuff because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I confess I believe that's a large part of your argument. Third, again, as sexual slang, it's notable -- very few sexual slang terms come up in congressional investigations. (Yes, others did, but this was approximately the only one the newspapers would print ...) Yes, it's a neologism, but WP:NEO is not a blanket prohibition on articles about neologisms, it is a guideline that restricts their intemperate application. Fourth, Wikipedia does not have a policy on dangerous practices, so far as I know; we have Molotov cocktail and self-injury and BASE jumping and so forth. In fact, there have been edit wars over the use of safety disclaimers in articles. I don't know how many times we have to say it's not "real" or quote Dan Savage on the risks to get the point across. Finally, you misrepresent Jimbo Wales because he did not want the article in its prior form. He expressed no opinion on its current form. He literally instructed editors to "start over from scratch", and his first words on the Talk page were "I insist that nothing go back into this article without a proper source." That doesn't read to me as you represented it.--Dhartung | Talk 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response re disruption and bad faith: I would add that asserting disruption and assuming good faith are separate concepts. A user, as here, might very well have only good motives yet nevertheless in acting on those motives, end up causing well-intentioned disruption. I've been on the losing side of AfDs before and remain unconvinced by the rationales provided by the prevailing side. Still, if I renominated merely because I remained unconvinced, it would of course be disruption, regardless of how fervently I thought I was right. That's the situation here. Accordingly, the elements of a speedy keep are met and that should be the result of this nomination. Pop Secret 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further response - Nowehere do I say the Something Awful article and the porn movie prove the practice exists - they prove that the practice exists as a concept. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on things that haven't actually happened. This is precisely the sort of article we should have on Wikipedia, for the "Howard Stern mentioned this last night - what did he mean by it" searcher. As (repeatedly) said above, this is a phrase that has been used in the US Senate, not something made up in school one day, and every delete argument on this and the previous four AfDs boils down to some variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I say below in the twin AfDs on Cannabis cultivation, just because something's potentially dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it - we have Nuclear weapon design and Ricin extraction, for god's sake. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further further response - HisSpaceResearch, are you seriously suggesting that of all the millions of websites out there, teenage boys look on Wikipedia for porn? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to responses - Firstly, your stereotyping of teenage boys is unnecessary, and they may well stumble across Wikipedia while searching for porn as Wikipedia is often the first search result in Google when many different terms are put in.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not my 'unnecessary stereotyping of teenage boys' - I'm referring to your line "you're going to find yourself slapped with lawsuits when a young boy pulls a stunt like this on a young girl, and the girl's mother finds out the he got the idea for it on Wikipedia". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced. With 226,000 hits on Google[8], the term has a secure enough place in popular culture to warrant an article, even if it is apocryphal as a sexual practice. TreveX^talk 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced, and AfD isn't a shoot till you win game unfortunately. Lets not nominate this again. - Denny 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is certainly that in many of these repeat nominations (I wouldn't assume it here, but this isn't the 14th go round like some others have had), remember you only have to get deleted once then CSD A4 means it's dead for good. The deletionists just need to hope that the keepers aren't watching once. Carlossuarez46 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. Sorry, I also don't know what to make of the Jimbo argument in the nomination? If Jimbo didn't like it he would have deleted rather than edited it (I assume he has that power), but I don't know him and wouldn't presume to speak on his behalf as the nominator appears to be doing... Carlossuarez46 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism and hoax. 'The term is not strictly defined or well-documented; at least one source attests to the move being "made up." If someone read this article, believed it, and tried it, the result could be severe brain trauma for their victim. Edison 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thank you for being the first user to agree with me here.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While doing research for a paper I am presenting at the Western States Folklore Society Annual Meeting 2007, I came across this debate regarding the Donkey Punch. I am strongly in favor of keeping the Donkey Punch as an article. Dan Savage (who is referenced in this debate) refers to activities such as the Donkey Punch as Extreme Sex Acts, and I am currently researching Extreme Sex Acts as a form of folklore. They are quite obviously folklore, as they exist in variation, are anonymous in origin, and are passed as a traditional form of humor. Under all of these criteria, NO item of folklore would qualify for a Wikipedia article, though articles on folktales, specific types of jokes (lawyer jokes, blonde jokes), festivals, and religious rites abound. These are ALL forms of folklore that are readily accepted in the Wikipedia community. Granted, most folktales that are included are in print and frequently on film (due to Disney), as in general, they are not told by word of mouth anymore. But I find it a double standard that one genre of folklore is included and another is not. Perhaps the Donkey Punch should be included in an article about the genre entirely, rather than having it's own article, but removing it entirely is ignoring a significant part of our contemporary folk culture. Just a note: much of what is found on urbandictionary.com is what folklorists call "folk speech." I understand that each individual item of folk speech could not be listed on Wikipedia, but Extreme Sex Acts have a relatively small canon (far smaller than the canon of folktales) and could reasonably be listed in some fashion on Wikipedia. For a verifiable source, I refer you to Dan Savage, as listed below. If you need more than that, attend my presentation at UCLA April 21. Porcelainophelia 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Porcelainophelia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep I'm an eroge fan, and this activity is featured in the darker selections of the genre. Article is sourced. Google provides a large number of links. Entry proves useful for anyone seeking detailed information in the matter. Nargrakhan 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as before. Meets all relevant policies and standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliene Ma'riage[edit]

Article fails WP:RS/WP:V and WP:MUSIC. - Cyrus XIII 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be some sources on google, such as [9]. Epbr123 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article and a few Google hits do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). - Cyrus XIII 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It satisfies WP:N though. Epbr123 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How so? - Cyrus XIII 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has 4 or 5 reliable independent sources. Epbr123 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you be a bit more specific, which of all those fan-sites and self-published web pages would qualify as as reliable per WP:RS? - Cyrus XIII 09:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The 4 or 5 reliable independent sources stated as references which aren't from fan-sites and self-published web pages! Epbr123 09:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, how about this: I remove all citations that I deem unfit per WP:RS from the article and leave the burden of evidence to provide sources and argue their reliability to you and other editors. And please refrain from using more exclamation marks in the process, it is not very polite. - Cyrus XIII 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        One of the references is from JaME, which seems to be an organization that provides information in an attempt to make Japanese music accessible to English speaking audiences. Another is a book which (to my limited Japanese) seems to cover Visual kei bands. The other three appear to be fan or self-published sites. Pkeets 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band has a fairly extensive article in Wikipedia, Japan, which (if I'm reading it correctly) says they're a prominent example of the genre. Good quality references on Japanese bands are hard to find in English. Pkeets 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If other Wikipedia articles would constitute reliable sources, one could just create an extensive, yet completely uncited article on one incarnation of Wikipedia (like ja:Aliene Ma’riage, as it does not seem to reference any of its content) and then use it to ensure the notability of its other-language counterpart. - Cyrus XIII 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author, and Cyrus said referencing the Wikipedia, Japan, article was insufficient. I'm now looking for Japanese references which meet the requirements. Pkeets 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_visual_kei_bands/ It appears there's something like a project going on that lists profiles of these bands, all with minimal references. Are all these to be deleted, or should we add to the list? Pkeets 19:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:42Z

Tones of home(video)[edit]

Non Notable Stoic atarian 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tones of Home. It was a fairly notable single by a major band (at the time). I'll work on fixing it up a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've fixed it up a bit and moved it to a better title. While it's certainly not perfect, I think it's a solid keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was vaporize. --Core desat 05:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boil water in a paper cup[edit]

Not notable. Perhaps it has a place in an article on science experiments. Is "boil water in a paper cup" even the formal name of the experiment? Or just a description? But come on, what is next "dissecting frogs" or "using a mirror to focus sunlight and light a match"? WP is not for this. --Wehwalt 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to either Wikibooks, Wikijunior (which is the level it is), or Wikiversity if expand. 142.58.101.27 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Could be used as in example in some other article, but does not justify its own article. Josh Thompson 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Josh Thompson. --Christopher Thomas 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vaprorize per the water in the cup. (At least the water goes away faster than this non-notable article will.) --EMS | Talk 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of products that contain high fructose corn syrup[edit]

Indiscriminate list of products that will never be complete. Gogo Dodo 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strikes me as violating the spirit if not the letter of WP:NOT#DIR. Listing foods by ingredients is untenable. Otto4711 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the never-ending list, as pointed out by nom and Otto4711. Such a common ingredient as to make it a non-notable ingredient (my term, not WP). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indiscriminate, unmanageable, and not very useful list. DCEdwards1966 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Since manufacturers can change their recipes (and often do), sorting products by ingredient is not something an encyclopedia can reasonably manage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unbelievably indiscriminate directory. Virtually everything nowadays has HFCS in it. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I am all for letting people know exactly what the hell they are eating or drinking; Wikipedia is absolutly not the place for this. However, a specialist wiki dealing with food would be the perfect place for it. (Justyn 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: I agree with several of the above comments -- it would go on for pages if it were complete. POV problem. Just a list of ingredients (although I like lists). Bearian 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Extremely useful and informative to the general population, if each listing can be verified. - Gilgamesh 09:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kistler[edit]

Delete - does not appear to have the requisite independent sources attesting to his notability. Being mentioned in an essay collection or being contacted by a documentary filmmaker does not notability make. Apparently, "Alan Kistler has often stated he would like to pubish his own fiction pieces" and "several comic book fans have e-mailed MonitorDuty.com to offer their support that he will one day write for the professional comic book industry." Should that day ever come, then perhaps this gentleman will warrant a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. Otto4711 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopeless. Excerpt: "...he will one day write for the professional comic book industry." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save - The article has been edited to exclude superfluous information and now adds that he has actually been published as a cartoonist by a professional organization and that dialogue from him will be in the upcoming "Secrets of College Survival" book and that he's now being sought by a second documentary crew (though they may only be independent). Considering how many comic book related Wikipedia articles reference him and how he's all over google, I see no harm in letting this article remain for comic book fans who are curious. Jackofhearts2099 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Jackofhearts2099[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a particularly compelling argument. There are still no independent sources, as are required for Wikipedia articles. Otto4711 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that there's enough interest from many comic book fans about his work that it makes sense to me to have at least the brief summary that is currently his article. If more independent sources are needed, then I say that's a problem that can be fixed rather than deleting the article entirely, which seems unecessary to me when he's a published freelance cartoonist and is all over google. I've seen a wikipedia entry or two on internet cartoonists who don't get paid for their online comic strips. Just my thoughts. Jackofhearts2099 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Jackofhearts2099[reply]

OK, but see, that's not how it works. If there are no independent reliable sources then there can be no article, however convenient it might be for people interested in him. Otto4711 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save- The individual focused upon in this article is referenced all over the internet, in various publications and is well known within the science fiction/comic book community. Any google search will pull up multiple articles, stories, reviews and cartoons that have been written and created by Alan Kistler. A wikipedia article is a fantastic way to link all of his work on one easy site containing multiple links and a simple rundown of his many accomplishments. Please keep this article. Xlillybelle 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)xlillybelle[reply]

note: — Xlillybelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mr Stephen 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xlillybelle has contributed an entry and done more edits since that comment was made. She's new and I don't see that that should be held against him or her. Jackofhearts2099 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Jackofhearts2099[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:44Z

Québécois[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that's all this article is. Before I suggested a merge into Quebec, but the fact is that Wiktionary exists and handles this business perfectly. There is no need for a separate article, especially one has been used to push controversial ideas. Again, Wiktionary has an entry for this term - whatever information here that doesn't exist there can be "transwikied" which I believe is the appropriate term. Thus, the article should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Quebec.

The socalled "dictionary" aspect of the article is only in the introduction. It establishes with links to referenced sources what the various definitions of Quebecois are. This is necessary because the existence of certain definitions (i.e. that of Quebecois being referred to as French Canadians living in Quebec) have been denied and requires documentation. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a WP:DICDEF. The other section is pure WP:OR and unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox platform. 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that we don't have articles for Ontarian (redirect), Albertan (redirect), New Yorker (disambig), Californian (disambig), etc. Singling out Quebec is clearly POV. Laval 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the article is clearly not a soapbox. The opinions given on the issue of the Parliamentary motion (which formally recognized the Quebecois nation are those of the Prime Minister, and not my own. They are referenced as such from primary sources. --Soulscanner 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these have been or seek to be recognized as cultural nations. You will note that almost all cultural nations like the Quebecois to have separate entries for their homeland and the people (Catalonia/Catalan people, Irish people/Ireland, Germans/Germany, Scotland/Scottish People,Bavaria/Bavarians, Serbs/Serbia, etc.). It is normal for cultural nations to distinguish between the people and their homeland. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." French Canadian (like Serbs, Bavarians, Scottish, etc) refers to an ethnic group, which includes French-speaking peoples outside Québec (including in the United States), and who thus are not part of Québec culture and national identity. In case you didn't know, there are Serbs outside Serbia - in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia. In case you didn't know, there are Scottish outside of Scotland - in England, Ireland, Canada, United States. In case you didn't know, there are Irish outside of Ireland - in the UK, United States, Canada, Australia. In case you didn't know, there are Germans outside of Germany - in Belgium, Poland, Russia, South America, United States, Canada. Promoting WP:OR is against Wikipedia policy. Please read them carefully and cease and desist from these partisan campaign. Cheers, Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:OR to state that the Quebecois are a cultural nation like the Catalans or Scots. There is a consensus on this in Quebec and now in much of Canada. The cultural and ethnic definition of Quebecois refers to French Canadians living in Quebec. This is because during the Quiet Revolution, nationalistic French Canadians living in Quebec began to refer to themselves as Quebecois. This means that the word Quebcois is ambiguous in French. You will also note that Mathieugp refers to French Canadians living outside Quebec as the Quebec diaspora and the French spoken by French Canadians outside Quebec as Quebec French, indicating that the relationship here is similar to that of Scots, Serbs, Bavarians, etc. living outside their homeland. So, yes, the term is ambiguous, which is why a page is necessary to disambiguate this; moreover, another page is required to describe the complexities of the Quebecois identity. Perhaps the page needs to be renamed Quebecois identity. --Soulscanner 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting everything from A to Z on Quebec. The first sentence of Catalans reads : "The Catalans are an ethnic group or nation whose homeland is Catalonia...". There is of course a link between the territorial identity and the cultural one. The Scots article is a disambiguation article like the Canadian (disambiguation) page. We could have the same disambiguation at the top of the Quebec article. The French Canadians of Quebec began to refer to themselves as Québécois, the people of Quebec, which in English gives "Quebecers". The transformation was from A) an ethno-linguistic (and even religious) minority without any State to B) the majority of the citizens of Quebec, Quebec as a strong State inside a loose confederation for some or as a separate State for others. This is what Claude Belanger accurately describes on his site. After the fact, after the Quiet Revolution, some anglophone Canadians began to refer to the French Canadians of Quebec as the "Quebecois" in English, either out of respect for the name they themselves used to refer to themselves (much like we went from Eskimos to Inuit, Montagnais to Innu, Huron to Wendat) or out of a complete and utter misunderstanding of the political reasons for the renaming. The old definition of "French Canadian" was thus cut & pasted to "Quebecois", masking the nature and reasons of the transformation impossible to grasp. This is specific to the English language, and native francophones from Quebec discover with great surprise and disbelief, when, after learning English as a second language, they land on individuals who say "I am Quebecer, but I am not Quebecois" and even actively fight identification to Quebec by all its citizens, including non-francophones. Canadians who speaking English do not always refer to themselves as Anglo-Canadians, which is perfectly normal. Franco-Quebecers do the same. They simply say we are Québécois and they invite (and use political means to get) people within the community of Quebec citizens to identify with Quebec first or solely (which is already the case for the strong advocates of independence). When there is a need to distinguish the Francophone majority (~83% of Quebecers) and from any of the various ethnic minorities for whatever reason, then they say Québécois francophones'. In English, this would be "Francophone Quebecers". When referring to those Quebecers who have French Canadian origins (~74% of Quebecers), they say Québécois d'origine canadienne-française. -- Mathieugp 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is true only in exceptional cases. Refering to yourself as French Canadian is only done among older generations. As you rightly say, French Canadians in the Quiet Revolution went from refering themselves as French Canadian to Quebecois. We agree on that. But as the Petit Robert states, it is not anglophones that gave Quebecois it's ethnic sense. You are obviously eager to demonize anglophones in misrepresenting this. It was done by francophones during the Quiet Revolution, which is why you can find this definition (among the others) in most authoratitive distionaries. That is why anglophones and allophones, while understanding that they are Quebecois in that they are residents of Quebec (the civic sense), are reluctant to do so in the cultural sense. This is quite obvious to anyone in Quebec. Now, many are working to change this and I laud that because it shows that Quebec nationalism is progressing into a more civic sense, but I think most would recognize that we are not quite there yet. but simply denying the facts doesn't help the situation. --Soulscanner 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exceptional cases? No we do not agree. You say "the Quiet Revolution went from refering themselves as French Canadian to Quebecois." I say "During the Quiet revolution, those who called themselves Canadiens français began to call themselves Québécois meaning Quebecer. The fact that the English-Speaking majority of Canada, which is only a minority in Quebec and does not think of itself as a minority at all did no join in the boat is not the result, as you imply, that Francophone Quebecers excluded them. It is obviously because they already considered themselves as the majority of Canada. The fact that only a minority of allophones self identify as Québécois can be explained by the state of competition between two host societies in Montreal, one being tremendously more powerful than the other. If the federal State had been driven out of Quebec in 1980, today Quebec allophones would be francized in much greater proportion than they are anglicized. That is pure common sense mathematically and sociolinguistically. Your belief that Quebec nationalism is progressing implies that it was not civic from the start. That is simply incorrect. Quebec nationalism exist BECAUSE of the abandoning of ethnic survivalism inside Canada as made obvious by the rejection of the "French" Canadian name and the adoption of Quebecer instead. You have still to produce the full definition found in your 1984 Petit Robert by the way. -- Mathieugp 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quebec. Nothing here that can't be included there or in Culture of Quebec and the idea of having an article for people from every conceivable place makes me want to kill myself. Recury 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Clearly a WP:POV from a Quebec editor. 142.58.101.27 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary as a dicdef referring to the dialect - move everything else that's not already there to Quebec. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per RecuryRaveenS 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - article is pretty much a dicdef as nom points out but a good article on this topic could certainly be written. No opinion if redirected which is the best target. Otto4711 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quebec to be consistent with others. The subject of the identity of Quebecers, especially in the context of the strong nationalist and secessionist movement, the French language of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, is of course of interest for an encyclopedia. But it should really be covered either an article along the lines of the current Canadian identity or by expanding Culture of Quebec. (Note that for example American identity actually redirects to Culture of the United States at the moment). Such articles are likely to be subject to constant POV and edit wars if all parties do not agree on a conscious effort to strictly adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the Culture of Quebec, a while ago I started a portal for that purpose here. If this draft ever matures into a real portal, then we will have the materials for an English translation of it. -- Mathieugp 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out earlier, the normal course in the case of cultural nations like the Quebecois is to distinguish between the people and the territorial homeland (e.g. Irish people/Ireland. This is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia practice. I also agree that we should adhere to Wiki guidelines. This means that we need to use language that is commonly understood to describe nations and cultures like the Quebecois. This article attempts to do that, but it is difficult to develop it if documented usage is consistently denied for political purposes of imposing preffered definitions. --Soulscanner 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be consistent with Franco-Albertan, Franco-Ontarian, and all the other provincial sub-divisions of French Canadian. Kevlar67 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make much sense. We already have an article on French Canadians. "Québécois" is the French term for "Quebecers", as I've already explained. See Ontarian, Manitoban, Nova Scotian, Albertan, etc. All redirects. No double standards here on Wikipedia, and fair is fair. Quebecer itself redirects to Québécois. As Mathieu has also explained, a general article on the French-speaking population (regardless of ethnic origin) belongs to another article such as Culture of Quebec or French-speaking Quebecers or Francophone Quebecers. But this article is pure WP:DICDEF. Laval 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Quebecois should redirect to French Canadian. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." French Canadian refers to an ethnic group, which includes French-speaking peoples outside Québec (including in the United States), and who thus are not part of Québec culture and national identity. Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You will note that, as requested, I added a French dictionary definition that identifies the usage of Quebecois as referring to French Canadian culture and language in Quebec. I apologize for not including it earlier. I'll also point out that the ambiguity of the term is part of what this article tries to sort out. Unfortunately, we have been stuck at this point for quite a while because you will not acknowledge that this definition exists in English or in French, even though it is common usage in Quebec (as evidenced by the reference in the Petit Robert). This has prevented us from progressing in this article as I consider it important to reach a consensus on this before proceeding. Despite the fact that you've obstructed this progress by denying common definitions, I acknowledge the importance of references in backing up statements that others may disagree with for political or ideological reasons. After much scouring of the internet and literature, I have found authoritative references that firmly establish these defintions. I've always pointed out that the other definitions do apply (they are also found in most dictionaries as I have readily documented), but that the ethno-cultural definition applies as well in many cases (especially in culture). The fact is, French Canadians in Quebec constitute an ethno-linguistic majority. It is also a fact that the majority of French Canadians in public and in private life will self-identify as Quebecois. Hence, even though French Canadians outside Quebec do not refer to themselves as Quebecois, they in fact speak the same language, share the same ancestry, share the same culture, and share the same ethnicity with the Quebecois. Hence, the semantics of it can be confusing. It makes it especially important to carefully distinguish between Quebecois (the people; nation; culture; etc.) and Quebec (the territory).--Soulscanner 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Here are dictionaries that disagree with the definition SoulScanner is trying to impose for Québécois in French:
        
        Media Dico: québécois,e (adjectif et nom commun) Du Québec, de Québec.
        
        Grand dictionnaire terminologique de l'OQLF: Personne née au Québec ou qui habite cette province, et plus rarement, personne née à Québec ou qui habite cette ville. (That is by far the most authoritative definition of the word in the French language of Quebec.)
        
        Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé: (Personne) qui habite la province du Québec ou qui en est originaire.
        
        Answers.com: De la ville ou de la province de Québec.
        
        Sensagent.com: 1. habitant du Québec.
        
        Wikitionary: Du mot Québec, lequel vient de l’algonquien Kébec « là où le fleuve se rétrécit » (en parlant du fleuve Saint-Laurent).
        
        Orthonet: de Québec ville ou du Québec province
        
        Word Reference.com: Québécois nm person from Quebec
        
        Merriam-Webster: Etymology: French québecois, québécois, from Québec Quebec (Shows that Merriam-Webster agrees with the simple territorial French definition of "from Quebec".)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathieugp (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        I am not denying that this definition exists. I have documented it here, and been very forthright about it. Quebecois can mean Quebecer, a resident of Quebec, especially in French. We both agree that this is one definition. I've simply documented, in an authoritative source, that the word is also used in French to mean a french Canadian living in Quebec; words can sometimes have different definitions depending on context. You choose to deny because you do not like this definition. However, you cannot deny that it exists. --Soulscanner 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I do deny that it means "French Canadian living in Quebec" in French. It does not even MAKE SENSE to say the équivalent of this in that language. It is antinomic! The standard definition of Québécois, in French, is equivalent to that of Canadien or Américain or any other. Therefore, a Québécois is a person from Quebec as is stated in every French dictionary including your 1984 Petit Robert. In addition, far less commonly and certainly not conventionally, it can mean, as a noun, the language of the Québécois (as in "I speak "American", meaning I speak the English that is characteristic of the English-speakers who constitute 80% of the American people.) As an adjective, it means "of Quebec" which is quite vast as is "of America" and also can take a cultural connotation. The Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé makes this quite clear, but I did not need the Trésor to figure out that of course most Americans think of American culture as a primarily English language culture and that the overwhelming majority of the people who think that way are not proving to be unfavourable or hostile to their civic institutions by doing so. Would I have needed to explain the self-evident to an American of a French? Is it possible that Canadians who are so numerous to think there is no specific national culture to Canada have an issue with Quebecers not having the same problem at all? This article by Michel Seymour is there to attest the political motivations of those who promote the opinion you support of Francophone Quebecers's self-reference. -- Mathieugp 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be consistent with Franco-Albertan, Franco-Ontarian, shouldn't we have Franco-Quebecer? But is it a good comparison? Aren't Franco-Quebecers more comparable to Anglo-Ontarians, Anglo-Albertans etc. in terms of majority-minority or Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Canadians etc. in terms of global host cultures? -- Mathieugp 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, Franco-Quebecers do not refer to themselves as such. The refer to themselves as Quebecois. Second of all, Albertans and Ontarians do not seek status as nations, and hence are not recognized as such. The Quebecois (i.e. French Canadians living in Quebec) do, and are now recognized as such. Again, this about how words are commonly used, not how some people wish them to be used. --Soulscanner 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, for reasons cited above. The dictionary definition is only there to document the common usage of the word, which has been challenged. To be succinct, the use of Quebecois here is consistent with cultural nations that have separate entries for their homeland and the people (Catalonia/Catalan people, Irish people/Ireland, Germans/Germany, Scotland/Scottish People,Bavaria/Bavarians, Serbs/Serbia, etc.). I've gone through considerable pains to document this and much of the article. Probably, Quebecois should be on a disambiguation page, in a manner consistent with Irish or Scottish, and the documented information here shifted to a separate article that can be used to describe the ambiguity and usage of the term. There is clearly more information on this page than can be put in a dictionary definition. Until this can be sorted out, the article should be kept. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The habit many English-Speaking Canadians have of using Quebecois to refer to Franco-Quebecers (or even "French Canadians living in Quebec") is unfortunate, but indisputably it is there. However, this should not be used as a pretext to promote the particular POV which SoulScanner tried to present as objective in the article. No particular POV on Canadian identity is being discussed at Canadian or Anglo-Canadian. Canadian redirect to Canada and at the top of Canada there is a link to a disambiguation page named Canadian (disambiguation). Isn't it just common sense? I believe this common sense should also apply when dealing with Quebec and Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the reference to the Petit Robert points out, this began around 1965 among French Canadians in Quebec who adopted a Quebecois identity and broke with the pan-Canadian identity of French Canadian. If anglophones do it, it is because they respect this shift in identity among the Quebecois. Again, this is not POV. It is documented in any review of Quebec political history. --Soulscanner 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I challenge you to type the whole definition of your 1984 dictionary so we can all see what the Petit Robert says and not just the interpretation you try to give it. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I typed out the whole definition. I'll patiently restate the obvious. I'm not denying that the definition you are promoting. I'm agreeing with it. There is not need to provide 1 000 000 links to websites (most of which are not authoritative) to confirm something I readily acknowledge. I'm just asking you to acknowledge that often Quebecois is used in French and in English to refer to French Canadians living in Quebec, as described in thr Petit Robert. If you cannot accept a dictionary definition from a French dictionary, then I do not know what to do to convince you. --Soulscanner 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article covers the fact that Québécois are a nation, a nation which is notable indeed and which deserves information, I believe.Dread Specter 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it deserves information, but that is not the reason for the suggested deletion or redirection. A partisan user, SoulScanner tries to transpose the definition of "Quebecois" (exclusively Francophone Quebecers according to many) to the definition of Québécois in the French language, which the numerous dictionary definitions I have provided above prove to be just wrong. From there he promotes a particular POV on everything that related to Quebec politics and culture. A redirect of Quebecois to Quebec would be consistent with the present redirect of Canadian to Canada. At the top of Canada, there is a link to Canadian (disambiguation). We could likewize have a Quebecois (disambiguation) to deal with the usage of Quebecois in English. SoulScanner almost agrees with this, only he continues to try to teach Quebec francophones how they use their own language which is not only very disrespectful but even in this case factually incorrect as shown by the many dictionary definitions. -- Mathieugp 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will propose that a redirect of Quebecois to Quebec is not appropriate. Quebecois identity (what is meant by the Quebecois nation or people) is more complex and hence more ambiguous than "Ontarian" or "Albertan"), and needs its own article. In fact, Quebec's role as the homeland of French Canadians (or the Quebec diaspora, as Mathieugp refers to them) and the center of the francophone linguage community in Canada really has no paralell in the other provinces, and is more akin the the role of Catalonia, Bavarians, Scottish People, and Irish People in Europe. It is not POV to suggest that this is generally common knowledge in Quebec. --Soulscanner 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements and Scope of article Acknowledging that the article reads too much like a dictionary article, I've added some improvements. The aim here is to briefly summarize the cultural and political currents that have run through the French-Canadian/francophone/franco-Quebecois (simply refered to as Quebecois in Quebec) community since the Quiet Revolution. --Soulscanner 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please close the redirect discussion I propose this discussion be closed. Personally, I've had enough. I've repeated myself too many times and I don't think there is more to add.

I'll summarize here (at the risk of more repetition) that Quebecois identity since the 1960's (what is meant by the Quebecois culture, nation or people) is more complex and more diverse in its various meanings than "Ontarian" or "Albertan". In fact, Quebec's role as the homeland of French Canadians (or the Quebec diaspora, as Mathieugp refers to them) and as the center of the francophone language community in Canada really has no parallel in the other provinces (or North America!) , and is more akin the the role of other cultural homelands such as Catalans, Bavarians, Germans, and Hungarians. The discussion of this is too long for a subsection in an introductory article on Quebec, and interesting enough to go beyond a dry disambiguation page.

To me, it's obvious that the request to redirect was malicious and WP:POV motivated. I believe that Mathieugp and Laval simple refusal to accept an authoritative referenced source as an indication that they are deliberately hindering the development of the article in order to advance their own political agenda. It has been frustrating to say the least. I suggest that future requests for redirects and deletions be considered malicious.

On the other hand, I'll acknowledge that it has forced me to be more thorough and encyclopedic in my referencing, so I guess it's not all bad. :-) --Soulscanner 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Quebec per other editors and WP:NOR + WP:DICDEF. The article, as the nom indicates, is ultimately a dictionary definition and we already have an entry at Wiktionary. Considering the examples that he and others have cited, it would be terribly POV to single out Quebec, and we must take into account the sensitivity of this issue. By associating the term "Quebecois" (a provincial or national identity, depending upon one's perspective) solely with a single ethnic group is chauvinistic at worst, and ignorant at best. I think sufficient consensus has been achieved to redirect. To the closing admin, I have moved Soulscanner's comments to the talk page here, as they made it awkward to leave my own say here. metaspheres 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored my text that you deleted, but in a way that will not interrupt your "flow". Please do not delete my text again. This article does not single out Quebec anymore that Catalans singles out their cultural group. Quebec is different from other provinces precisely because many consider Quebecois to be their national identity. The fact is that for many ethnicity enters into the equation. Many do not like that, but that is no reason to deny it in others. The intent of this article is to survey the complexities of the Quebecois identity. This is not appropriate on an introductory article that describes the geography, economics, and population of a province as it will take up too much space and eventually consume the entire discussion page. --Soulscanner 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're being a bit overzealous here. It's usually a good idea to be willing to compromise and accept what the dictionaries and standard reference texts state. In this case, the consensus is clear: redirect to Quebec. It's really not that complicated. As the other editors have made clear, Wikipedia does not entertain original ideas and concepts, and it is not a dictionary. The definition of the term, as I've looked it up as well, is that it refers to the inhabitants ot Quebec. This is no different than the examples the nominator cites. Clearly it makes more sense to redirect to the article on the province, rather than use the current article here as a springboard for political purposes. metaspheres 10:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment It would appear, after some investigation, that the problem user in question, User:Soulscanner (also User:Soul scanner), is responsible for a great number of POV edits and has used the Quebec articles to push a particular anti-French POV. In this case, with this specific article, the user, based on the discussions and edit history, is the only one who used the article to (falsely) promote the claim that the term is ethnically motivated and used only in connection with French-speakers. First rule of Wikipedia: We are not a battleground of nationalities, ethnicities, ideologies, peoples. Second rule of Wikipedia: Do not under any circumstances use Wikipedia as a springboard for your cause. Users like Soulscanner attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their own political agendas, and their edit histories clearly reveal what they are up to. My suggestion to the closing admin is to completely disregard this user and focus on the facts and Wikipedia policy. Such problem users are inherently hopelessly POV and are never willing to compromise and work towards consensus. In fact, they almost always reject consensus. Let us reject them instead and send their POVs packing in the face of WP:NPOV. metaspheres 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel I've made anti-French entries, please back up this very grave assertion with facts rather than personal attacks and character assassination. I take this personally. Please point out which entries are POV?. If I have been bigoted in anyway, I will apologize. If you cannot back it up, I expect an apology. They are all maticulously referenced and I took large amounts of time to document everything that I've posted here as I do in all of the pages I edit. I have responded to good-faith challenges to unreferenced claims by producing reference, and I've responded to requests to make the article less dictionary-like by adding referenced, encyclopedic material that is consistent with Wiki fromatting at other pages. You are showing bad faith by deleting documented and referenced material that I have placed in this article. You have also deleted commentaries of mine on this in an attempt to suppress my defence of the article. You have reverted and edited the page to make it less encyclopedic and more of a dictionary entry. this clearly constitutes vandalism (see WP:Vandalism Blanking ). Now you are telling editors that you should ignore me. Interesting reasoning.
- As for simply ignoring complex issues of national identity among the Quebecois (and the significant political events that surround them), that does not help anything. Quebec nationalism needs to be explained to understand the various facets of Quebecois identity. This is best handled by documenting various points of view from important political or intellectual figures, some of which any one of us may or may not agree with. If you feel I am not adequately representing these, you can remedy this by taking the time to find one or two authorative sources, summarizing them, and providing a footnote so that we can verify them. I invite you to add constructively to the article rather than indulging in Blanking WP:Vanadlism. --Soulscanner 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The User:Soulscanner has behaved in a way that reminded me of a certain hardbanned user (User:DW, who came back under User:Angelique, User:JillandJack and others. I have hesitated to report this to admins because some of his initial contributions (ie on English-speaking Quebecer) seemed mostly OK. Unfortunately, this community seems to be the only human community which he knows something about. His edits seem to focus on editorial changes to articles related to the French-Speaking minority of Canada. He has misrepresented the contents of various references to try to support his POV, for example in the Quebecois article case in claiming to cite an "academic" article by David Young. By reading the article, we can see that it is an opinion on a media controversy originating from Don MacPherson, columnist at The Montreal Gazette who in 1990 misinterpreted the actions of Celine Dion when she refused the Félix Award for Anglophone Artist of the Year given by the ADISQ. She was quotes by him as saying: "I am not an anglophone artist and the public understands that. Everywhere I go in the world, I say that I'm proud to be Québécoise". Don MacPherson insinuated that this was yet another proof that for Quebec francophones, (get that) the non-francophones were not Quebecers too. Of course. The ADISQ gives an award for best Anglophone artist, but Quebecers reject non-francophones, it goes without saying. That is perfectly consistent from a logical standpoint. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Quebecers understood Celine's action as she herself understood it: "No, I am not a sell-out singing in English for the big US market as people have been gossiping about since I started singing in English. Give the award to real English-speaking artists from Quebec who better deserve it than me." And this is the reference SoulScanner uses to support his POV that Quebec nationalists (like Celine Dion who said she supported independence like most artists in Quebec) want to built a country to persecute non-francophones, which is the core ideology behind most of his edits. -- Mathieugp 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please noted that Mathieugp has now accused me of being a sockpuppet and implied that I should be banned. --Soulscanner 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of deletion discussion Would the closing editor please close this deletion discussion. It's apparent that this page is turning to a forum for personal attacks on my integrity. Editors who wish to check my major contributions contributions can see them at [[English-speaking Quebecer] which I more or less wrote myself, and Canada#History which I condensed and added more wiki references. You will note by the clogged nature of the discussion on English-speaking Quebecer that Mathieugp attacks here are strictly ideological and personal in nature, and does not a reflect my editing. --Soulscanner 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal? I do not believe we know each other. If it turns out that you are a sockpuppet, you should be banned indeed. The English-speaking Quebecer article was written mostly by myself as can be seen in the history of edits. You have added nice images, some useful additional information to it, but you have refused to correct the factual errors I have pointed out. All this is available for anyone to read in Talk:English-speaking Quebecer. Your removing of information in Canada#History is certainly not a tribute to your work here. Usually, people tend to be proud when they add material, not when they remove it or rewrite it to better reflect one's own particular perspective. -- Mathieugp 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accusing me of being a sock puppet is personal. Also, accusing me of bigotry is personal. The fact that we do not know each other makes it worse. As for my work on that section, I actually did add material while at the same time condensing the article without removing any referenced material; the only thing I suggested is that a reference to American draft dodgers be removed, which I left to the community to decide. I suggest you take a good look at the Canada article (which has been a featured article) and offers a concise history suitable in an introductory article, and you will note that most of the edits have stuck for several months; it would be a good model for cleaning up the long, ponderous, and incoherent rambling on the Quebec page. I'd work on that too, but I know I would be vandalized so I don't waste my time. --Soulscanner 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I sincerely hope I am wrong that you are the sockpuppet I suspect you are based on your behaviour because I won't have the patience to undo all your edits and most likely you would come back under a different name anyway. -- Mathieugp 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The controversy over this term (just look at this page) should be documented in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Discussions on improving the article with sources and POV issues belong on the talk page. –Pomte 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then wouldn't it make so much more sense to treat the subject in let's say Controversy over the usage of the term Quebecois in the English language, or Representation of French-Speaking Quebecers in English-Speaking Canada? To write on this particular issue (how Quebecois in English is used compared to Québécois in French), which I have stated quite clearly cannot be written in any NPOV way at all since it is a POV to start with, would be like writing in Feminist that in certain situations or certain social milieus (in a certain language), the term has become synonymous with "promoters of a sexist society ruled by women". After saying this (which after all is possibly a phenomenon that can be documented as any other) some people, those who pushed for this content in this article, tried to insinuate with bad references that since some Feminists also seem to agree with (or by their actions attest the validity of) this defamatting definition of their movement, its motivations and goals, it was therefore true and encyclopedic and not basically a misunderstanding of feminism. Do I need to explain why an encyclopedic article on such an issue would not belong in Feminist? We can demonstrate quite easily that the transition from Canadien français to Québécois was politically motivated. That the intent of the intellectuals who promoted it and mostly succeeded at this extraordinary psychological revolution in the collective self-representation of a people was intended to have the French Canadians in Quebec stop thinking of themselves as a national minority inside Canada but as the people of Québec. French Quebecers thus becoming a national majority inside Quebec. These intellectuals were either favourable to the ultimate secession of Quebec (the radicals I guess) or the reform of the federal system of Canada to formalize the nature of it as bi-national. There are HUNDREDS of academic references to this in French. This ultimately makes the standard definition of Québécois, in French, the equivalent of Canadien or Américain. Therefore, a Québécois is a person from Quebec as state every French dictionary. In addition, far less commonly and certainly not conventionally, it can mean, as a noun, the language of the Québécois (as in "I speak "American", meaning I speak the English that is characteristic of the English-speakers who constitute 80% of the American people. French-speaking people also constitute ~80% of the Quebec people by the way.) As an adjective, it means "of Quebec" which is quite vast as is "of America" and also can take a cultural connotation. This politically motivated social change was the practical separation of Quebec from Canada even though it had not happened at the political level yet. My generation was brought up thinking that we are either Quebecers alone (sovereignist leanings) and more than ready for independence or Quebecers first (nationalist but federalist) and being Canadians pretty much has the sense of as "citizens of Europe" in this case. But Canada is not Europe and those nationalist-federalist want to change the constitution of Canada and have English-Speaking Canadian nationalists give up their project. The radical change in Quebec, radical in the sense that it seemingly happened overnight for a lot of intellectual Canadians, that is an understatement, was taken as a threat to the continued existence of the Canadian federation as a nation-state with 10 equal provinces in it. All this history is very much encyclopedic, but it is recent, heavily charged politically and writing on this in a NPOV way will very difficult. It belongs to a special article either in Quebec nationalism or Quebec identity. -- Mathieugp 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has its own history, independent of Quebec. CJCurrie 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely POV problems to watch for in this article, but as I've always said, the reason this has a separate article, where other Canadian provincial demonyms don't, is that the term has a complex, loaded and highly controversial political and cultural context that words such as Ontarian and Albertan don't have. It means different things to different speakers, and that inconsistency gives rise to conflict. Whether that's as it should be is not for Wikipedia to dictate. Our role is to reflect how things are, not how we think they should be — and how things are is that "Québécois" is a politically loaded term which does deserve a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article about how and why it's so politically loaded. Keep, with whatever POV cleanup is necessary. And, for the record, Soulscanner's obsession with a distorted and biased view of Quebec politics and history is seeming very awfully familiar to me somehow. Bearcat 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand and respect your desire to see this topic, the how and the why it is politically loaded, be covered in Wikipedia. But I cannot agree that Quebecois is the place for it, nor can I remove from my head that we cannot achieve this when History of Quebec, Quebec nationalism, Culture of Quebec are still so poor in terms of both contents and quality. Why not Quebec identity with poll results and all like there is Canadian identity? Isn't it more the place for it? And can't you see by reading Canadian identity that if someone like me did not respect how English-Speaking Canadians tend to see themselves and see Canada, if I decided to interve and insert with good documented references how French-Speaking Quebecers think of the ROC and Canada without saying it is just a POV, we would never get out of it because these POVs are simply irreconcilable? -- Mathieugp 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie and Bearcat. semper fictilis 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Photo essay in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:48Z

365 days photo project[edit]

Appears to be an article with no reliably published references available. Keep in mind that blogs aren't normally considered reliable publishers (see WP:ATT) and the only references I found for the phrase "365 days photo" appear to be a small handful of blogs. So not only does the article appear to fail both WP:N and it's proposed compliment WP:INCLUSION, but I'm not sure there are even any published references to find. Delete as unverifiable with published references, but will certainly reconsider down the line in the long run if the term catches on and is discussed in published media for citation. Dugwiki 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many, MANY blog references, and I am aware of a similar phenomenon on YouTube (see this to see just how many there are) but I can see no decent sources. Keep if some can be found, certainly. J Milburn 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that many when I searched, but I could have screwed up my search. I wonder if part of the issue is the name of the article? Is "365 days photo project" a standard name for it? Or does it go by other names? Are there some published references for this sort of thing under a different title? Dugwiki 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not understand the point of this project. The article lacks cohesion, and fails to explain an already pointless and meaningless activity perhaps only carried out by a handful of individuals. - XX55XX 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny_Fragata[edit]

Subject is not notable EvilOverlordX 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete clear joke article. --SubSeven 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:56Z

Scream trilogy[edit]

There are some good, encyclopedic articles that summarise a series of films. This is not one of them. It is a mess. It looks like a scrapbook full of trivia. It contains no reliable sources. The 'information' given here is presented in a very immature fashion. Whereas an equivalent to Halloween (film series) et. al. would be appropriate, this article in this useless state should be put out of its misery. This tripe belongs on the geocities fan pages, not in a mature project. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because an article is bad doesn't mean that should be deleted. Their are many sources for this notable Movie Trilogy. It just needs to be cleaned up as the tag says The Placebo Effect 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason offered for deletion. Otto4711 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Absolutely- this article is poor, but there is no reason for deletion. It is on a notable and encyclopedic topic, and does not clash with any of Wikipedia's content policies. J Milburn 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for deletion is that it is absolutely useless in this form. It doesn't just need cleanup. It needs a complete rewrite. From scratch. The lack of reliable sources clashes with our content policies. Deletion will make it clear to the article's "authors" that this sort of pathetically immature material is unacceptable. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice attitude. Otto4711 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's not being a dick, he's being realistic. Just because it's not sugar-coated doesn't mean we can't say the obvious. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, maybe a little bit of a dick, but for some reason it just doesn't bother me. oh well. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The linguistic equivalent of the second take genuinely made me smile. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a great article — for a blog or fan web site or just about anywhere else but in Wikipedia. I love the strong opinions, good writing and insight, but I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia. I think the editor(s) who created/contributed to it should just move it somewhere else. Wikipedia is about articles that report on what other people say and cite sources. This article should be deleted and started over. And to the editors who wrote this: Please find the right forum for this and look into Wikipedia standards for what this Web site wants in its articles. If I saw citations for every comment or deletions for uncitable comments, I'd change my vote. Noroton 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm certain that there has been enough material written about the series as a whole to make a decent article of this clearly notable series, so I don't think that deletion is the proper answer. Why don't we just prune it back to a stub and start over?Chunky Rice 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it. Give me a reason to change my vote.Noroton 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tag for cleanup, enjoy. May take a bit of work, but I don't see a problem with the subject itself. If you feel a need to blank it, go ahead, but delete? Why? As a lesson, it's much better to be able to point to it and say "Look at what was bad, now look at something good" . FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would I have your support after this AFD to remove the majority of it? The JPS^{talk to me} 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't oppose it, though I'd prefer you have a plan towards implementation of a new article, and I'd certainly say having something substantial to put into place immediately would likely receive more support. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) is OK... what are your thoughts on that? We can also use some of the sources in the individual film articles too. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks like the sort of page to try to get this one looking like, though it's far from perfect itself. FrozenPurpleCube 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something Deleted or not, what we see now should go away. Starting from scratch is not a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, actually. This can be a good, encyclopedic article. Maxamegalon2000 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. AniMate 06:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep, with instructions that someone (else) clean up the article? Or, on the other hand, since this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, maybe those who are convinced there's a good article here can go ahead and be bold and dazzle us! Pop Secret 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV networks that air The Amazing Race[edit]

unneeded list of networks that air a show. The main networks can be put on the main Amazing Race page--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. If someone were to look this up, it wouldn't be on this page. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info, delete page No point redirecting as NOONE is going to type that in to the search box. The Placebo Effect 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of a redirect in a case of a merge is not necessarily for search box convenience(though that can be handy), but for compliance with the GFDL, which requires a record be kept of any edits. FrozenPurpleCube 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge - Per the first AFD the reason many or most wanted this article kept was because of the size of the main TAR article. I agree that this does not belong in the main article and it also doesn't belong in a separate list article. Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication or a TV Guide. The originating network, CBS, is already noted in the article and for the rest, viewers should check their local listings. Otto4711 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not merge this directory. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I originally created the page to reduce the article size of the main article at the time. But I don't think it's really needed anymore, with the branching off of the Race articles. --Madchester 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The two new articles near the end will need to be nominated separately. --Core desat 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Bituin[edit]

Fails WP:A. This unsourced article is about a voice actress who may or may not have had parts in a number of anime series. Danngarcia 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages with the same reasons:

Delete unless referenced. Picking out just two of the bunch, IMDB has no results for "Jenny Bituin". "Jefferson Utanes" does appear on IMDB, but with just one credit instead of the laundry list in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, notability not established. I'm regitering a weak delete, however, for Monty Repuyan, since, he has been in the voice-dubbing business for more than ten years, almost to the point of being familiar. --- Tito Pao 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I orginally prodded some of these for being unsourced. The database references attached to some of these are not at all reliable in that they allow registered users to post, and there are few secondary mainstream references. Ohconfucius 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Filipino voice dubbers are by default unnotable. --Howard the Duck 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The user who created all of these articles has created two new pages. (Grace Cornel and Ryan Ang). I think they can be added here in this AFD. --Danngarcia 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Prissel[edit]

NN autobiography. Author seems to feel quite strongly that autobiographies are suitable for encyclopedias. I feel differently. Speedy tag removed multiple times, prod tag deleted, inappropriate person tag removed with the statement "IT IS AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY". Brought this here for consensus - I'm with CSD A7, but it's borderline. Might also be copyvio, the prose doesn't make it entirely clear one way or the other. EDIT: Copy-paste from nobelprize.org. Barring a nobelprize.org license that I'm unaware of, this qualifies it for G12. Action Jackson IV 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BIO as a non-notable person. JRHorse 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Speedy G12 per webpage below. JRHorse 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BIO, WP:AUTOBIO, (and maybe even WP:COPYVIO?). Danski14^(talk) 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking News - copypaste of this site. G12. --Action Jackson IV 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax. The 1989 von Neumann prize was given to someone named Harry Markowitz. (see here) Various searches online have failed to turn up someone who should be fairly notable. Brianyoumans 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with what was just said above)Speedy delete as a hoax. The 1989 winner of the John Von Neumann Theory Prize was Harry M. Markowitz, not Joe Prissel. I couldn't find any references to Joe Prissel in conjunction with Harry Markowitz or George Dantzig. I think the article was written by a high school student, who probably has no idea who George Dantzig is, much less his role in operations research. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, who is this Joe Prissel anyways, and what is he doing with Harry Markowitz's von Neumann prize? Brianyoumans 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard he got it from Homer Simpson in trade for Haing S. Ngor's Oscar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Disgusting attempt to claim credit for someone else's work. Possibly some sort of scam, possibly just someone goofing around, but either way get it off Wikipedia immediately. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, likely g10 attack. NawlinWiki 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather cameron[edit]

Bumping up from speedy because notability is asserted. Problem is, it appears to be unverifiable. Google gives plenty of results for "Heather Cameron", but nothing that appears to be the person this article is talking about. Likewise, lots of results for "HC Experience", but none of it's related to a folk-music band. May be a hoax; given the author name, likely a WP:COI. Shimeru 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no relevant search results even with "Heather Cameron" + HC + Experience. It's likely that it's a hoax, or that the "fame" is simply exaggerated. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur with Leebo here... I can't even verify this person exists, as a search for her and her supposed debut album reveals absolutely nothing related to the person in this article [10]. If we're not even sure if this is a hoax or not, due to lack of sources, it seems hard to make any argument towards notability. But maybe we're just looking in the wrong places somehow. --W.marsh 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or possible attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm not convinced that notability is asserted, and even if it is, it's bound to be a hoax page. I could find nothing about the subject of the "HC Experience," both on Google and LexisNexis. Rockstar915 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Presumably this is a hoax, (surely nobody works as "a renowned lesbian"?). But even if the person exists, I cannot find anything across the web to suggest that she meets notability criteria, and since the article makes no claim to notability, I suggest speedy delete per CSD-A7. A1octopus 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article asserts that she is notable. Even if it's a hoax, the assertion is what keeps it from being a speedy candidate. Leebo ^T/C 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not actually true. Patent nonsense hoaxes can be deleted per CSD G1. Per CSD guidelines, articles cannot be speedy deleted as a hoax if the subject might be "remotely plausible." However, they can if the article "is obviously ridiculous." I, and I'm sure many with me, would argue that the record label "Muff Dyke" as well as an occupation of "Singer/songwriter/lesbian" qualifies as obviously ridiculous. Rockstar915 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, that infobox with the ridiculous record label and occupation was added a day after my original comment. I didn't realize the user was still adding nonsense to the article. I agree with the Speedy Delete because the creator's response was not to meet our requests but to add more nonsense. Leebo ^T/C 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Awesome. Do you think we should slap it with a CSD tag? Rockstar915 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done that. Nonsense/Attack. Leebo ^T/C 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rockstar915 01:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:00Z

The Rotunda Tavern[edit]

This article is about a pub with no assertion of notability given. Whilst the original author has previously stated that historically interesting information will be added to the article, it has now been around for almost a year, and fails to meet our criteria for inclusion. If the building in which it is in is notable, then it is perhaps that that deserves an article on Wikipedia, and not this pub. If we were to include an article on every pub in the UK this encyclopedia would get drastically larger...

Delete as nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Looks like it should be speedied, but there doesn't seem to be a CSD criteria that covers it. J Milburn 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brock[edit]

Borderline notability, reads like a resume. Nominating for community input. No Vote exolon 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced (and hopefully cleaned up). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above and also the suprisingly low 32 ghits for "Michael Brock Design" does not help his notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michael Brock has had incredibly noteworthy accomplishments in the field of Graphic Design that ought to be recognized. The Wiki-community is free, of course, to fact check it all, but the article is entirely factual. --Tyler Brock 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or, hurry up and source it. - Aagtbdfoua 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of sources. The content is so close to the biography section of his web site that I'm concerned that there are WP:COPYVIO and/or WP:COI issues.--Kubigula (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Ultra Blue. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:01Z

One Night Magic (song)[edit]

Borderline speedy for no context. Page consists of the artist/producer credits and the lyrics, with no prose. Does not explain notability, and is unsourced. The page's creator has made a number of similar articles that I don't have time to deal with right now. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the album, and I reccomend that you do the same with these other, similar pages you mentioned. Also, I have removed the lyrics, which are copyright violations. This should be done on sight. Compare to Angel of Death (song) which is featured. No lyrics there. J Milburn 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noir Fleurir[edit]

Article fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. - Cyrus XIII 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think it does. There is a nice reference here, albeit ('artfully', I think) uncapitalised. There is an (automatically translated) Chinese article here, which is an excellent source. Dunno if this French source means anything, but I am guessing they are big in Japan, judging from Japanese pages in the search and this from the Japanese Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that there is an article on the Finnish Wikipedia, and the Dutch one! There is a very nice review here and another Chinese article here. I am getting the impression that these guys are internationally famous, but I may well be wrong. J Milburn 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability and verifiability cannot be established with unreliable sources and (equally source-lacking) coverage by other-language Wikipedias. - Cyrus XIII 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Of course, I agree that the other Wikipedia's are useless sources, I was just trying to demonstrate that this band seems to have an international following. The other sources don't look so bad to me- are they all unreliable? J Milburn 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I'd say none of them qualifies per WP:RS. - Cyrus XIII 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: There were others, but I will leave it up to other editors to find them or make their own judgement on the batch I found. I didn't exactly review them in depth. J Milburn 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be enough out there in the Internet to justify keeping it for the record. Sadly, it is very poorly written, and if kept, I'll take a crack at fixing it. I won't waste my time for a week or two, until after this discussion. Bearian 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These Visual kei bands are an interesting element of modern Japanese culture and I'd like to see them represented for the Japan project. There are also a couple others under consideration for deletion: Missalina Rei and Aliene Ma'riage. Elsewhere, there's been a proposal to combine these into a single article on say, the Enamel or Key Party labels or something similar. If I can come up with enough information and proper references, I may consider working on that.Pkeets 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" I am getting the impression that these guys are internationally famous, but I may well be wrong." I'm getting the idea they (along with others of the genre) have something of a cult status. They're one of a number of indie bands out of Japan with an approach that looks to derive from Kabuki and No. Interesting, eh? Pkeets 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pkeets, I am getting the impression you are pretty big on Japanese culture- if you speak Japanese/are familiar with Japanese media, do you think you could have a look for some decent sources in Japanese? J Milburn 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few years back I was very interested in Japanese culture, but I've gotten away from it. I speak a bit of Japanese, but don't read it. I asked around and some folks here who do read it say there aren't any good references online and that we need copies of the music magazines from around that time which covered the bands quite often. However, I have no access to these. It would take a long-time fan or someone living in Japan who could find them in say, a library. Would there be support for merging these articles with the one on Visual kei, maybe? Pkeets 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_visual_kei_bands/ It appears there's something like a project going on that lists profiles of these bands, all with minimal references. Are all these to be deleted, or should we add to the list? Pkeets 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a lot of List of [genre] bands type articles about, list of visual kei bands (which I presume is the article you meant to link to) is just one of them. I certainly wouldn't support merging a large number of articles about non-notable subjects into one, I think that is a very poor idea, as it effectively lowers our notability criteria. J Milburn 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication or a TV Guide. Anyone interested in the stations over which Smallville is broadcast can check their local listings. The home video releases are covered in Smallville DVD releases so that part of the article is redundant. The program doesn't gain notability by being syndicated and the stations son't gain notability by carrying Smallville. Otto4711 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide (a directory) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why isn't it a TV guide? Wikipedia should be EVERYTHING. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia and it certainly should be the purpose of such a big 'pedia like Wikipedia. Xanucia 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Wikipedia should be everything, the fact is that Wikipedia is not everything. Otto4711 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the "Wikipedia should be everything" line has been tried before, so often in fact that we have an article that specifically addresses why it makes no logical sense. Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not TV guide. While the part about the DVD releases is good, it's handled much better in the article Smallville DVD releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per other delete votes, Wikipedia is not T.V. guide.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Servers of City of Heroes and City of Villains[edit]

This article is a detailed description of the behind-the-scenes server mechanisms for the online game City of Heroes. While the article has good writing style, it unfortunately has little to no verifiable published references backing it up, not only in the article itself but most likely not from any reliable publisher (it uses blogs and other Wikis as its sources). Therefore it is unlikely the article will ever satisfy the verifiability requirements of WP:ATT, and it is also unlikely that the article will ever meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N or its related proposed ammendment WP:INCLUSION. I'm not sure if the article fails WP:NOT or not, so I'll keep an open mind there. Either way, unless some independent reliable sources are produced for verifiability and notability purposes, I'd recommend deleting this article and replacing with a redirect to the main City of Heroes article. IMPORTANT NOTE: I was not able to add the afd tag to the article itself! It is currently protected. I would like to request that an admin please place the appropraite afd tag on the article itself. I will also mark the article's talk page with that request. Obviously the article should not be deleted until after that tag in placed, to give interested editors sufficient chance to reply. Dugwiki 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think technically the way this would work is, if necessary, this afd nomination should be relisted automatically by an admin on the same date that they add the appropriate afd tag to the article. So if the tag is added on April 5th, then relist this afd under the April 5th nominations and copy and paste the nomination reason. That way people will have the full five days to discuss from the time the article itself is tagged (plus a little extra time starting today). Dugwiki 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the AFD tag to the page. I have no position on the AFD nomination itself; I am only making the edit because it seems procedurally necessary. Since there is only a short delay since the nomination, I don't believe changing the AFD date is needed. The closing admin should keep the circumstances in mind. CMummert · talk 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminant collection of information. City of Heroes is indeed a notable game, but a catalog of its servers (along with a heapin' helpin' of related trivia) is more the realm of a fansite than an encyclopedia. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge in the sense that there is some information that should be covered in the main article, such as the different American and European releases (and it should be documented, I would think, in the various magazines that cover it), I might also include the bets about the test servers, but the full details? A bit much, at least for Wikipedia. Maybe transwiki to paragonwiki which seems to have most, but not all of this article's content. FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept that, Manticore. It's possible that some small part of the article like what you described could be verified through reliable sources, but it seems doubtful such info would be enough to constitute a full article in and of itself. Merging those bits to the main CoH article would make sense. Dugwiki 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the names of the servers and what datacenters they're in would at least be useful information to have, but I tend to agree. It's kind of fancrufty. --Robotech_Master 07:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming the datacenter list were verifiable from published sources, it would probably fit better in Wikisource as a data point for the City of Heroes article than as an actual article in its own right. Dugwiki 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't recommend the list of servers, kinda pointless, but the special servers? The distinction between American and European servers? Works for me in terms of acceptable content. The bits about "unofficial PVP" or "unofficial RP" may be a bit much, especially unsourced though. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Starblind. City of Heroes is indeed notable, but the servers are not. --Scottie_theNerd 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This information does not appear to be attributable to any reliable sources. Wickethewok 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Not notable, and not WP:ATT. --Dariusk 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge important information: If sources can be found for some information then I think it should be added to the City of Heroes and/or the City of Villains article however I think the real issue with this article is lack of sources and notability. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Iranian Arabs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:04Z

Arabs of Khuzestan[edit]

Article is mostly rehash of content from Khuzestan, History of Khuzestan, and Politics of Khuzestan. Rest is WP:OR and/or unsourced. Furthermore one should note that there are no similar articles on Wikipedia and the article title is WP:POV for a number of reasons, including the fact that Arabs are found in other places in Iran as well, including Bandar Abbas, Tehran, Mashhad, and Isfahan. Considering Arab citizens of Israel, one must apply the same standards here: Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. All census reports from Iran consider Arabs together nationally (3% of national population), not as separate ethnic groups as this article implies. There is no evidence that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group from other Arabs in Iran. Their culture is similar to Arabs in Iraq and to some extent the Persian Gulf states. But the current title is not well written and lacks sources for the rest of the information that is not taken from other articles already mentioned. If not deletion, then at the very least redirect to Demographics of Iran. Khorshid 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no reason why this article cannot exist and the title is hardly POV, any more than the alternative suggested (Iranian Arabs) is POV. Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Bandar Abbas (although some of these Arabs have been forcibly moved to other parts of Iran due to forced relocation by the Shah regime and the Islamic Republic regime), in terms of their tribal structures and language. There is a problem here and that is that content that was due to be merged into the article from other articles has been blocked. This would have benefitted the article by showing the distinctiveness of Arab tribes and their history in this province. I put it in the talk page some months ago [11], but other editors refused to discuss the content with me despite an effort at mediation that I agreed to but Khorshid refused. But this article will go because there is a body of editors that votes the same way and enforces content changes by stacking 3RRs. This is the case with all Iran-related articles. Whenever I have offered any evidence, even from academics, it is immediately dismissed by these editors.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have already explained why the article should not exist - Iran's Arab population can be detailed in a neutrally titled article such as Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran, which is what the Israel article has: Arab citizens of Israel. The same standards should apply to citizens of Iran. Do not level accusations at other editors - your reveals the root of all the problems in Iran's Khuzestan articles. Most editors here are interested in WP:NPOV. You, however, have been pushing a nationalist political agenda, which again your block log shows. The only "academics" you have cited is one professor from Shaw University in Canada who makes outrageous claims that have no acceptance among scholars anywhere. Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof who you constantly cite is not even an academic but a journalist. Give it a rest. There is no justification for this article or the controversial separatist and nationalist agenda you have been pushing for all this time. Wikipedia is not a battleground to wage such campaigns, do you understand? Khorshid 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, we don't and can't have articles for every single Persian, Azeri, and Kurdish ethnic group in Iran. For instance there are literally dozens and dozens of Persian ethnic groups in Iran! It is outrageous to have articles from them, from Tehrani, Isfahani, Shirazi, Mashhadi, etc etc. We have one article on Persians here, one article on Kurds (there are also dozens of Kurdish-speaking groups), one on Azeris, one on Mazandaranis, one on Baluch, and so on. We can't have articles for every single local group and dialect in the world, it would be a nightmare! Khorshid 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to put me on trial, then do so. If you want a discussion on this article, then stick to the point. You don't even believe that Arabs are an ethnic group![12] The fact is that you have refused to discuss the introduction of more information to the page and refused mediation, so it has sat in the talk page and has now been archived out by you. Many of my 3RR violations are simply frustrated attempts to introduce even minor changes. Why? Because my user name is Ahwaz and not the Farsi spelling Ahvaz and this simple difference in spelling turned a whole load of people against me from the very beginning. Even some of the most non-contentious edits - right down to correcting English spelling and grammar mistakes - are immediately removed. But, I don't know why you feel the need to discuss this with me now when you have refused to for months.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW the same exact Arab tribes (like Bani Kaab and Bani Tamim, two of the biggest) in Khuzestan also exist in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, they come from Arabia! So much for your "distinct" theory. Khorshid 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am half-Arab (and half-Kurd) myself genius, so don't start with the "Persian chauvinist" routine. I have never denied that Arabs are not an ethnic group. But "Khuzestani Arabs" are not an ethnic group - they are no different from their cousins in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain and UAE (except Iranian Arabs speak Persian!) Again, your block history proves your POV and your attempts to transform Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground. The fact that I am advocating for an article on Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran puts your accusations to shame. Khorshid 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not even mentioned the term Persian chauvinist. Where have I ever called you a Persian chauvinist? In contrast, you have called me a separatist simply for defending the existence of an article entitled Arabs of Khuzestan, which was created in May 2005 by a member of the Iranian Wikipedians team called SouthernComfort - an ethnic Persian who comes from Khuzestan, who has now retired from Wikipedia - and which I only began editing in January 2006, long after Zereshk, another Iranian Wikipedian who never contested the article's title. So why is it, after nearly two years of editing by various people, you decide that this is a POV article title?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What others have done or what others ignore is not my business. So far many Iranian editors have more interest in Azerbaijan and Turkish matters than Khuzestan (or Kurdish articles). But anyway thats not my concern. I have already explained the points of concern, which you ignore. BTW do not use terms like "Iranian Wikipedians team" - there is no such "team". Like I said, Wikipedia is not a battleground of ethnicities, races, ideologies, whatever. If you think it is, you should leave because there is no tolerance for this stuff. I suggest you look what happened to the Armenian and Azerbaijanis who were constantly in conflict at the ArbCom. Khorshid 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given the fact that I withheld content from this article because of your objections and put it into the talk page for discussion, which you refused to participate in, indicates that I am not the one imposing a POV but have attempted to seek an agreement. I've tried engaging in dialogue with you and agreed to a mediation offer from a neutral party, but you have refused. Now you want to delete an article which has existed for nearly two years and has had participation from Iranian editors, who have never raised the argument that the article title is inappropriate or POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your block log speaks otherwise about your so-called "diplomacy". I have already explained the problems. Do you want me to explain again? If Iranians don't raise objections, what the hell does that do with anything or have any concern for me? This has nothing to do with what Iranians object to or don't object to, this is about factuality and neutrality. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Arabs, plain and simple. Is this difficult to understand for you or what? Stop wasting my time. And articles have existed for three years and then been deleted. There is no "statute of limitation" here - if an article is bad or wrong and people ignore it, that doesn't mean it should stay because its been around for years. Thats a joke. Most Iranian editors don't seem to be interested in Arab issues, I guess, so they either don't care or don't know enough about this matter. To admins: What is obvious to me is that User:Ahwaz (see outrageous block history) is attempting to close this AfD with no consensus by hammering the same objection again and again. Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Please take into account my points that no other such articles exist on Wikipedia. Khorshid 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd request that editors assess the existence of this article, rather than making it a trial of me personally. As I have said, many others have edited this article, including Iranian editors who created the article in the first place. So, it is not an article created by Arab separatists to support an Arab separatist agenda, or it would have been deleted by now. It is not a POV fork. Any editorial problems should be dealt with on the talk page - something that Khorshid refused to do when I pasted merge sections from another article into the talk page for discussion.
        
        Additionally, the argument that all Arabs are just Arabs is not true, as Arabs are varied in their tribal, religious, national, linguistic, geographical, historical and racial profile. It is not "plain and simple". Arab identity is complex and Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Arabs in other parts of Iran, unless they have migrated to another by of Iran either voluntarily or by force.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have never sourced any of your claims. Instead you rely on anti-Semitic "scholars" like Nasser Pourpirar, who you have constantly praised (editors please check history of Arabs of Khuzestan for evidence). Arabs in Khuzestan belong to the same tribes as Arabs in Iraq and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Stop repeating the same thing again and again. It won't work. Khorshid 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I must say, this is a gross distortion in order to discredit me. In a discussion, I quoted from a document. In another part of that document, there was a quote from this man. To claim that I have quoted him, let alone praised him, is just wrong. It seems this entire AfD is turning into a personal attack rather than a debate on the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it seems to me that there is a serious problem of editor disagreement here. The subject itself is likely to be buried in the face of such an ongoing dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately User:Ahwaz is very good at diverting discussion with his unsourced claims, so this may result in no consensus. See his block history. However, my points have been made. It is POV to have this kind of article for Iran, while Israel, Turkey, and the Arab countries themselves (which have various dialect groups of Arabic) have only one article - if that - about the Arabic-speaking populations. That is what the closing admin should take into account, the POV nature of the article title, the mess that the article is, and the constant hauranging by Ahwaz, who repeats the same objection again and again. If anything he should be blocked again for two months this time for wasting my time. In a way I am foolish for continuing to reply to him, but I'd like to make sure the closing admin realises who he/she is dealing with. Most countries keep this information at Demographic of [country]. Instead, we have this POV nationalism. Again, Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Furthermore, there are no sources at all to distinguish Khuzestani Arabs from other Arab groups. Khorshid 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It takes two to get into a fight, and speaking for myself, I don't care to sort out the dispute between the two of you, but it is obvious that there is an ongoing dispute, and that's not healthy for Wikipedia. If you believe this user is disruptive, try WP:DR instead of AfD. And as far as the subject itself goes, I don't see a problem with it. If somebody wants to make articles about other ethnic sub-groups in other countries, I am not inherently opposed. They need only provide reliable sources. And yes, examples those sorts of pages do exist. See Irish Americans in New York City for one. Not a great page, but the subject itself is acceptable. Just like this one. FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Show me one reliable source in the article. Like I said, I have already made my points. It is true it takes two to get into a "fight", but I am not going to allow this user to make baseless accusations against me without responding to them. You clearly do not know much about the subject matter, and that is why I have to respond to such accusations, lest people think he is making a legitimate point. This user has a long history of creating problems - if you want to ignore that, fine. But don't make accusations yourself. Again, I have stated before clearly that no reliable sources have been provided! You ignore my statement. That is abusive. Read my comments carefully. Khorshid 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And BTW, WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read the policy carefully. If another article exists that is WP:OR, that does not mean others should follow. We need to focus on encyclopedia building, not crap. Khorshid 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - BTW that article on Irish Americans in NYC is just a list! It should be moved to List of Irish Americans in New York City! For heavens sake, at least come up with a better example to prove your ill-conceived point! There is not even a single mention of a Khuzestani Arab in this article, since we already have a list of Iranian Arabs at Famous Iranian Arabs. Again, an article on Iranian Arabs is justifiable, one on Khuzestani Arabs, that has barely any properly sourced content, is not. One that is being defended by a user who has been blocked numerous times, the last time for a month! We do not accodomate abusive and troublesome users here. If you want to back that sort of person up, go for it, but remember what you're doing. Khorshid 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahem, I'm not taking about the other user, I'm not backing him up, nor am I attacking you, but I'm concerned that the obvious problems between the two of you are detracting from any discussion of the subject itself. Which they are. You can worry about responsibility if you want, I'm not. I'm saying there is a problem between editors here. And hey, I don't think Irish Americans in New York City is a good article, right now, but I think the subject itself is quite valid. Sources could be provided for it (there are books documenting the history of the Irish in New York City. See for example: [13]. And there are pages on individual neighborhoods in NYC, from Chinatown, Manhattan to Hell's Kitchen and more. Given that this Arabic group is real, I see no reason not to have an article. Or at least some coverage. If you want to cover them under some other article, that might be worth discussing, but this isn't the forum to do that. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you insist on changing the subject again??? We are not talking about neighbourhoods. We are talking about an ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Iranian Arabs who live in the Khuzestan Province. Are you suggesting we also create articles for each and every Persian group in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Abadan, Ahvaz, Yazd, Kerman, on and on and on and on and on??? Christ. Khorshid 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I already said, I have no objection to providing information on any ethnic subgroup on which reliable sources exist. And if you don't see the connection between a neighborhood and an ethnic subgroup, well, I'm not sure how else to explain it. If it's ok to cover a few blocks in NYC, it's ok to cover the ethnic groups of a population of a province in Iran. As I see it, there's no real reason not to cover these subjects. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close - take no action; this seems like an editorial debate that you guys need to work out for yourself. AFD is not exactly the place to take this up. --24.68.187.88 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — User:24.68.187.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the sources listed refer to it as a specific group. DGG 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources?? The article barely has any! As Mardavich points out below, there are no "specific" Arab groups - should we also create articles for "Anglo-Saxons of New York", "Jews of New York", "Jews of Los Angeles", "Persians of Los Angeles", "Persians of California", "Persians of Toronto", "Kurds of Toronto", "Jews of Montreal", "Mexicans of Calfornia", "Mexicans of New Mexico", "Germans of Illinois", "Dutch of Pennsylvania", etc etc??? Are you kidding me or what? Khorshid 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs. We don't have "Azeris of Ardabil" or "Arabs of Jerusalem" articles, we have Azeris in Iran or Israeli Arabs, same standard should be applied here. --Mardavich 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Arabs of Khuzestan" is a horribly POV title, and as I suggested even if the article was to be kept Iranian Arabs (the best choice) or even Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan would be better (not a good choice considering the lack of information in this article alone). Though to conform with other Wikipedia articles, Iranian Arabs is best. Do you think there would be support in the Israel articles for Arabs of Tel Aviv or Arabs of Haifa??? If this article is kept, then we should definitely create articles for every Israeli city and township that has a significant Arab population. Same holds true for United States - we should create Arabs of Michigan, and for France, Arabs of Paris, and the UK, Arabs of England as well as Pakistanis of England and Indians of England, and so on. We have to be fair. Khorshid 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are most certainly welcome to work on any of those articles which you have an interest in, and can provide reasonable sources for. I for one, would welcome more coverage of immigrant populations in England. Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom is bit sparse. (And every Israeli city and Township should have an article, and that article should cover the Arabic population there if there is meaningful information on it, whether or not that should be spun off? Probably not, but that's because the size of the article itself isn't likely to be a problem.). FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. I agree with Mardavich . I am sure there are some differences between different arab groups but the same can be said about any other group in Iran and many other countries as well.Not all the persian people of Iran live a life exactly similar to each other. Each little town has its own tradition, food, etc. Same thing can be said about Italian people, French people, Germans, chineese, etc. The only rational way is to go based on language as do most sources such as CIA [14] CIA obviously does not distinguish between different Arab groups in Iran. when it says 3% of Iranians are Arab, it means all the Arabs so obviously they are close enough to be considered ONE GROUP. Also I agree with Khorshid who says the title is POV. these people dont live in a country called khuzestan, they live in a country called Iran and why shouldnt the title reflect that? I think it would be a good idea to follow the example of other ethnic groups in Iran. I can not understand how ahwaz can claim that Iranian Arab is POV? what part of it is POV? that they are Iranian? or that they are Arab? what is POV in calling the Arab citizens of Iran as such?Gol 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike other Arab groups in Iran, Arabs in Khuzestan had a degree of political autonomy until 1925, when the region was known as Arabistan. The local ruler was Sheikh Khazal, who led the tribes of Khuzestan in alliance with some local Bakhtiari tribes. Arabs in other parts of Iran, eg Bandar Abbas, were never a part of this and even have different tribes, origins and dialect. Consequently, the culture and origins of the Arabs of Khuzestan deserves an article. Khorshid claims there is a lack of sources, but this is no reason to delete an article. The quality of an article does not determine whether it should exist. As for Arabs of Paris, British Pakistanis, etc articles, why not? There is no rule against this. If there is a notable ethnic group in a region with a distinct history, then there should be an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, there are articles on different Persian ethnic groups (Bakhtiari, Lurs), which I think deserve more attention.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually lack of proper sources is a very very strong reason for removing an article, it is usually the first and most important reason.Gol 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nothing you just wrote has any source or attribution. There are no sources to substantiate the claim that Khuzestani Arabs form a distinct ethnic group. They are Arabs. The real issue at hand is the fact that Ahwaz seems to want to avoid articles that state the facts, e.g. that Khuzestani Arabs are indeed Iranian Arabs. This is Wikipedia - please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs. Khorshid 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep seems at least partially sourced (the deletionists should feel free to delete those parts which aren't) but it seems that this ethno-linguistic group really exists, that there are multiple independent sources to that effect. Keeping this does not mean that there will or should be all the Foos in Fooland articles because simply many of those groups aren't notable per se. Here, I think that case to keep has been made "nothing but net". Carlossuarez46 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick note on terminology: apparently the languages used by the Arabs of Bandar Abbas and those of Khuzestan are not the same (see the Ethnologue report), so regardless of whether the Iranian government lumps all Arabs together or not (like the Turkish government doesn't recognize that there are any Kurds) is something to mention in the article but does not negate the appropriateness for a separate article on the separate groups. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA puts all Iranian Arabs together as well. Also the comparision with the kurds in Turkey is completely wrong. the huge difference between Kurds and Turks are not even comparable to small differnece between two Arab groups in Iran who both speak Arabic but different dialect( not languages but dialect) kurdish is not a dialect of turkish or vice versa. they are two different languages from different families. There is no similarites between these two issues. Gol 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about Carlos? Arabs speak Arabic - this is basic. Arabs in Khuzestan speak what is called a Mesopotamian dialect while Bandari Arabs speak the Gulf dialect. Every Arab in every region speaks a different dialect, but its still Arabic. Persians in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc all speak different dialects of Persian, but its still Persian. That doesn't make them different ethnic groups. Seriously you should do more reading on this subject before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions. Wikipedia is not here to pander to nationalism and separatism. An article on Iranian Arabs will have enough room to deal with both Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs. The sourced content of the current article is minimal and is basically just population figures, some of which are for Iran's total Arab population. And as Gol says, comparing Iranian Arabs to Kurds in Turkey is nonsense. Iranian government doesn't deny anything about the existence of its Arab population - but Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs are not "distinct" ethnic groups. They're Arabs, just as the Iranian government doesn't differentiate between Persians from Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, etc. Is that difficult to understand??? Furthermore please keep your personal opinions and politicking out of this discussion. Cheers, Khorshid 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but rename~~ Redirect to Arabs of Iran or another similar title --Rayis 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep but maybe move, of course this needs an article, but it seems its title must be something like "Iranian Arabs" or "Arabs of Iran" or ...--Pejman47 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per user:Mardavich. Excessive, needs to be redirected to Iranian Arabs and probably add some of the info there. - Fedayee 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject deserves an article. Should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the above discussion at all? The subject of Arabs in Iran deserves an article, yes, and I agree, but that is for Iranian Arabs or Arabs in Iran, just as there is Arab citizens of Israel and Arabs in Turkey. The current article and its title is POV, mostly unsourced and taken from other Wikipedia articles, and what is sourced is just population figures. Also note that this is not a vote but a discussion about whether this particular article merits inclusion in Wikipedia or not, and it does not for reasons I've explained again and again. Iranian Arabs < fine - Arabs of Iran < fine - Arab citizens of Iran < fine - but the current article is promoting a fringe view that Khuzestani Arabs constitute a distinct ethnic group from all other Arabs. That is simply not true and there is no evidence to back that up whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to indulge original research and this article (and the inclusion of a terribly revisionist article by Yusef Bani Torof) is in direct violation of this policy. Khorshid 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge any meaningful content to Iranian Arabs. I agree with Khorshid that there is way too much of rehashing of info from other articles.. I believe the subject will be covered under Iranian Arabs more healthily.. Baristarim 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Iranian Arabs is more correct ! The word "Arab" shows a language group, the word "Iranian" shows a historical entity that contains different ethnic and linguistic groups. If we use the "Arabs of Iran " , that may mean the KSA citizens inside Iran , but Iranian-Arabs is clear ...Alborz Fallah 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why delete and redirect/merge? Why not just change the name of the article to whatever you choose and work to extend the content? There doesn't seem to be anything to merge this article into, as there is nothing in Wikipedia on Arabs from other parts of Iran. "Delete and merge" implies to me that the content is moved into another article - so why not save the effort and simply rename the current article? "Delete and redirect" seems like support for deleting the article content and redirecting to the current "Iranian Arabs" page, which contains very little. Is this what people want? Is it the case that they want the current content on Ahwazi Arabs to be part of a larger article on Arabs in Iran or that they want the article itself, with all its content, deleted. I think those who voted need to be clearer in order to establish any result to this AfD.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I hear your points - even though there is nothing that would bar an article such as Arabs in Khuzestan from a logical point of view (since, if there is enough content, we can also have Arabs in London, Germans in Paris), the article really looks like it has hashed too much info from other articles. Listen, I am definitely not against covering the topic, far from it - nevertheless, I believe that there needs to be a clear structure to such articles. But there is not even an article at Arabs in Iran and Iranian Arabs was just a dab page - don't you think that it would be healthier to create and expand a larger article for all of Iran (ie Arabs in Iran/Iranian Arabs), cover the Arabs of/who live in Khuzestan in a section there, then, at some point in the future when the article will have grown in an encyclopedic structure and manner, perhaps branch out to such a sub-article at that point? (Although I also hear the point of Alborz Fallah about the confusion between Arabs of Iran/Iranian Arabs - but that is a specific content issue that needs to be ironed out in those articles, not this AfD) Baristarim 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, the article is not good as it stands, but I have been prevented from merging content from another article following another AfD that voted to merge. The content is here: [15]. If I had been allowed, by other editors, to add these sections or even if they had discussed this with me, the article would have improved. As I said, there has been a tendency to stack 3RRs and revert everything I write, but no interest in using the talk pages or taking up offers of mediation. Consequently, the article has stagnated. Now the way to deal with the issues that some appear unwilling to discuss is to delete the entire article, which I think is a legitimate and encyclopaedic topic of study - especially given that the Arab tribes in this region had political autonomy up until 1925 whereas Arabs in other regions had no autonomy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Alborz Fallah and Mardavich. --alidoostzadeh 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, Artaxiad 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) and merge with Iranian Arabs per nom, Baristarim, and Alborz Fallah. As stated by others, the history section is taken directly from other Wikipedia articles, with the population section the only properly sourced area. The rest is unsourced. Going through the older discussions of the article, as well as at Talk:Khuzestan Province, it seems that the Arab population of Khuzestan is quite diverse, and includes refugees and immigrants from Iraq as well as those originating from the Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain. In the end, all Arabs share a similar cultural and linguistic foundation, thus as Baristarim correctly states, a general article on Iranian Arabs is the best and most neutral course of action. All ethnic groups in the world, every single one, have diversities among themselves, such as regional dialects. But if we look at articles such as Arabs, English people, German people, French people, Persian people, and so forth, such categorizations do not occur. The issue at hand here is that of national citizenship and demography, which an article on Iranian Arabs would correctly and neutrally address. metaspheres 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're incorrect. There are articles on many German ethnic groups, ranging from Pennsylvania Dutch to Transylvanian Saxons. See Ethnic German for more. The French? Well, there's the obvious Cajun and Acadian articles. And there are ethnic groups in France with articles like the Bretons, with the Cornish, Manx, and others in England. There's no shortage of articles describing ethnic subgroups in Wikipedia, and I fail to see how you've made a real argument as to why this one shouldn't exist. If a group isn't real, or recognized by anyone, that's one thing, but given that nobody here has claimed there aren't Arabs in this province of Iran, I don't see that would be an issue. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group in France, Acadians are French-speakers who settled in New France centuries ago and have no connection to France except language, thus cannot be considered "French". Same with the Pennsylvania Dutch and so on. These aren't ethnic subgroups, as they have no modern connections to their root ethnicities. I have explained that Arabs in Khuzestan don't form a homogenous "tribe" or "ethnic group" - the fact that there are refugees and immigrants from Iraq and immigrants from the Gulf states speaks a great deal to this. What sources are included with the article demonstrate that many Arabs in Khuzestan speak the very same dialect of Arabic as their brethren in Iraq, striking another blow for your unusual WP:OR theory. But just as you ignore Khorshid's points, you ignore mine. Please, don't waste my time. This is one of the reasons I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore - people constantly jabbering away with the intention to waste time and drone on. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Yet the Bretons are a distinct group of people, not just generic Celts, as the Khuzestan Arabs are a distinct Arabic ethnic group in Iran. Small differences. Besides, I mentioned Cajuns and Acadians for a reason. There are two related groups there, not to mention, the French of Quebec who they could be merged into if, for some reason the consensus were to have a single article. But wait, there's not. Not to mention you completely ignored Ethnic German which provides many articles on German subgroups that are hardly different from the coverage in this page. BTW, what theory are you talking about? I have no theory about this or any other group. They exist, if there are reliable sources on them, then like any other ethnic subgroup, an article can cover them. Or are you claiming there aren't Arabs in Khuzestan, or that sources [16] can't be found on them? FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the existence of this article doesn't in any way mean you can't make Iranian Arabs, in fact, if you do have a genuine concern that the ethnic group overall in Iran isn't being covered, it's exactly what you should do. But there is no need to use deletion before you do that. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I and others have suggested merging whatever sourced content is here (very little at that) into Iranian Arabs. Your opposition to this is strange, to say the least. We don't have room or time for POV jabbering here. You and others have shown no reliable sources to back up your claims that Khuzestan's Arabs form a distinct, homogenous ethnic group. This is because they're not. It's clearly a diverse population. Whatever provincial identity exists seems to be shared by all the inhabitants, rather than any specific ethnic groups. As I said, the discussions in the various articles are interesting. In the end, your unusual theories and comparisons are purely WP:OR and have no place in this encyclopedia. Please stop. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I think you don't realize something, but that to me, you are the one who is coming across as POV. Maybe you should leave off attacking other users, and concentrate on the issues at hand? Besides, if you wanted to propose a merge, you should have gone to WP:PM instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence has been displayed showing that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group. I also have to mention that Manticore's accusations to the other editor, accusing him of denying the existence of Arabs in the region was purely out of bad faith, as the editor in question has not at all denied the existence of Arabs in Iran. The point that everyone is trying to make here, but being ignored, is that Khuzestani Arabs are not a distinct ethnic group and there is no evidence to justify such a theory of "original research". I say again my statement that "Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs". A Google search shows that "Iranian Arabs" is almost always connected with the Arabs of Iran, including in Khuzestan: [17] I think there are some bad faith editors trying to divert the discussion away from the real points being made here and instead levelling accusations against those who are advocating deletion and/or merging. The fact is that the article has no real content. I suggest to the closing admin to closely inspect my arguments and that of others, since we have pointed out the problems, while Manticore simply resorts to straw man arguments and bad faith accusations. Wikipedia is not a political conference, it is not a soapbox for nationalisms or any -ism, it is not a battleground of ideas, ethnicities, nationalities. The fact is that Iranian Arabs is the proper article for this subject. This article is mostly WP:OR as it postulates a fringe theory that Arabs in Khuzestan constitute their own ethnic group separate from other Arabs, when in fact, this is not true. They are Iranian Arabs, and they are found outside of Khuzestan in Tehran and other cities. People like Manticore have no knowledge or education in Iranian matters and yet desire to impose their view on cultures and nations with which they have no education about. This is called colonialism and Eurocentricism and it is repulsive. To the closing admin: Hold the Iran articles to same standards as Israel and other nations: just as there is Arab citizens of Israel instead of "Palestinians", let us have Iranian Arabs, the proper and correct term, instead of the WP:OR "Arabs of Khuzestan" which is being used by these users to postulate the existence of a "distinct" Arab ethnic group. There would be no tolerance if such gimmickery were used to postulate such theories in reference to Persian and Kurdish groups. Please, let us not make room for double standards. Regards, Khorshid 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, instead of attacking me, you should WP:AGF yourself and try to make your arguments based on the actual situation at hand. It was clear to me when I first noticed your argument with another user that that would be a problem, and it's continuing to apply. Thus instead of the subject being the only issue, it's becoming further personalized. Perhaps you should step back and consider your actions? FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is interesting that Khorshid has pre-empted any decision by removing the disambiguation on the Iranian Arabs page in preparation for a merger.[18] Yet some here are arguing for the status quo and others are arguing for deletion and redirection. It seems that Khorshid's enthusiasm has over-taken him. Again.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect anything relevant to Iranian Arabs. Nokhodi 06:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if an indigenous ethnic group in Khuzestan, which numbers millions, is now being stripped of its own Wikipedia article, will articles such as Assyrians in Sweden (of which there are a few thousand) also vanish? I'd like to see some advice on Wikipedia rules on these articles.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The indigenousness of Arabs of Khuzestan is in question. Nevertheless, that's Assyrians in Sweden, a country, not Assyrians in Uppsala --Rayis 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that articles on an ethnic group based in provinces or cities are POV, whereas those articles on ethnic groups in countries are NPOV? This is the argument being put forward here for the deletion of this article on the Arabs of Khuzestan. I look forward to seeing the nomination of many articles and categories on that basis, or this deletion could be seen as being unfairly unfavourable to Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Iranian Arabs per nom and others. Barely any content in the article to begin with, and looking at the history of the article, and taking in the shared history of the Arabs in Iran in general, it seems more appropriate to provide a single article to detail this. Khodavand 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:06Z

Oddzar[edit]

Non notable band, no references. delete --Greatestrowerever 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN band, their 'label' produces compilations of unsigned music --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DCide Records doesn't just do unsigned compilations of unsigned artists. Several labels do that, such as Aware Records, but also release albums. DCide released albums of several bands, Nothingface being the best known. Oddzar indeed does have a full length album and enjoy lots of popularity in the Washington area and surounding locations. If you don't believe me check out iTunes or basically any other place that sells music. Also see DCide's official website. Please, before you dispute the credibility of a fact do some reasearch. --ToxicBluesRocker
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Oddzar is deleted then how come other DCide artists of similar levels of notability are allowed to keep their pages, such as Downtown Singapore and VooDoo Blue? I know I'm fighting this kinda vehemently, but I'm just a fan of the band. --ToxicBluesRocker
The point is that this article does not have any references to establish notability. If you want to re-write the article ToxicBluesRocker then refer to WP:MUSIC, WP:N and WP:A to make sure the article meets all the criteria. If not then the article will be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Previously deleted content. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Whittington[edit]

Non notable dog. No reliable sources --Onorem 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm totally against deleting good articles and this is a nice article. Once again, the dog's more notable than you. He deserves a Wikipedia article and what harm is there in keeping these articles that people keep wanting to delete. IMPROVE Wikipedia - don't DELETE it! Xanucia 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just a dog. Claim to fame is being a website "Smart Pet of the Day." Since there's apparently a different one every day, that isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMGGG SOOO CUTE!!!! But sadly delete because being PetSmart's Smart Pet of the Week does not merit an encyclopedia article. Allon Fambrizzi 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Speedy Delete - None notable dog.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a family dog. Whoop-de-do. Mwelch 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Also, information from a personal interview is original research. Maxamegalon2000 05:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this article has already been speedy deleted once as nonsense (it was originally posted on April 1 which seems appropriate). If we accept this article we should also allow McDonald's Employee Of The Day, etc etc. andy 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure (band)[edit]

NN band, does not meet nor attempt to meet WP:BAND, is from Sydney and has appeared in Sydney venues only. No releases other than myspace. Ga rr ie 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasons above.Ga rr ie 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He Li[edit]

This person simply doesn't seem notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's more notable than you! Why does Wikipedia continue to delete so many useful articles? Xanucia 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no Wikipedia article about me. If there were, I'd advocate for its deletion as well assuming that such advocacy is not considered a conflict of interest. --Nlu (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy but no harm letting it go the full 5 days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fails WP:BIO. Arbustoo 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination: after some thought, I am also nominating the related article He Jiuying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (He Li's father) for deletion. Seems a bit more notable than the son, but still not enough. Delete as well. --Nlu (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Jiuying to discuss whether He Jiuying should be deleted. This page is only for the discussion about He Li. --Neo-Jay 09:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AFD permits nominations of multiple (related) articles in a nomination, although in this case perhaps I should have nominated He Jiuying from the beginning. I'll think about it. I may do what you ask and make a separate discussion. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that WP:AFD allows that related articles are nominated for deletion together in one page. But it is not the case for He Jiuying and He Li. They are related only in the sense that they are father and son. They should be discussed separately. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Got a feeling that we have Chinese mainlanders working here, in a not so good way. At least now I know why China block Wikipedia. 142.58.101.27 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence at all presented of notability. Mwelch 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I wrote this, new evidence has been provided. Since I don't read Chinese, though, I don't feel very qualified to evaluate it, so I'll step out of this one. Mwelch 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep on the basis of the discussion below. Apparently has won major critical attention. ~~Given the background ,he may well become notable but by usual standards he is not yet unless the poems have won some exceptional prizes of critical attention~~.DGG 04:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) DGG 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He Li was one of notable middle school poets in the 1980s in China. I have added references from People's Daily and other sources. Please check it again and reconsider it. Thank you.--Neo-Jay 09:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea of a notable middle school poet is just ... odd. He might have talent, but I don't think the references are sufficient to establish notability. --Nlu (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my poor English. If the concept of "middle school poet" is odd, do you think "young poet" or "child poet" is fine? It's not usual for a middle school student to publish poems. There is a movement of middle school campus poems in 1980s in China. See article The Memory of Campus Poems in the 1980s (in Chinese). This article introduced some background for this movement. Jiang Hongwei, a leading young poet in that movement, also wrote some articles to discuss this movement. He is also writing a book about it. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't deal with people's notability, but with a strange war again Chinese people just in this wikipedia. SISLEY 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. I write about Chinese people, but Chinese or not, people have to satisfy notability guidelines to have articles about them. I don't think this person does. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources do you think can satisfy the requirement of notability? The notability requirement says A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. I think that I have provided enough published works to prove his notability. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, the reference in the People's Daily -- while the paper with the largest circulation in the PRC -- is not, in my opinion, dispositive, because of the general consensus here that a "15 minutes of fame" type of reference is insufficient to establish notability. That's effectively what that link shows. In effect, as it stands right now unless more notability is shown, this was a man who got published as a youngster for the novelty value of having written poetry as a youngster. No literary or other notability is otherwise shown. This is not Anne Frank. --Nlu (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that the People's Daily article is only a "15 minutes of fame" type of reference. And it is not the only reference in article He Li. Jiang Hongwei's article indicates that He Li was an important figure in the campus poem movement in the 1980s in China (for the background information about Jiang Hongwei and his articles, see "The Memory of Campus Poems in the 1980s" in Chinese). Moreover, until now this page was exclusively used to discuss He Li, not He Jiuying. I hope you can establish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Jiuying to discuss him separately. Even though the article He Li may be deleted, it does not follow that this conclusion should also be applied to the article for his father. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 20:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable sources have been provided. –Pomte 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Finley[edit]

Can find no reference to this person in the specified timeframe. Article lists him as a writer, but doesn't list texts. Biographical detail unsourced, and I can't find references to his father either. Author and frequent IP editor have history of creating pages with little detail of dubious origin. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should mention that I originally marked it as speedy, but it was suggested that I prod it instead since there was at least a claim at notability. Prod contested, thus we are here. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, part of an apparent group of hoaxes by same user(s). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Looks like a hoax. --Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, apparently part of set of hoax articles. -- Infrogmation 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, no assertion of notability, no refs. does not merit inclusion in WP. xC | ☎ 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'd also like to add that the first line says Smalltime English activist and writer. Wasn't very well known for his work. He protested against King George II of Great Britain's rise to power because of the king's domestic issues. Here it is logical to ask -

1)if he is a smalltime activist and writer, why does he deserve a page?

2)if he wasn't very well known for his work, then what purpose does his page serve?

3)if the work that he isn't well known for was indeed worth mentioning, then why is it that no specific examples are given in the article?

4)and lastly, my favourite, which domestic issues was he protesting about? George II had a lot going on in his life, which you can realise with just a glance at his WP article, so which issues specifically was he protesting about,eh?

This should be a speedy-speedy-speedy-damnit-delete-it-already-speedy delete. ;) Regards, xC | ☎ 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article states ab initio that Finley was “Smalltime”. —SlamDiego 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Impedance matching. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:08Z

Impedance mismatch[edit]

This whole article seems like a bad joke, the tone is simply ridiculous, the category is wrong, it's unreferenced, the subject is never-heard before (and if, indeed, there's a "human impedance mismatch", the style of the article is utterly inadequate), and all in all it looks like one of those "trap articles" thrown in to discredit wikipedia's reliability. EpiVictor 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is certainly a legitimate electrical engineering term, and I think the use of it as a metaphor for the "object-relational impedance mismatch" is pretty well established. Radical pruning or even reversion to this version may be appropriate, but not deletion. —Cel ithemis 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legitimate electrical engineering term, but this article is not about that term. That's already covered in impedance matching. This is a dictionary entry with dubious definitions. — Omegatron 05:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is salvageable into Impedance matching, and if nothing should be merged, just plain redirect to Impedance matching. This is conceivably a plausible search term, and the underlying physical theory and applications are well explained in the article on Impedance matching. 131.111.8.104 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - But clean-up and add references.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as whatever scientific information can be found scattered in the article seems to already exist (and in a better form, too) in Impedance matching. Plus, is that term actually used in sociology/psychology or is it just someone's original research/joke/nihilartikel? EpiVictor 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, article has improved enough and has refs for notability now to keep it. Rlevse 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Murphy (podcaster)[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable memorial page. I think it's a speedy candidate as it stands--speedy tag was deleted by editor who is not the original author, but who is intimately involved with creating the article. --Finngall ^talk 23:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read some of the related articles (Wingin' It, Slice of SciFi, Evo Terra, Michael R. Mennenga, and apparently some vandal deleted Farpoint Media too) if you don't believe me. I am not affiliated with this show other than as a listener, and as you can plainly I cleaned up the article to remove the POV stuff that would make it irrelevant.

I don't know how long a page that's up for deletion gets to be improved before it's actually deleted, but I'm willing to bet that if I don't expand on it someone will.

Don't dismiss something like podcasting just because you might not be familiar with it yourself. It's a fairly new phenomenon, but growing very fast. --dllu 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's somewhat notable and what bloody difference does it make if this page is kept - it's not as though Wikipedia is short of space! The guy's dead and now you're planning to delete his Wikipedia article too. Xanucia 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Sad that he died, but wikipedia is not a memorial and the article as written makes no claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess I won't say speedy since one could argue that that excellence in podcasting award thing is an assertion of notability. Nonetheless, that assertion falls for short of actual WP:BIO standards for notability. Xanucia's argument is basically WP:NOHARM, I think. Mwelch 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'NOHARM' article is just an essay and not Wiki policy. People use Wikipedia because it is huge and contains SO MUCH information. This is why we like it and this is how it should remain. Xanucia 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim it was policy; I was just noting that that was the argument. Of course, WP:NOT is a policy, so "it allows us to include more information people like" is hardly a convincing argument. As for this specific entry, certainly the number of "keep" votes (some of whom are SPA's, but clearly not all) is perhaps reason to pause. But I'm still forced to wonder: if the gentleman is truly as significant as the "keep" voters suggest, why is there no secondary source coverage of him cited? Mwelch 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is no indication of any notability. Otto4711 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the original article creator, I guess I should point out that this page is not intented as a memorial. The fact that he recently died is tragic, but is not the reason to keep the page. The plain fact is that he was a co-host in several very popular podcasts and a radio show, and out of the four main hosts of these shows, currently only two have pages in wikipedia (which don't seem to be considered for deletion at all). I must say also that is my full intention, once Joe's page is mostly complete, to create another entry for Summer Brooks, the other host that is not currently included in Wikipedia. Failing to include them would not paint a fair picture of their contributions to podcasting history. --Mklopez 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a memorial, and subject and his podcast did not meet notability standards before or after his death. Realkyhick 05:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have stated my reasons above, and I can add these points from the WP:BIO page:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

The same can be said for the other people invovled with these shows. And what exactly are the "standards of notability"? That enough people listening to podcasts just happen to be active on Wikipedia too? I have come across loads of articles here that were completely irrelevant to me, but I didn't nominate them for deletion because the authors obviously had a point in putting them up there. Personal preferences might help decide what goes on Wikipedia, but they certainly should not decide what doesn't.

The bottom line is, podcasting is a fast growing medium, and if these articles aren't allowed to stay now, they will surely be back to stay later. --dllu 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, grandiose claims of supporters notwithstanding. This guy reviewed stuff, he didn't "contribute to the historical record". Inventing podcasting is contributing to the historical record. --Dhartung | Talk 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Joe was a regular contributor to 4 different podcasts for over 2 yrs and did radio work prior to that. The timing of the page may seem like a memorial page; however, all of the Farpoint Media podcasters should have a page because they are minor celebrities. I'd put them on par with Martin Sarget as far as level of fame, but I don't see any "deletion" posts over on his page Martin_Sargent. ALSO - I just remembered that he was nominated for a Parsec award and IS LISTED BY NAME on the Wikipedia Parsec Page here Parsec_Awards If he was important enough to list there, why not have a page?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RapidEye (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete Yes, it is sad that he is dead, but the guy is completely non-notable. A podcaster is no more notable than a HAM radio operator. This guy was not one of the people who invented podcasting, all he did was edit and review some stuff. RogueNinja 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr. Murphy was a regular contributor to some of the highest rated podcasts. The arguments that "all he did was review stuff" are absurd. There are entries for Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, and all they did was "review stuff" as well. The announcer from the Rush Limbaugh show has his own entry. Engineers and producers from the Howard Stern show have their own pages. To diminish the work Mr. Murphy did on his several podcasts is to make a judgement call that podcasts are less significant than radio broadcasts.64.255.240.82 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — 64.255.240.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep As others have said, the timing is unfortunate in that it looks a lot like a memorial page. I feel Joe Murphy's contributions make him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He was nominated for awards for his podcasting, and he is well-known and viewed as a minor celebrity within the podcasting world. A comparison to ham radio is not valid, speaking as a ham radio operator. Ham radio is about person-to-person communication, whereas podcasting is a form of broadcast. - Fordan 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joe Murphy was quite a notable figure to a great number of people as a well-known XM Radio personality and podcaster in many circles. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joe Murphy already has a memorial site. That is not what this article is. Joe's life and death has warranted considerable coverage in the podiosphere and blogosphere. Technorati shows a significant number of non-trivial hits on Joe. His life and death have considerably raised awareness of of Leiomyosarcoma and this impact is expected to grow and be long lasting. Ultimate ed 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joe's contributions to podcasting are important and should be noted. Podcasting is becoming a significant media. I have never listened to a "HAM Radio 'Cast".Love2bebookish 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ~~— love2bebookish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).~~[reply]

Comment-Although apparently, the above was User:love2bebookish's first edit to wikipedia, this new editor did eventually begin editing, after receiving a welcome. This is quite different than the above unsigned newbie biting approach of "tagging" single-edit users. I am interested in why this particular AfD has a single editor tag at the top, when this is not normative for all, or even most, AfDs. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Clearly, the template was added because someone felt that people were being told to swarm the page by an outside source. Its not usual for AfDs, but it does happen. RogueNinja_talk 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although this may be the case, it does also serve a function of newbie biting to tag a signed-in newcomers first edit AND then not even try to reach out to that editor with a welcome. I don't see this type of action as assuming good faith. It comes across as quite the converse. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New comment This AfD seems to have served the purpose of encouraging the improvement of this article well. I believe that this article now makes referenced claims to notability and has taken the form necessary to be a viable stub about a notable figure in entertainment media. I believe it has earned the right to be closed as keep. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:09Z

Orville Jennings[edit]

Can find no reference to this person in the specified timeframe. Article lists him as a writer, but doesn't list texts. Biographical detail unsourced, and I can't find references to his wife either. Author and frequent IP editor have history of creating pages with little detail. Suspect hoax. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Seems like a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Looks like a hoax.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy; everything points to hoax. -- Infrogmation 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a fake.--Joebengo 06:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:10Z

Yun Wang[edit]

Despite her various areas of involvement, this professor simply doesn't seem notable enough in any of her fields. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Strong KeepShe is an associate professor, and associate professors are not always notable , and Oklahoma , though respectable, is not one of the really most prestigious research university is cosmology. But she is, according to the Science article listed on he home page , "Yun Wang, a cosmologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman and leader of the JEDI project." I put a link on the article, and will get references tomorrow. Her home page claims "Annual citations from Science Citation Index: 290 (Year 2006); 280 (Year 2005); 170 (Year 2004)" a way of expressing it which is new to me. I am at a loss to know the exact meaning of "no assertion of notability"--does it mean that an assertion that someone is an (associate) professor of physics is inherently not notable? Or does it mean that she has to say in her first sentence that being an (associate) professor of physics is notable? But it could, reasonably, mean not a sufficient assertion to stand up on its own without some more documentation. DGG 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the refs. She is a/the principal investigatory on a major proposed astrophysics project, b/the subject of an article about her in ISI Essential Scientific Indicators, the principal subject of an article in the NY Times, a joint subject of one in Science and one in Nature. She clearly is one of the Associate Professors who are notable at that intermediate step in their ( I added the quote from ISI to the article.) However, I know nothing about her poetry. This time, she isn't to blame for the modesty--clearly someone else did the article. Again, people should check in at least Google Scholar, where "Yun Wang" Oklahoma has 68 articles, including the most cited one. Qualifies under any possible interpretation of N. DGG 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well Cited and referenced as cosmologist, passes wp:prof.--Buridan 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as PI on a major astronomical survey. Needs cleanup to avoid CV appearance. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I did some cleanup to make the article read a little better. Anville 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not in a position to assess notability, but Wikipedia is not paper. It appears to be reasonably well-sourced, so I don't see the problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

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