The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the album article. This afd page wasn't listed on the main log page, so I'll just cut some corners and close it now, since the result's been the same for every other rumored single from the album. - Bobet 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (Danity Kane song)[edit]

One Shot (Danity Kane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

only rumor, no reliable citations psoted, not enough context for wikipedia article under terms

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

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

The result was 'delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Democratic Republic[edit]

Federal Democratic Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely unreferenced scrap, smells badly with original research. Also user who created this is well-known for sneaky vandalism like creating articles on non-existent Dominican provinces etc. I propose deletion unless somebody proves it isn't just a piece of crap. Darwinek 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism and article is mainly original research.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch non-notable neologism, google search indicates some wide use (see ghits). Still may constitute OR however.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary fork of Democratic Republic (which may have similar issues). --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 11:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources and confusing--Sefringle 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Democratic Republic. Mishatx *разговор* 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Democratic Republic. If there were several of them, the page might be reduced to a brief definition, with a list (by way of disambiguation), but that does not seem to be warranted. Peterkingiron 18:52, 12 February 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. Dakota 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TransformersG1toylist[edit]

TransformersG1toylist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant. List of Autobots and List of Decepticons covers the same area. Wiki-newbie 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, as the original author of the article, I too, believe it should be deleted. I did not know there was other pages dedicated to this. BUT, as a compromise, someone needs to edit the Autobot page to include the year released. The Decepticon page already includes this. Please update the references to this article too, when it is deleted. Also, this was my first page created, but I learned a lot from doing it. Sharwood - Psy1123eu 2:16, 14 February 2007 (CST)
• Delete Each Autobot & Decepticon list breaks the series down from G1 to G2, so it is quite redundant. Tarc 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, and poorly formed title. Mishatx *разговор* 18:26, 12 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Behl[edit]

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

This article was written shortly after its subject's murder in 2005. However, being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability, and there are no other indications of notability. Also, the article is written like a crime log, and not an encyclopedia article. Coredesat 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage by multiple reliable sources; could use cleanup. Mfko 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Weak keep I guess I am now convinced this was enough of a national thing... I'm not convinced that yet another murder victim, even a high-profile one, deserves an entry. Certain cases become national in scope or raise deeper issues, but this one doesn't look to me like it really falls into that category. --Brianyoumans 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian, it looks to me that you are looking for a threshold of "importance", where WP calls for "notable" and the guidelines clearly state that the two are not the same. Notable is defined as being noticed, and media coverage to this degree is being noticed, whether the legal issues are important or not. Dito for Otto below. It's not for WP to judge the quality of mainstream journalism (e.g., Nancy Grace) but to offer factual information as a balance to the potential sensationalism. Again what is the harm of inclusion of this and other articles? --Kevin Murray 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, my arguments are based in notability, not importance. I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a qualitative difference between something being "newsworthy" and something being "notable." WP:NOTE specifically states that the two are not the same. Even assuming that this particular murder is notable, which I'm not convinced of, that does not automatically confer sufficient notability to the victim. See my Brinks and Capitol shooting article examples below.
• As for judging the quality of journalism, WP:V and WP:RS do require that we evaluate the reputability of the sources used for articles.
• "What is the harm," with all due respect, is perhaps the worst argument for including an article. No article (other than false or libelous ones) actually "harm" Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that every article warrants inclusion. Otto4711 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, the murder was newsworthy but the topic is not notable. I think we need to visit the issue on when a crime victim becomes notable enough for inclusion, since most murders generate at least a couple of stories especially from the likes of Nancy Grace. Otto4711 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets criteria for notability, i.e. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Rosemary Amey 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a distinction between the person being notable and the criminal act that caused their death being notable. See for example Brinks robbery (1981) which is notable and Edward O'Grady, who was killed in the robbery but was not notable enough for a separate article. Also U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) which is notable while the separate articles for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were merged into the incident article. Otto4711 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just another murder victim. Nearly every such person will recieve multiple articles written about their deaths, thus notability is not established. Resolute 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SpeedyStrong Keep Although most murder victims don't pass WP:BIO, this one clearly passes by a landslide. What possible reading of WP:BIO does this fail? Further, as clearly outlined in the opening of this article, this nationally-publicized murder is also notable as part of the Missing white woman syndrome and an Internet cause célèbre.--JayHenry 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How? There are no sources attesting to this. --Coredesat 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About two minutes on Google:

1. 1. 1. Dateline NBC story on Taylor
      2. America's Most Wanted profile
      3. CBS News 48 Hours long segment
      4. Fox News Greta Van Susteren on Taylor
      5. CNN's Nancy Grace on Taylor
      6. Story specifically about MySpace and the crime
      7. WashPost 1 of however many
      8. WashPost 2 of however many
      9. WashPost 3 of however many

Etc., etc., etc. Seriously, take your pick. I'm not vouching for every individual story, but the overwhelming volume (A Nexis search confirms over 500 stories nationwide) and the fact that this was covered in huge news outlets all over the country. Maybe you could argue The Washington Post is local coverage, but honestly 20 times (says Nexis) in WashPost? That's not "anybody who gets murdered" coverage, that's something exceptional by itself. And as for "no sources attesting to this" the article itself already sites sources that mention this stuff. I really think this is a speedy obvious keep.--JayHenry 08:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just reread WP:CSK and in light of the fact that others agree it should be deleted I agree it doesn't apply at all. Replacing "speedy" with "obvious"...--JayHenry 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though I'm not going to say "speedy" because I understand the delete voters arguements. However she does pass WP:BIO. James086^Talk 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSK does not apply anyway. Otto4711 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand both sides of this argument, however after a little investigation I discovered that Wikipedia has articles on murderers whose only notability is that they have been executed. The facts of their cases have been obscured through the years. Take for instance John W. Peoples, Jr.. In addition, this is one of the few instances where the victim gained more notoriety than the murderer, and that alone bears importance. Sectryan 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with one of the Richmond papers cited that this is just another case of a missing white girl getting disproportionate newspaper coverage that the other 99 missing people in Richmond that year did not. Her tragic death is no more encyclopedic than theirs. Her mother worked hard to publicize the case. That does not make it encyclopedic either. This is not a newspaper archive, and news is not always history. Inkpaduta 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree that this article conforms to the letter of WP:BIO. However, the hype about this event has died down, and I don't think that this will be notable for long. Furthermore, the article seems to be linked to by only various user pages and lists, so I think that if the article is not being used by another real article soon it should be removed. Samael775 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the AfD nomination. This article is not about the woman; it is about the homicide which is clearly notable as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources. In a perfect world you might clarify the issue by calling it "Homocide of Taylor Behl", with a redirect from "Taylor Behl". But I don't think that is required. I'm concerned that an admin would nominate this. --Kevin Murray 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Newspapers seem to think she's notable. --Calibas 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several articles on murder victims including this one: Anna Svidersky --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she has been the subject of multiple (several dozen at least), non-trivial, reliable news (national) publications, which alone qualifies her for WP:Notability. In addition, she's the subject of a book--what more could one want for notability? I agree with the nom that "being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability", but being the subject of so much attention and published coverage (news, books, TV, etc.) certainly does. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• She's the subject of a book written by her mother, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. Otto4711 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've heard of her and read a review of her mother's book, so she must be notable to some extent! Nick 80.225.131.144 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I am aware of this person and there are good sources.SlideAndSlip 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: only because she passes the letter of WP:BIO per news articles, although these are strictly about the murder case, and not about her per se. There's not much of a bio anywhere, except for her mother's book, but that isn;t independent. However, trying not to be cold and callous but just objective, I don't see this as anything more than "just a murder", thus falling within WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I can't quite put my finger on what makes the case special from all the others, but I do despair now that any pretty white girl who disappears and gets press is now considered "Missing white woman syndrome". Could it be time to look at WP:BIO again? Ohconfucius 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional remark. Are we ourselves perpetuating the Missing white woman syndrome by not deleting this? Ohconfucius 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes by BIO and V. Sarah 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough information on it and enough media attention to be an article. 14:33, 14 Feb 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReMix[edit]

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

A neologism (or perhaps a neocapitalisation, as a remix (note caps) is notable), as described by OverClocked ReMix#Purpose, it's apparrently been created by the creator of a (notable) website to justify a percieved discord between the website's name and it's purpose. It's basically a non-notable apart perhaps from a single sentence explanation that already exists in the main OC Remix article. FredOrAlive 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism and redirect to remix either remix or OverClocked ReMix (I'll leave it up to the closing admin). --Coredesat 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is a redirect actually needed? A random test seems to show that the other random capitalisations of Remix (bar the all caps REMIX, which goes to an Indian drama series) are automatically redirected to Remix, although someone who knows more about MediaWiki can proably say for certain if a redirect is needed or better for server load. FredOrAlive 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a neologism, and seems to be just self-promotion for the website. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's pretty much admitted to be a neologism in the article. --Haemo 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and redirect to OverClocked ReMix or remix. Preferably to OverClocked ReMix, but it doesn't really matter. --- RockMFR 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Neologlism. Realkyhick 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:20, 11 February 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 John Troutman and merge, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Again[edit]

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

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is over 600k (very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticible effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete your argument is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not paper. That said, this article borders on fancruft. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "should", as it relates to my personal belief that this article is basically useless........we seek consensus here, right? If policy allowed, I would quote it and speedy delete this article, but it doesn't, therefore we use AfD. NetOracle 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as my comment related to my own personal belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is nothing inherently non-notable about webcomics entirely ignored outside of the internet community. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is technologically and economically possible to list every named thing in the world, there is no practical reason to do so. Most of these webcomics have had no influence on the world, short of giving a bit of amusement to a very small and homogenous readership. The articles on them only appeal to strong fans of webcomics, who are seeking to discover new strips - other than that, nobody is going to read them or take interest in what they have to say. Such a page is basically the textbook definition of "fan site". Wikipedia is not a search engine or directory, and thus, should not be used to compile a list of every actively published strip currently in possession of a web address. Please tell me how these dime-a-dozen strips or the J. Random Cartoonists who pen them are notable. NetOracle 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; I agree with you to an extent. For example, I believe this particular webcomic (Flint Again) is more fancruft than anything and doesn't really need to be featured here. However, not every webcomic is fancruft, and it would appear that you and I have very different interpretations of what sort of publicity or cultural influence characterizes a webcomic as notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with one of the other two Flint comic articles. Or both. Balancer 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into John Troutman. - Francis Tyers · 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: merge to the other Basil Flint article. DS 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confirmed sockpuppet. That said, the editor is not (yet) past warnings and hasn't posted in this debate with any other account. --Kizor 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be merged, but the current content is not worth merging. --Krator 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into John Troutman.

Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the original Basil Flint article, as this comic is nothing but a relaunch with the same character. Skybright Daye 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge per above merge comments. Also troubled by the edit summary which saw this nominated. [1] Hiding Talk 21:06, 14 February 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 and merge with Keenspot. Edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look What I Brought Home![edit]

Look What I Brought Home! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is nonexistent (very, very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we avoid pretending that the piece of spyware known as Alexa is a useful source of information? Any person with even moderate technical knowledge would not use it.

Tens of millions of people use Alexa, and it is a noteworthy estimator of traffic, regardless of what your personal opinions of their business model or privacy policy might be. Ask any serious webmaster whether a high-traffic site is likely to have a significant Alexa rating or not. NetOracle 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Founding member of Keenspot, long-running, notable. 66.35.99.183 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alexa traffic rank is particular irrelevant to determining the notability of a webcomic strip that ended over two years ago. According to the link within the article, archives are only accessible to paid subscribers, and again according to the article, it has a primarily historical claim to fame, i.e., being a founding member of Keenspot. Balancer 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; as I recall, LWIBH's adult content led to some major policy changes at Keenspot. Keep. DS 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as others have indicated, this webcomic seems potentially of note. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To quote BradBeattie, there is an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. Alexa rankings left webcomic inclusion criteria long ago, and Balancer has a valid point. --Kizor 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keenspot presence is sufficient notability in itself. This is a very well received comic series, too. Wizardbrad 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ↑ Sockpuppet of User:Wizardbrad. —xyzzy_n 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and especially Balancer. -- Black Falcon 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Keenspot. --Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, etc. Article has no sources, let alone multiple non trivial independent sources suggesting any importance. WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and especially Balancer. Mathmo ^Talk 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Keenspot. It is an archived webcomic, and the article has little information which can easily be merged.

• Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of published server logs, Alexa is basically the only way of assessing how much traffic a site is receiving. It isn't perfect, but the only sites whose Alexa rankings are of no value are sites whose primary userbase detests the very idea of software analyzing their browsing habits, or whose users tend to use systems on which Alexa will not run. Even though I would never let it near my computers, I am not going to deny that tens of millions of clueless users run Alexa and follow links based on the exposure of those links. The site in question can't seem to muster up even a numbered ranking, which tells us that either it isn't very popular at all, or it is very popular but visited almost exclusively by powerusers and Linux users. Linux.com is currently at 5629, yet its primary audience isn't typically thought of as installing invasive toolbars on Windows systems. NetOracle 08:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polydimensional industrial bio-cosmic psychology of microscopic bacterium[edit]

Polydimensional industrial bio-cosmic psychology of microscopic bacterium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Legitimate sounding, but most likely total nonsense. Psychology of bacteria? Delete exolon 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. NetOracle 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. as patent nonsene. Already, one legitimate editor has wasted precious time on this article. --N Shar 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as nonsense. The title doesn't even adhere to the rules of English grammar. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - patent nonsense. --Onorem 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I too have a random word parser in my version of EMacs --Haemo 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - psychology of bacteria? What's next, emotions of minerals? I don't know if this technically meets CSD.G1, but so that no additional time is wasted on this: perhaps a speedy close per WP:SNOW? Black Falcon 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - pure B.S., plus WP:SNOW. Realkyhick 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nonsence. —dima/s-ko/ 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N I did a google search that combination of words gets no hits. Jeepday 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G3 pure vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Protected Excel[edit]

Crack Protected Excel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unverified, seems to be some kind of school project. Fails WP:NOT , WP:RS, and of course, non encyclopedic in nature. Attempted a speedy and got reverted. Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as completely unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: How-to guide, something made up in school one day. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. Wikipedia is not free web hosting; let's make this very clear. --N Shar 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Unverified, fails more WP principles than I can count. Realkyhick 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. —dima/s-ko/ 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Not only is this a cracking guide, it's non-notable, so it fails both G12 and A7. So tagged.--GCFreak2 06:22, 10 February 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. Dakota 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Ragnogov[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK (Non notable book), WP:RS (No reliable sources), and WP:CRYSTAL (Not yet published). Prod removed by what I assume by edit history to be the IP of the original author. --Onorem 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Or how about "Something we thought of in school one day?" Out!!!! --Brianyoumans 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Okay, first of all, this clearly doesn't meet notability requirements or verifiability. Moreover, it even appears to fall under the above. However, a book called "The War upon Conflict" is a brilliant idea. --Haemo 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely made up in one day at school. Proof here: http://www.freewebs.com/thechroniclesofragnogov/ragnogovsnapshots.htm --Haemo 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, fails WP:NFT, a slow day at school for them. Realkyhick 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chronicles of Nonsense Glendoremus 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overactive imaginations. John Reaves (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BK, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOR (based on the absence of reliable sources). -- Black Falcon 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You guys are big jerks. Why would you want to ruin someones childhood dream of being able to post something that hasn't happened yet? I would be famous for being the most knowledgable person about TCOR. You guys are jerks.— 71.13.237.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please be civil. You already have a website for TCoR. If you need another before it becomes notable, try MySpace. After the book has been published and reviewed by multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, come back and recreate the page. --Onorem 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: violates WP:NFT. "The books are in development, and are expected to arrive to stores sometime this year." Funny article!! Causesobad → (Talk) 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As noted, this is not yet ready for Wikipedia based on our standards of notability. However, I commend the editors of the article for their creativity, wish them well, and hope they can contribute to some other articles, perhaps on SF/fantasy topics. I also did some light spelling/punctuation cleanup of the article which you might note for your other site. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have to delete this article because although the books may have been written, they are not yet published and in the public domain, and documented by independent references ( that is, people and sources that aren't in some way directly connected to the authors ). One of our basic rules is that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball": we can't have articles about things that haven't yet happened ( like the publication of books ). If the authors happen to read this, I'd like to say: keep working at your projects, and do the best you can, and the success ( and encyclopedia entries ) will come along when you're not looking for it ( and when you've completely forgotten about this debate, probably ). Best wishes for the future. WMMartin 19:23, 11 February 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, the list is still unverifiable by non-trivial and independent coverage on the subject. The article reads like fan-cruft and is not substantiated with reliable sources. Perhaps it would do better to merge the substantiated content with the publisher's article, or a list of publications. Article will be recreated in userspace upon request. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob[edit]

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

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose appeal seems very limited. The only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is not a DMOZ-style directory, and we should only be listing notable web comics - i.e., those which have had a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. This comic doesn't seem to have had much of an influence at all. Including any and all buzz found on Web 2.0 sites only leads to fancruft. NetOracle 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. as the article states, the webcomic has received some acclaim. As there is no real policy on what makes a webcomic notable, this article should be preserved. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. My problem with this webcomic-cruft is that the acclaim and praise comes from a very small segment of the population, as posted on personal sites, blogs, forums, etc, rather than from notable published sources. There seems to be an endless number of aspiring artists and adherents to the "Internet media culture" who can do little more than regurgitate memes and engage in self-promotion. Where are we going to draw the line? NetOracle 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why invalidate the feedback of blogs? The very presence of positive feedback, even if only largely present among internet communities, should account for some notability. It might not under Wikipedia policy. but such a distinction is immaterial as there presently is no policy to govern the treatment of this medium. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs in general are not a reliable or noteworthy source. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of blogs are sites for personal ramblings, and devoid of any audience not known to the author personally. We're talking about several orders of magnitude here. Basically, anything can be considered notable if personal sites are allowed to serve as a basis for notability. It is not hard at all to establish a personal site, and participate in enough community-driven forms of media to build several hundred references to that site by means of self-promotion. Thus, how can anything present in the non-notable blogs, but nowhere else, be considered notable? NetOracle 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG.COM, Worldofwarcraft.com, the Web Comic Cartoonist Chioice Awards are NOT Blogs, ramblings, or personal sites. They are HUGE websites with significant populations of content creators and visitors. Timmccloud 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Once again a small minority of wikipedians are trying to delete notable webcomics. It's notability arises from 1) it has been published somewhere OTHER than it's home page (MMORPG.COM), which is NOT a just a "blog, forum, etc", it's a huge portal of content for MMORPG gamers. 2) There are over 7 million people playing World of Warcraft across the world, and the comic has been featured notibly on the WOW home page. 3) It has been nominated for awards - and as much as a large quantity of wikipedia editors don't want to recognize it - the web comic choice awards ARE a big deal in the field of webcomics, and being nominated meets notablity guidelines. All three of these items make this comic notable, notwithstanding the critical reviews included in the article. So to nominate it for deleteion SOLEY for the fact that it's not mentioned in the "buzz" on Web 2.0 sites this makes is absurd. And to nominate it for deletion because the reviews don't meet some personal criteria of "notablity" when there are other obvious reasons for notability is also unwarranted. Finally your editing comment "(Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it.)" shows you to be extremely biased on this topic in general, and your neutrality on this issue now brought into question. Timmccloud 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: for discussion purposes, anyone who is interested in this topic should also review the original discussion by following this link: [2] Timmccloud 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I find it a FASCINATING coincidence that the nomination for deletion has occured during the authors annual vaction (She won't be back until Feb 18th) so arguably the best reference for information about recent notabilty events is convienently away during the nomination for deletion. I don't suppose that the AFD might possibly be withdrawn until she returns? Timmccloud 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The sources of supposed notability that you reference suffer from many of the same pitfalls of blogs, forums, and chat rooms.

First, this "ubersite" looks to be fairly open, and thus, the words of any one poster do not carry the weight or the reputation of the site as would the words of a senior staff writer for, as an example, Forbes Magazine.

Next, we will address "MMORPG.COM". The only reference to the article's subject is the presence of one single strip, along with a link to the strip's website. There is no review or assertion of notability, and we don't know who is endorsing the comic, or why. Once again, the existence of a mention on a large or notable site does not necessarily convey any weight when determining notability. If I post an classified ad for used computer parts on Craigslist, is it proper to say that I am a "Active secondhand electronics distributor featured on an Alexa Top 100 website"?

Reply Duh. The CURRENT comic is reposted on MMORPG every time a new one comes out. This has been happening for over a year - that constitues "publication". And it's part of the main site navigation, which means that it is PART OF THE WEBSITE. It's not just "posted" by someone. Unfortunately the press release that stated the publication is no longer available on the web, so all that can be done is post the link to the current page. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you comment on an upstart technology company, it does not make them notable. If Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, or BusinessWeek makes the same comment, then it may very well make the company notable. The common theme here is that "what is said" and "where it is said" is less important than "who says it".

As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion. Awards are only notable if given by a notable organization, and this organization seems to be little more than a hastily constructed site maintained by a very small number of people who share a hobby. Every E-Mail address on the site is some form of free mail, and the site itself is poorly built. Furthermore, the site is hosted and operated by "Keenspace Entertainment", apparently for the purpose of drawing attention to the webcomics it hosts.

There are a great many notable websites which provide a constant stream of linkage. Most of this linkage is, however, not notable. Should everybody or everything which gets featured on the front page of the abomination known as "Digg" receive an article on Wikipedia?

The problem I have with the criteria being used here is that any single person, or a few devoted fans, given a few sockpuppets at user-driven sites, or just a regularly updated personal blog, can, under the criteria, elevate a personal creation to a level of notability warranting inclusion.

The majority of these webcomics have become entrenched because their main readership - namely, those who are on the Internet for recreation constantly - edits Wikipedia with a frequency far removed from the general population. Some of these webcomics, which are essentially personal hobbies of their creators, have articles which far exceed multi-season national television shows and major motion pictures, in both depth and length. Think what you will about the worth and notability of webcomics, but please do not suggest that encyclopediac integrity is served by such a horribly disproportionate representation.

Please, again, tell me why these webcomics are notable, and how they matter in the overall scheme of things.

Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the hushed accusation of my intentions as being based in bad faith, is rather inappropriate. I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday after I saw a solid case for deletion destroyed by insane levels of meatpuppetry and fanboyism. I have a strong concern that postponing this discussion until the author returns will only allow time for a similar meatpuppet army to assemble. I'm not here to attack a specific strip - I only became involved in this because I saw the professionalism of Wikipedia being compromised by a steady encroachment of fancruft, and wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UM. Where to begin... let's just focus on the things I can handle at 5am. The WCCA has been around since 2001 and also awards comics outside Keenspace (as a quick peek and ANY list of nominations would have told you), so it's hardly hastily assembled or promoting Keenspace comics. It has also been covered on TV, radio and has received half an article in the New York Times. This year's nomination will be at Megacon.

Your "meatpuppet army" will be the people who maintain the article. Sorry to tell you that, but slipping in an AfD while the comic is vacationing (and thus the editors may not feel the need to check the Wiki article since nothing changed) is going to look fairly bad.

May I ask what your "solid case for deletion" was? There have been 50+ (by now possibly 60+) such cases for webcomics alone during the past month, so it's somewhat hard to guess which one you mean. The recent wave (to which you just contributed) also explains the "meatpuppet" syndrome you oppose so much - The webcomic world is pretty much up in arms right now because of the dozens of AfDs that axed a few entries of comics that steadily updated for half a decade or so. Another entry of a published comic got axed and had to be recreated via DRV.

Oh, and somehow, your last paragraph makes it VERY hard to assume good faith. You effectively made the nominations because you saw another AfD being flooded. "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions."

Didn't you stop to think WHY the AfD got flooded? Your effort only contributes to the larger problem - the reputation of Wikipedia in the webcomic world. But considering that you "couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday", I assume that this is not one of your major concerns. --Sid 3050 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WCCA is not notable. Its website is of shoddy quality. It is hosted by an entity with a set of comics to promote, and therefore not impartial. Its awards seem to be distributed based on raw popular vote. Its coordinators have failed to establish their notability. Please provide evidence of "TV coverage". Is everything mentioned in any small capacity now suddenly notable?

reply not every non-profit orginization has the funding to hire the best webmasters, often these notable groups do with voulenteer work. Your assertion that the orginization is not notable based on 1) the quality of their website and 2) keenspot sponsering it has no merit. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the creator is on vacation, yet you assert that there is a large group of legitimate editors who wrote the article. Why should the creator's vacation have anything to do with this, unless you anticipated him rallying a group of puppets to action?

Have you considered that the trend of AfD'ing webcomics might be the result of a general backlash against fancruft accumulating within a walled garden? Not everything is a vendetta or conspiracy.

I made the AfD because I saw another AfD in which a meatpuppet army tried to save an article about a non-notable subject. The Ugly Hill AfD was flooded with meatpuppets, and possibly sockpuppets. This should not be happening, and reflects poorly on those who engaged in ballot stuffing. This is the result of external fanboyism spilling over into Wikipedia. This sort of passion for a specific and generally non-notable string of subjects and characters is best reserved for a specific Wiki hosted by a Wikia-esque service.

Have you considered that I might have made these nominations for deletion because I honestly believe in principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards? I am an outsider to the world of webcomics, and don't see how the hundreds of strips featured by Wikipedia are notable to the rest of us. You are right - webcomics are not my concern. Improving Wikipedia is. NetOracle 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA: NYT, TV, Radio (link is to the announcement, but I have no reason to doubt the validity). The website is easy to navigate, and I don't see how it is "shoddy". Subjectivity, much? And an official Wal-Mart site had been completely broken in Firefox for a good while. Would that mean that Wal-Mart is non-notable? (No, don't answer that, I just used the example to stress the point that "good website" is not a notability criterion).

I did not "anticipate" a rally, but common sense implies that article editing frequency is in some relation to event frequency. When is it more likely for most editors to visit an article? When the primary information source does not update or when it does?

I am in no position to judge why dozens of major comic entries get vaped in large waves, but the nominations I saw hint that there either is bias or that the nominations were made by people with little knowledge about webcomics at all. The fact that the webcomic awards were quietly edged out of the Web Notability rules and then got vaped from Wikipedia (surrounded by quick nominations for comics that based their notability on them) sort of makes it hard to assume good faith for the whole situation.

Yes, I feared that you meant Ugly Hill. It's an award-winning and published webcomic, so of course the webcomic community (already in a "I might be next!" mood) spread the word about this nomination. There is a world outside of Wikipedia, and you can't expect it to stay silent during these deletion waves. Right now, the reputation of Wikipedia has suffered immensely in the eyes of webcomic communities, so you should expect a strong reaction to AfDs, especially for major comics. I'm not saying that I think this is a good thing, but I am realistic enough to see that it is quite inevitable.

Before your comments, I did assume good faith. But now I only see somebody nominating articles of a genre he knows nothing about, for the sole reason of retaliation for an AfD going a way you don't like. Your actions seem noble, but your motivation is not. I simply cannot assume that you act in good faith. This is just you going all "Oh, so you didn't like that, huh? Let's see how you like THIS!". So please spare me the "My only goal is to improve Wikipedia" talk, it sounds mighty hollow. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that nobody has offered a rebuttal to my analysis of all the sources as unreliable and non-notable, with the specific exception of that awards committee.

Wikipedia has established policies and guidelines as to what sources are acceptable, and how those sources should be interpreted. Please see verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. WP:WEB does apply here, but its guidelines for sourcing material and determining notability and verifiability are still shaped by the other policies and guidelines dealing with source integrity.

When you apply policy to the majority of these articles on webcomics, the articles lose the footing on which their supporters built them. Enthusiasm can be good, and is admirable, but we, as editors, need to exercise some professional integrity in our analysis of source material.

One good rule of thumb for determining notability is the test of time. I have a concern that the majority of these webcomic-related articles will, 5-10 years from now, be unpublished and virtually unknown. Now, granted, there are many notable webcomics. Among these are ones which set milestones for revenue and exposure, shaped the evolution of the genre, and influenced humanity in a broad sense. This is why the entry on Columella is valid - does anyone here honestly believe that the majority of these comics will still be remembered in 2 decades, let alone 2 millenia?

The majority of these entries are fancruft, and are beginning to look like a walled garden.

There was meatpuppetry on the Ugly Hill AfD. Recruiting supporters offsite to bolster an AfD argument is not proper, and is against policy.

If these articles were notable on their own, you wouldn't have to rally your supporters to stop the deletion from going forward. A notable subject's article will be written by disinterested third parties, in the spirit of building Wikipedia. A non-notable subject's article will only be written by fans and other strong supporters. Your claim that this deletion was timed to coincide with the author's vacation only furthers my case against this article as fancruft. If this article is notable, then it will stand on its own, and without the evils of meatpuppetry or bloc voting.

During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Pay attention who you reply to. I was not the one who brought up the timing, I am not the one who is rallying anybody. Indeed, I think YOU are the one who instantly started pointing fingers about rallying people. Paranoia, much? And if you had paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that I haven't even voiced any Delete/Keep opinion so far, so I'm hardly the one you could accuse of meatpuppetry or fancruft or whatever.

I think it's a given that in TWO THOUSAND YEARS, not even Wikipedia will be remembered. So let's delete everything! Your entire "must influence humanity" and "must stand the test of time" makes me curious. Please point out the exact policy that lists these things as requirements. Cite sources. I'm honestly curious.

The current flood of AfDs is a nasty call for sources, so I think it's a double standard to call for sources, but protest when new people join to argue about whether certain sources count or not.

Additionally, AfDs like the one for Starslip Crisis are based on the simple fact that an admin decided to ignore given sources for an award and declared it to be non-notable. And all of a sudden, a well-sourced article becomes not sourced at all. If an Admin suddenly declared CNN or the NYT to be non-notable, how many articles would fail to stand on their own? You cling to policies, but blindly accept that the wikiality suddenly changes. If/when WCCA gets restored, will you say "Yes, of course it fulfills policy"? I surely hope so.

A webcomic with more than five years of archived material, hundreds or thousands of strips and a dedicated fanbase don't count AT ALL in the current Web Notability rules. Without a dedicated newspaper article or a lengthy TV report, such a comic will be declared as non-notable as the average Geocities page. And thanks to the eager Admins who quickly got rid of the major webcomic awards, Wikipedia has become a "Get published or get out" site. So please tell me this: Is that the greater goal of Wikipedia? Kick out everything that hasn't changed the fate of mankind?

And I honestly ask you: What hurts the reputation of Wikipedia more: A few articles about things that have a large following, or pissing off thousands of people that read about Wikipedia's mass deletions on tons of blogs and webcomic news?

Oh, and people ignoring your "analysis" does not mean that you are right by default, even if you'd like to imply it. --Sid 3050 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every word of that reply was directed toward you. There are a number of parallel discussions occuring in this deletion debate, and I chose to save time by combining my thoughts into a single reply.

I never leveled an accusation of meatpuppetry or solicitation of meatpuppetry against any specific editor. I merely pointed out that a recent AfD had been plagued by an invasion of meatpuppets hell-bent on perpetuated the fancruft within. If an article can only be saved through meatpuppetry, its subject probably isn't notable to begin with. When I stand accused of timing my nomination to coincide with the vacation of a webcomic's author, I have to question why the author's vacation should even enter in to the equation. Is the motion for postponment based strictly on a desire to see one person be able to comment on the AfD, or is it a cover for something more sinister, such as the author making a website, forum, chat, or blog entry soliciting meatpuppet activity?

It is incivil to accuse another editor of being a meatpuppet or soliciting meatpuppets without probable cause, which is why I made no such accusation. I merely used the presence of meatpuppets in a completely seperate AfD as an indicator of problems within that AfD.

I cannot speak for other editors, but I did not put forth this nomination as an underhanded and hostile way of calling for sources. We have templates which are used to request sources when an article which probably meets notability guidelines is lacking the sources which make it whole. I put forth this nomination because I have a genuine belief that this webcomic does not meet notability guidelines, and the sources it is built on fail to establish notability and importance in a manner which maintains professionalism and encyclopedic integrity. Wikipedia has policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards for good reason. I feel the letter and spirit of these policies is breached by this article and the sources used to support its alledged notability.

There IS some serious fancruft going on here. Regardless of whether the article is deemed to be notable or not, this and many other webcomic-related articles have articles in size and depth which are grossly disproportionate to their notability and importance. Why should a webcomic, produced as a hobby, and having a limited readership in the thousands of tens of thousands, contain plot summaries and character descriptions with far more clarity than is present in the articles of most major motion pictures and nationally syndicated television programs?

If other people are offended or upset because something they find amusing is deleted according to established policies of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, then that is their problem. I cannot control whether they choose to follow and believe in the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. Good-faith AfD nominations are not disparagements of the subjects or authors involved.

In proper debate, failing to make a mention, let alone a rebuttal, is a de facto admission of surrender on a specific point. NetOracle 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you de facto admit that the WCCA is notable? You didn't bring it up anymore when I cited the sources... :P (Cutting off the rest at this point since it has gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, so this will most likely be my last edit here. Well, that, and Wikipedia is seriously eating away my free time - do the established Wiki editors have a life outside the Wiki? If so, please tell me your secret! O_o) --Sid 3050 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This comic is way more notable than most of the rest. I can see where some people not familiar with the scene might delete the other ones, but this one is so notable that anything against it is just hate toward non traditional entertainment. Wizardbrad 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Wizardbrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• keep seems notable enough and the article is fairly well written. Variety of articles is what makes wikipedia impressive as a living encyclodpedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justinboden86 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep It is notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luckyherb (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. I had not heard of this strip prior to perusing the AFDs in examining the contention that webcomics are being targeted. Alexa ranking (32,000) bears out what the various links within the article and the previous VFD indicate, namely, that this is a very heavily trafficked comic with great prominence in the online RPG community. That is has been published independently online as well as in print make it clearly notable by the standards of Wikipedia. I will further note that the assertion of the WCCA as non-notable is disputable. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I find NetOracle's expressed desire to "sack" this article to be a disturbing indicator of such. Balancer 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am an avid reader of the comic, as well as many people I know both personally and through the internet. We are certainly not meatpuppets and I take offense at this insinuation. Through his claims of ballot stuffing and meatpuppetry, NetOracle could explain away any kind of following or rallying in defense of this comic without any proof. Simply because he does not take interest in this webcomic or others does not mean it is not notable. Sheora 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I fail to see the validity in NetOracle's argument on notability. Among webcomic circles, The Noob is regularly very highly ranked on two of the three comic listings, and has a very active and supportive reader community. If this was a "Webcomic Wiki" there should be little doubt that all webcomics that are a) active and b) regularly updated should be represented. So why here is the judgement made that being only a webcomic individual instances that have not been presented in mainstream national media should be considered not notable?

You admit yourself that you hadn't really encountered webcomics - you are most likely a totally inappropriate person to judge the notability of an individual entity in a sphere that does not interest you. Someone may be interested in military modelling and do an article on a specific era of modelling -- totally uninteresting to me, but probably extremely useful for some die hard modelling fanatics, and good for them. Wikipedia is precisely about having in depth and accurate articles broadly across as many topics is possible for the information and reading of the general public. On the whole I only come to Wikipedia to look up things I don't already know about.

You claim that the support comes from a small section of population? So does most support for things that are not worldwide phenomena, so why would that make them less interesting as included articles as a whole? I suspect there is more current interest in The Noob than, for example, the Roman writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella, yet he manages to escape any need for deletion. Why not have every writer from every culture ever that there is some kind of written record of? Most of those will not be at all notable to vast swathes of the population, yet I suspect there will be little complaint about such historical figures.

You talk about main media resources. I doubt for a second that BBC News, Reuters, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, ZDNet or anyone else has written about Columella, so lets sack that article too. In fact, lets Google for each Wiki article we find that looks obscure, and if there appears to be no large international media story or commentary about them then sack those articles too! And so we can steadily destroy the fantastic library of genuine interest articles that Wikipedia has managed to set up.

This site builds its reputation for two reasons. Firstly, it is on the whole well researched, works hard to avoid bias and provide a balanced argument in areas of contention, and is well presented and supported both by users and moderators. Secondly, it is extremely broad with a wide reach into the most obscure of subcategories in any given subject. Webcomics are now popular enough that some writers earn their entire living from donations, and I cannot see how your personal interest in them can be used as a judging factor in whether or not they should be allowed on Wikipedia.

So having already had so many comments that it should be kept in this discussion, perhaps it is notable to enough people to keep, especially as so far your reasoning for removing it appears not to have gathered much momentum? And perhaps webcomic entries should be moderated and marked potentially as AfD by administrators and content moderators with some level of interest in webcomics as a whole? Topazg 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Topazg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Topazg happens to be an articulate editor who's familiar with the subject and puts thought and effort into his messages, while the nominator started editing yesterday, admits to having no knowledge about the field and has concerned himself with little else than deletion nominations and discussions. --Kizor 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was about a 'few or other edits' tag that appears to be no longer here. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spa tag was removed by Wizardbrad's sockpuppet. I put it back, but note that I did not originally put it there, nor necessarily agree with it.. --Krator 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can we all slow down a bit here before we get carried away? On all sides? The debate has been getting pretty heated. Timmccloud, even if we had any reason to assume that NetOracle knew the comic's author was away, it wouldn't make a difference. Articles are supposed to stand on their own merits. Getting authors involved is in no way policy, required or common, nor has it been beneficial in several cases where one did get involved. --Kizor 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of these "I see no sources, so let's AfD it to encourage the editors to find them" AfDs, it's highly counter-productive to nominate comics that are on a brief hiatus. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing the comment after I was distracted by shiny things and a relative closed the window (this part is written after Krator's message, mind): NetOracle... cool down. Please. Your comments (nominating as a reaction, "We're going to sack it"..) give the impression of acting out of personal indignation. The train wreck at Ugly Hill was far from usual, the worst one I've seen in this field. Your assumptions - the WCCA are for self-promotion, meatpuppetry is to be expected - are broad, severe and, well, wrong.
  Sid has a point, too. It's an odd one, but not long ago I e-mailed an author and he responded with additional data, sources and proofs that turned an AfD from 2-3 to 6-0. --Kizor 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sid, Kizor, that was my point, that you for clarifying it - last time the noob was up for AFD, it was my communication with the author that allowed me to enhance the article with proper refrerences and information. This time round, the best reference to the work is unavailable. Timmccloud 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantial coverage by reliable sources as required by WP:WEB etc., only by websites of varying levels of ephemerality. The only reliable source cited, the Yahoo News story, mentions the subject only tangentially. Sandstein 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Started by a single purpose account, like most webcomic articles, it's a depository for character bios and trivia which is not even available on the site itself. Sources for some claims in the article, such as the comic being 'well-known' amongst MMORPG players, probably don't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Nydas. Inkpaduta 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Balancer and Topazg. I also agree with Kizor. --Krator 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note re [WP:WEB] notability is asserted - "Notability on Wikipedia for Web-specific content[3] is based on the following criterion"

1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. MMPORPG.COM, WorldofWarcraft.com Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. MMORPG.COM Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject. My concern is that these sources do not establish the notability of the subject, and are little more than one of many tangential mentions of sites which may fall under the category of "interesting, and worth a click" (but only to a specific subculture) but not notable. Furthermore, the mentions I saw earlier gave no indication of authorship, and thus, carried no weight associated with the entity responsible for publication. NetOracle 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject."

Answer:

• On mmorpg.com, the section where The noob is mentioned, is not one where people with forum/commentary accounts can make additions to.
• On WorldofWarcrat.com, The noob was featured in a news item, which is, again, a section of the site that needs more than a forum/commentary account.

--Krator 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The noob is mentioned quite a lot in sections of notable and reliable websites (Gamespot, Ign, WoW, etc) where just a forum or commentary account is needed to add content. However, I agree with you that these shouldn't be used to support any claims of notability for The noob. They do, however, support the claims that The noob is reknown throughout the MMO community.

Comment: I might also add that there was a previous AfD for this article, which resulted in a discussion not unlike the one observed here right now. Note that the article has significantly improved since then, and now includes a lot more encyclopaedic content (i.e: about the satire of MMORPG culture in the comic) in relation to the amount of 'descriptive' content. As the article has only improved, and so has the number of references and reviews included therein, I question whether this debate will reach a different conclusion than the last one. That being said, I'd like to propose WP:SNOW, because the conclusion of no consensus seems imminent. --Krator 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Definitely notable, and liked by many. BlackMateria 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC) BlackMateria (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result BlackMateria is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - As Timmccloud and others have amply demonstrated, the argument for deleting The noob is incredibly weak. Almost to where it is laughable, really. I'm incredulous that the article is here again. The vendetta against webcomics continues, it would seem. –Xoid 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This article deletion seems complete vendictful and mean. Its just shocking to me why someone would want to step on and destroy the hard works and passions of others. So what if our comics are enjoyed by a select few? We are a community. FGreen1989 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC) FGreen1989 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result FGreen1989 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because calling something "fancruft" is just a way of being hateful and disparaging something. Somebody cared enough to put work into it, therefore we should keep it. This page hurts nobody else. I don't see why we have to crush the work of some because of elitists hiding behind a shield of "profesionnalism" or "encyclopedic standards". Webcomics are about fun and entertainment, but they still are notable. Just because they aren't all run for huge corporate profit and aren't stuffy like 18th century British Literature doesn't mean that talking about them is unprofesional.CSMASTER84 22:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) CSMASTER84 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result CSMASTER84 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is worthy of an article even right now. Let it stay and we'll improve it. There is nothing wrong with the subject, it just isn't as complete as it should be. Thats no reason to stomp it out. Ccfr88 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ccfr88 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Ccfr88 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Tagged three votes above with Spa because the only edit made by these accounts is on this page. I hate to see meatpuppets here, and I didn't ask for them, even if they support my point(s). It doesn't matter though, because of WP:NOT. I encourage the nominator to take my suggestion of using WP:SNOW here into account, in order to get back to editing instead of debating. --Krator 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Confirmed to be sockpuppets, and votes deleted and tagged as such. I noticed Kizor (talk · contribs) and Xoid (talk · contribs) edited this page concerning these sockpuppets while I was doing so too, but I think keeping the text is to be preferred, because I fear that there'll be some more debate on sock and meatpuppets in this AfD. --Krator 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks be to you. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks from me too - sockpuppets pollute the dialog. --Timmccloud 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks from me too. Eliminating sockpuppets which were supporting your side's opinion was a stand up thing to do. I did, however, notice this edit in the history: [3] Can someone with access check to see if Topazg is operating any sockpuppets, considering that a sockpuppet tried to whitewash some facts concerning his history here?

• Deletet: Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Timmccloud, User:Kizor, and User:Balancer. Although I am not a fan of comics (print or online), I think the notability of the comic has been demonstrated (recongition by notable websites). Another factor to consider is the possibly inappropriate nature of the nomination, when ((unreferenced)) or ((notability)) may have sufficed. Black Falcon 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with a reminder to everyone to have a quick look at WP:ILIKEIT (do we need a WP:SOMEONENOTABLELIKESIT for arguments to avoid too?). Unless reliable sources have covered this, which I see no evidence of, it's not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And what pray tell is "relaible" by your definition? A major MMORPG software developent company like Blizzard covers it on the flagship games website home page, and it doesn't meet your "reliable" criteria? The largest webcomic award - WCCA - nominates it for an award and that's not "reliable"? Timmccloud 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blizzard? There's a link to mmorpg.com, which is also the source cited for that assertion, but I followed the link. Nothing on that page supports that assertion whatsoever, it's just the site's homepage. As to WCCA, no, Notability is not popularity, nor did the site even win, it just received an honorable mention. I suppose the award site is reliable as to who won an award, but certainly, that's not enough source material for a comprehensive article-the award site only mentions their name once! Coverage must also be non-trivial, certainly a name-drop is as trivial as it gets! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Blizzard, World of Warcraft, worldofwarcraft.com. Your lack of knowledge in the area of MMORPG games dilutes your opinions on notablity - within the gaming communitiy this comic is very notable. And that gaming community is larger than the wikipedia community in size, so notability is herby asserted for "a noticeable effect on culture". Granted that it's not YOUR culture is obvious, but members of the gaming culture who are in this thread assert notabily, and it should be respected.Timmccloud 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens and others. Mathmo ^Talk 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep saying this comic is not widely recognized is ignorant. There is a huge fanbase. People like it. It is notable. Period. 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Gozerthegreat 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Gozerthegreat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Uh, I just saw a thread about this. I have to say I am really quite shocked. This is one of the biggest comic strips out there. Its everywhere. And on every important forum and weblog directory too. Deleting this would be illegal censorship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doomtrooper6 Doomtrooper6 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Wizardbrad (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Doomtrooper6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article. I don't see what purpose it serves to delete it. It isn't like Wikipedia is going to run out of memory. Zeruzero 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Zeruzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per the fact that many other Webcomics are listed. It seems like a well-written article. Usually short stub-type nonsensical articles get tagged for deletion. If this is deleted, maybe wikibooks will accept it, if they accept comics. BuickCenturyDriver 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Timmccloud said basically everything I want to say. FWIW, this seems to be just wasting time and creating tension. The Nazis in the anti-webcomic camp need to learn some tolerance. Dorikonu 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)— Dorikonu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Ohforf'sake. --Kizor 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  huh? BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, and I've always wanted to be an illegal censoring anti-webcomic Nazi! One Night In Hackney 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The frustrating thing about notibilty is that people will base it on whether or not the subject familiar to them or their peers as opposed to a whether or not it belongs on wikipedia and the community accepting it. BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm basing my vote on whether The noob meets WP:WEB. Has it been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? In my opinion, no. The coverage it has isn't from reliable sources, or it's trivial. Take the World of Warcraft "review", it doesn't review the site at all. The ubersite "review" is on a site where submissions seem to be open to all and sundry. The article states The Noob has been invited (article's emphasis not mine) to post on MMPORG, but that isn't verified by the reference. In my opinion it's a long way short of WP:WEB. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That teaches you a lesson about consensus. If you want to call them votes, just count the number of users. But these are comments and they are counted based on experiance. New user comments are discounted (because accounts are free on WP) but account with experiance and especially sysops and admins usually have more impact. The legitimacy usually depends on experiance and reputation. BuickCenturyDriver 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I normally use the term !vote but I neglected to include an exclamation mark on this occasion. I regard your condescending tone as inappropriate, and I suggest you return to debating the matter at hand. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is asserted - The january 2007 issue of the Norwegian Print magazine PEGASUS (ISSN 1890-0704) has started publishing the noob - on page 4 of the following link Pegasus January 2007. This meets notablity per "and are cited by established publications". I have included this reference in the article as well. Timmccloud 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is "notable", and stuff. Nothing I see that's wrong with it. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in print is in print, and that makes this "notable". This isn't some comic that some kid drew in art class one day. This is a real publication. Mikemasterful 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Mikemasterful (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Mikemasterful is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject is certainly notable. Frobber6 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Frobber6 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed illegitimate sockpuppet of Dorikonu (talk · contribs) (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result Frobber6 is blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Timmccloud, Kizor, and Balancer. It is clearly referenced by notable sources. JackSparrow Ninja 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The puppetry here is out of hand, and this has become the Ugly Hill AfD all over again. I'm going to get it cleaned up, and then we can proceed. NetOracle 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This comic is generally well known, it has been referanced on major sites (web comic awards, Blizzard main page, various gaming sites), and as shown above even published. My own initial exposure to it came from ingame references from other players and images from it being used as forum avatars/linked inside posts, on the World of Warcraft forums. Which says something about it having a following in the gaming community. There's probably 5-10 or so other webcomics of similar notability that i can think of, and i don't think cutting off most of the webcomic content on wikipedia helps anyone who actually has any interest in the subject. --Helixdq 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest (and removed) the ((spa)) that was given to this user. As Special:Contributions/Helixdq shows, Helixdq has made several edits outside this topic (even to articles not connected to this topic at all), and the account has been active for much longer than this AfD. To keep it civil in here, I think it is paramount that a clear distinction is made between those who create an account just to !vote here (vote stacking/meat puppets) and 'normal' !votes. I quote from WP:SPA: "Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you."

--User:Krator (t c) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not seen adequate evidence provided that this webcomic has met any of the guidelines described within WP:WEB. There are some sources, but not a substantial ammount sufficient for covering the requirement of multiple non-trivial published works. The awards and recognition have been limited to non-notable organizations and blogs. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is established, and this is routinely mentioned on sites related to the MMORPG culture. Also, calling something a subculture with derisive implications (as in that makes them non-notavble) is silly. Millions of users is beyond notable. And this has been on the front page of the "main" mmorp portal, mmorpg.com, and World of warcraft.com - Denny 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all of the references meet my personal standards for reliability, but there is sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature to suggest that this comic is in fact notable. (jarbarf) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Holy crap, this is the longest deletion discussion I've ever seen. As it stands now, the article is not deletable. YechielMan 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though I can see that won't happen. If Wikipedia does not want to be overwhelmed by internet ephemera it must draw a line in the sand. An official policy is definitely needed. Rkevins 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others above and because of the massive amount of sockpuppetry in this AFD. SakotGrimshine 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sockpuppetry has been well identified in order to ignore it's contribution to the discussion. Deleting the article out of spite because some people make ill advised attempts to save it is NOT a reason to ignore the validity of the other commentary. It makes it more difficult to mediate, yes, and I personally wish they hadn't done so, but there are serious reasons to keep this article, and serious discussions between the meat puppetry.Timmccloud 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't agree with you on the notability of the subject, I do have to agree with your stance on the sockpuppetry. The presence of puppets alone should not sway a person to disagree with the viewpoint held by the puppets out of spite. If this deletion goes forward, it should be on the merits of the discussion held, and not the interference in the discussion by those who don't wish to play by the rules. All that can be said of the puppetry is that a large fan community exists, many of whom have no problems in introducing cruft into articles, or puppets into discussion NetOracle 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The comic (and by extention the article) seems to have quite a bit of support and in any case the articles quite well written--Bisected8 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The quality of the writing and existing support are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Please cite a policy or guideline to back up your position. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Qualiy of comic: irrelevant. Author on vacation: irrelevant. Lots of people like it: irrelevant. Lots of noise on blogs: irrelevant. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: relevant per policy and guideline, not yet rebutted. Please provide sources. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, three published books on it sounds notable enough for me. >Radiant< 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it worth noting that NetOracle just made those criteria up himself, and furthermore has shown himself to be operating under his own idea of what Wikipedia should be by saying that we should restrict ourselves to those subjects that will "stand the test of time"? --Kizor 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Where you say
  

*** During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
***

I would like to disagree. What calls the reputation of wikipedia into question is the fact that a small minority keep on calling wikipedia's objectivity into question by deleting what they have subjectively determined to be subjective content. The objectivity of wikipedia is of more value to the site's reputation than anything else. If wikipedia is not objective, then how can it be trusted at all? Just because it contains vast amounts of what could be considered trivial data (please note that the articles regarding Knuckles the Echidna and Hitmonchan are longer than the article on European History), that does not mean that this data is not a valid reference for those who seek it. Furthermore, due to the open nature of a wiki they are going to struggle for a long time to come before they are regarded as "solid and reliable". Right now, objectivity is all that wikipedia has, and it is being fast eroded by the same pomposity displayed in the passage I have quoted. TNUK 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? I agree with you that objectivity is essential, and that is why I launched this deletion process to begin with. Writing a long, in-depth article about a subject because you like it conflicts with established principles of verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards. The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist. Writing a long and detailed article for a non-notable subject only gives it a false sense of notability to those not familiar with it. Wikipedia needs to be objective, and part of this involves fans of a particular entertainment medium or specific work controlling the impulse to bypass encyclopedic standards and source integrity simply because the subject in question made an impact on their life. WP:BAND frequently sacks articles profiling small, non-notable bands. The people writing these articles (generally the members themselves, or their close friends) do so in good faith, but without the objectivity of a neutral observer. There are thousands of non-notable bands, just as there are thousands of non-notable webcomics, and neither belong on Wikipedia. Inclusion in Wikipedia can give a reader a false sense of notability, and readers of Wikipedia should not be deceived as to notability because several people like it.

Conversely, holding a distaste for something is not a valid reason to delete or prune it. At this point, let us make an important semantical distinction: not liking something is not the same as disliking something. Of particular concern are some of the comments that I have received indicating that someone who does not like webcomics has no business in pruning them down or deleting them. This notion is misguided; if only people who like webcomics participate in those articles, then they will fill up with biased fancruft. How can an article be objective if only one viewpoint is considered? The only people who should not participate in webcomic-related discussions are those who have vendettas against webcomics. I don't have a vendetta against webcomics; I simply don't find them humorous, and I don't associate with the typical nerd/gamer stereotypes portrayed in them. If I were to go around nominating things which I dislike for not being entertaining at all, I would have started with Speed 2, as pretty much everyone agrees that it sucks. If I were going to troll the genre, I would have started with a notable webcomic such as Penny Arcade.

The reason this discussion seems excessively long is because a significant amount of biased editing by fans has transpired in the past, and the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion. This debate has already been had with other fancruft-prone subjects, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, and the articles in those genre have been evaluated for notability, and much of the cruft transwikied to places which exist specifically for non-objective writing. When we look at articles, we must do so from a neutral point of view. If multiple, non-trivial published sources document a subject, then it meets inclusion criteria, and should be documented in an objective way that does not falsely misrepresent the notability of the subject to multiple, disinterested third parties. I have a concern that the cruft found in many of the webcomic articles is both not useful and misrepresentative to those reading Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia. I could have just as easily gone after other instances of cruft; the massive number of articles on non-notable Idol contestants is ridiculous too, and had I encountered it before I did similarly problematic articles on webcomics, I'd be off trying to apply encyclopedic standards to it, instead of here. NetOracle 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is specious. "There's cruft in there, so we should delete the entire article". That reasoning warrants a ((cleanup)), not an ((afd)). As we've already established this webcomic is notable, so don't try pulling that one. –Xoid 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of cruft in an otherwise notable article is a symptom of the same ILIKEIT editing which has created non-notable articles to begin with. Thus, non-notable webcomics do far more harm than fancruft-filled articles like the Final Fantasy series. An article such as Sinfest would be much more deserving of a cruft cleanup tag than an AfD tag. Completely unencyclopedic articles are a much greater concern than articles with a bit of cruft; i.e., cruft in itself is less misrepresentative to a reader than the existence of an article which probably shouldn't be around in the first place. AfD is not a substitute for cruft cleanup, and we haven't established that this webcomic is notable, given that this AfD is still open. NetOracle 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any deletion proceeding where a claim of "cruft" is the primary motivation for deletion should not happen. Cruft forever! Rogue 9 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't want to seem like I'm questioning each keep !vote, but if you could cite some policy or guideline for your reasoning, it would be appreciated. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:CRUFT itself states that cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion. However, an article's cruftiness can be a determining factor when other valid reasons for deletion are met. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment Justyn beat me to it. Yelling "cruft" isn't a reason to delete anything, and the reasoning behind the nomination boils down to "I think this is cruft." Given that "cruft" is an entirely subjective measure (one could argue that articles on high schools, for instance, are cruft, just to give one example), one person thinking an article constitutes cruft is not a reason for deletion. Rogue 9 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather weak keep The print references are a bit thin (the magazine listed appears to be a new one, though I have very little clue about Norwegian) an self-published books don't count. That said, they may weakly satisfy the notability. The article needs some old chainsaw love though. Perhaps AfD it again a little bit later? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The the article itself sites sources and asserts its notibility, it has more then two real reliable sources, it meets the relevent criteria for inclusion. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In response to NetOracle: You ask why do I classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? The answer is simple. Wikipedia uses set criteria to assess objectivity in articles - criteria which the article under discussion certainly meet. Deletion (and even the motion to delete the article itself) is therefore subjective, by the standards of wikipedia. This blatant display of double standards is the reason that I felt compeeled to add my two pennorth', and the reason why I am very close to giving up on ever being able to treat wikipedia as being an objective, credible source.
You may or may not be aware of my meaning in my initial response to you. I am unsure, because you say things like "The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist." as though this adds weight to your query regarding objectivity. In actual fact, you have merely repeated my setiments quite succinctly. You go on to say that you are trying to "apply encyclopedic standards to articles" such as this one. What I think you mean is that you are deleting articles entirely subjectively. Case in point: this article meets the required standards, and therefore in order to apply encyclopedic standards, one merely needs to clean up the style (not the content) of the article so that it may be brought into line. You say that "the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion", yet instead of this, you are acting in an highly subjective manner by removing content before such standards have even been established.
You refer to "cruft". If "cruft" is the problem, then why not remove "cruft" from the article and ensure that it properly conforms to the required standard, then protect it. Surely a basic article giving objective and encyclopedically delivered facts is far better than a gap in the supposedly omniscient databank that many editors seem to regard wikipedia as?
I can only hope that the madness does not spread, or next any article that mentions God (or references another which mentions God) will be deleted for not having an ojective enough worldview, and being about entirely subjective worldviews (which is of course an entirely subjective opinion as God's existance can not at this point be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either on the site would be frowned upon as "original thinking". If this happens, then who knows where it will end?
The pomposity and hypocrisy of those who would seek to control and/or limit the flow of information across the internet never ceases to astound me. Just as I think I have seen the worst example possible, another crops up that is ten times as bad (and often this is the case when one bad yet impassioned idea is raised in support of a previous and equally execrable idea).
TNUK 23:13, 14 February 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Mall (Fairview Park)[edit]

In the past few months, we have deleted tons of mall articles. This one should not be an exception. Part of the TrackerTV Watchlist Cleanup TRKtv (daaaaah!) 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Malls should be evaluated on their individual characteristics. In this case, references include a newspaper article at http://www.westlifenews.com/2005/06-01/westgate.html , as well as deadmalls.com --Eastmain 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't made up my mind yet whether this is actually notable or not, however, intentional or not, the nominator's comment makes it seem like he/she believes all mall articles should be deleted. As Eastmain said, they should only be deleted if there is no claim of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this article. I would recommend that its content include cited references, however. --DangApricot 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable because of its history, almost ancient as malls go. Realkyhick 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable history when it mentions that it was among the "first postwar suburban retail centers with department store anchors in the United States" --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable because of its history and references. In addition, most mall articles were/are not this detailed and sourced. Finally, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. It has already been noted, but I think it should be reiterated: each article should be considered on its merits; in the case of bundled nominations, criticism of one article should apply equally to all. Black Falcon 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article claims notability and has references. Mathmo ^Talk 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike Stephenville Mall, this article suggests notability backed by reliable sources. (jarbarf) 19:46, 14 February 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, default to keep. However, I recommend finding some reliable sources; as a closing admin, I'm neutral, but this article might not be so lucky if another AfD is made in the future and no attempt to provide exceptional source is made. — Deckiller 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notch (deejay)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though it mentiones that this DJ worked with possibly some big artists, there is no mention for it. Also, the biography is not sourceful enough, since it seems to be linked to a webpage of the person. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you users are trying to anger me so you or another admin can block me for personal attacks, I'm afraid it won't work. You will have to find another person to maintain the El Salvador portal. If it matters to either of you, he has, in fact, placed on Canadian, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and American music charts, and his song "The Richest Man in Babylon" was the theme song for a while on the American talk show Conan O'Brien. If this is not enough (even though it meets two of the WP:Music standards and it only has to meet one), you may delete my article. BashmentBoy 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)BashmentBoy[reply]

• Keep. See http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/t/thieverycorporation-richest.shtml for an explanation of Notch's work as the vocalist (and lyricist, I think) on Thievery Corporation's "The Richest Man in Babylon". --Eastmain 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Eastmain. Subject has enough notability (barely), so lets keep it for now. Realkyhick 03:57, 10 February 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 convert to speedy G7. Non-admin closure due to change of process. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watara Supervision internals[edit]

Watara Supervision internals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Big images, self-references, and unencyclopedicity all make deletion for this article. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. clearly unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Might be usable if it were made more encyclopedic, but that would take a lot of work. Realkyhick 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly original research. CiaranG 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR.-MsHyde 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No contest I originally wrote this page, and a similar page for the Mega Duck as an extension of my article on the Mega Duck/Cougar Boy, to show the remarkable similarities between their external appearance and internal electronics of the Watara Supervision and the Cougar Boy/Mega Duck, and to learn interested parties the inner workings of such devices. But these articles ended up more like an article for a "How things work" book than an encyclopedic article. I understand that Wikipedia is not a "how things work" book, so I have salvaged a bit from both articles, and put them on my home page. Mahjongg 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• G7 both pages as above. I am changing this to G7 and adding a G7 template on the Mega Duck internals page. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:16, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nude Universe[edit]

Miss Nude Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I speedy deleted this as the whole content was "Miss Nude Universe is an annual beauty contest where contestants appear in the nude. Two noteworthy contestants are Nina Mercedez and Lauren Powers. [ab:both red links]" This was objected to, so I then userfied it. This was objected to, so I sent it to deletion review. There appears to be some differenace of opinion on what do do with contested deletions of content-free article on topics that might be notable, much to my suprise. This article (and I use the term loosely) makes no claim to notability, and at this stage exists only to support an external link to a commercial venture. The link to The Age is trivial in the extreme. Unless multiple non-trivial sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability and notability this should be deleted. /* This micro-micro stub should have stayed deleted and a real article written, but that's water under the bridge. */ brenneman 02:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Zero Gnews hits, and in the first tne pages of the 481 unique Ghits there were two that were from reliable sources, but both deeply trivial: very brief Sexpo mewntion from The Age that was already in the article and a listing for Playboy Magazine (February 1968) appears to have had an article about it. Note that even if this is the same contenst (as opposed to just an ŭber-genericly-named one) that's hardly "multiple non-trivial" mentions. </rant>
brenneman 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The history here does appear to be murky; the web site claims that the pageant has run since the mid 60's, but it is unclear whether the pageant winners in the 60s were in the same pageant, or just one with the same name. It would be nice to have a reliable third-party history, and we don't have one. It has clearly never had much notoriety outside the "adult" community, except briefly in the 60s when Playboy was publicizing it (if that was in fact the same title.) If more sources were found, I might change my vote. --Brianyoumans 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced - unless we can get some real sources in here, this article should be deleted. --Haemo 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, No official Miss Nude Universe title. No website for the contest. No real reference. looks like a hoax to me. --Tarawneh 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)I found the official websiste [4] i have emailed them to confirm the people i have stated have appeared in the competition as claimed thats gotta count for something.[reply]

That is not even a web site. It is just an adult search engine :) check it out. Press the I agree key. Any one can build such a search website. You just buy a domain name, place it in the hands of adults websites, and earn money. --Tarawneh 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Apparently pagent changed its name to "Miss Nude World" [5]. -- Infrogmation 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My 5 years old son can do something better than a two unformatted pages. --Tarawneh 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more sources are found. I've heard news stories about this contest for years (on legit news programs, to boot). I'm really surprised there's no web site for this contest, especially in this age of all sort of "adult content" on the web. (Maybe I should start one, eh??) Does seem a bit odd, so dump it. Realkyhick 04:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep google nets almost 450 distinct hits, which I think is enough to prove that this thing actually exists. I can't find any real press for the contest, which is kind of arbitrary since there are no notability guidelines for beauty pageants. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PNC applies here just as it does elsewhere, as indeed does our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you cannot find anything at all written about the pageant, how do you expect an article to be written about it? Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that there are enough reliable sources that make minor mention of the subject so that it passes WP:Verifiability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree if the information can be used to build a meaningful article, but mere mention of its existance 500 times, doesn't build the text. See my note below about a Miss Nude Pageants article. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So where are these reliable sources that tell us about this subject, then? Please cite some. You appear to be conflating a non-zero count of Google search results with the existence of sources. Counting Google hits is not research. It's necessary to actually read the things that Google turns up. Do so, and you'll find that there's scant information that is directly about this pageant. I've yet to find a reliable source that gives the year that the pageant started, for example. If you find one, please cite it. Uncle G 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It exists. It used to make weird news occasionally when I was younger. Doczilla 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One would think that given how big porn is on the net, and that this pagent has apparently been running since the 60s, there would be some reliable sources. Damned if I can find them, however. This suggests to me that while we can verify its existence, it simply is not notable. Resolute 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there appear to have been at least two, possibly separate, Miss Nude Universe pageants -- the one that Kitten Natividad is said to have won in the early 1970s, and the one owned by Rio Rivers that folded in 2005 after "15 years" in the business (pace infrogmation). --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Page 124 of ISBN 0595309267 confirms that at least one Miss Nude Universe pageant exists. But that is all that it says about it, including it in a laundry list of "other special pageants". I can also find sources that state that there was a Miss Nude Universe Pageant held in Naked City (Roselawn, Indiana) in the 1960s and 1970s. But Naked City closed in 1986 when Dick Drost left, and, once again, the sources don't actually say anything about the pageant since it is Naked City that they are in fact discussing. Indeed, there are several that say that it was actually Miss Nude America, not Universe. I can also find several biographies of people that state that they were "winner of Miss Nude Universe" in some year or other.

  There's tangential information all over the place about other things that mention this pageant, or some other similarly named one. There are people who are recorded as having won a title of Miss Nude Universe. There is a nudist camp that is recorded as having hosted a contest by that name. But the important 3 words are "about other things". There's scant information that is actually about the pageant directly. I am unable to find out even basic information about the pageant itself, such as a list of year-by-year winners, or even that all of these disparate snippets of information in discussions of other things are actually about the same single contest. Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It's not *really* notable.. though it is sourced and does exist.. Whilding87 09:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Brianyoumans' and Uncle G's comments. It appears difficult to get reliable information on the thing. Perhaps if someone later actually gets that information and actually types it in, the article could be revived.Noroton 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Uncle G. Actually, with recent controversies the real Miss Univers is in some ways more titillating than this "shocking" faux one. Inkpaduta 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Comment There might be enough here to write an article about Miss Nude Pageants: World, Universe, America, Australia etc with redirects from each and discuss the history of the various pagents. But as Uncle G says it's pretty spotty info. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I started a project page at: User:Kevin murray/miss nude. Feel free to drop off your research and ideas. Now it is just the text from this stub and comments by editors above. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Only because there's not much substance to go on other than some notables who've won although I have heard of this pageant before. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, being a stub isn't a good enough reason for deletion. I think it is a clear from this discussion that something of this sort certainly has existed and been mentioned in the media multiple times.Though future editors should also take heed of this discussion and be carefull in building up this page as clearly this subject has a confusing and murky history. Mathmo ^Talk 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At the Deletion Review I objected to a disputed speedy bypassing AfD, & think it was very reasonably sent here, and now we can very reasonably review it, and of course recognize it as junk. From its external references, it seems to be slightly disguised advertising.DGG 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Delete Eusebeus 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a very convincing nom. YechielMan 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential References The following are potential references for an article renamed "Miss Nude Pageants"

• Miss Nude World Pagenet
• Miss Nude Australia
• Come along chaps, going solo at the Sexpo missus the point
• KCCI Channel 8 Des Moines Miss Nude World, October 17, 2003
• Howard TV (Stern) anouncement of broadcast June 2006
• Law.com "Miss Nude (1997) Contestant Stripped of Court Victory" by Jonathan Ringel, Fulton County Daily Report March 30, 2004
• Rio Rivers Miss Nude Universe 2004, ainews.com
• "Visitors find Miss Nude World pageant very appealing" By Associated Press, 4/16/03 (from Boston.com)
• "Miss Nude pageant heads to final rounds", Des Moines Register, by Chad Graham, Register Staff Writer, 10/23/2003
• "The Odd Truth, April 16, 2003, Grin and Bare It", CBS News (online)
• Atlanta Adult Entertainment Guide From Joy Johnston, About.com
• HBO Coverage of Miss Nude Contest Time Warner website

--Kevin Murray 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it appears that it can reasonably be expanded. There's certainly no reason to delete it simply because it's a stub. fbb_fan 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, I'm going to give this a chance to add third party sources, but if they don't turn up in a few weeks, I'd say delete. by the way This is not a hoax, the pageant changed its name., see http://www.missnudeworldpageant.com/ Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nomination is convincing and presetn article states nothign that is not entirely obvious from the title. Let us know if multiple non-trivial indepednent coverage is referenced before the end of the debate - it is not now. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 14 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jhoni Marchinko[edit]

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

Delete - the only thing that might save the article under WP:BIO is the Emmy award, which Marchinko won as one of several producers of Will & Grace. The question is whether winning an Emmy Award (either individually or as part of a team) is sufficient? Otto4711 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that the Emmys are one of the highest awards for Television, I believe this would establish notability. Kind of odd that it isn't mentioned in this stub though. Resolute 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I found it while looking for other sources. I suppose I should add that, huh. Otto4711 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lot of people who get Emmys don't have wikipedia articles. Usedup 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would a series of ommissions be a reason to extend the error? --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep winning one of the most prestigious TV awards is notability eough and carries several (hundred?) non trivial mentions with it. Don't see a problem with WP:BIO Alf photoman 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the award which is confirmation of notablility. --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alf photoman and Kevin Murray--the prestigiousness of the Emmy establishes notability. -- Black Falcon 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the suggestions above, I see no problems with this article that would warrant deletion. (jarbarf) 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, only if the Emmy win can be proven.SlideAndSlip 20:41, 13 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clements[edit]

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

Non-notable director who is only credited with two episodes and has done little else of note. It has already been established that merely writing or directing a few Simpsons episodes is not notable enough. The problem is that random editors create these pages and don't add any categories, meaning these pages can exist for months without anyone knowing. Scorpion 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for already stated reasons:

Ralph Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (directed 2 episodes)

Julie Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (freelance writer, 1 episode)

Robin J. Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (freelance writer, 1 episode)

• Delete all per nom - I don't think that direction one, or even a handful, of minor episodes from a long-running television show should qualify under notability standards. If I'm off base here, please correct me. --Haemo 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One episode of the Simpsons as a writing credit does not a notable person make. Natalie 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. It seems to me that the threshold for notability will decline as the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia increases. If it has "already been established" that directing a few Simpsons episodes is insufficiently notable, perhaps we should reexamine this threshold.Cgmusselman 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. "A few" episodes is one thing; one or two episodes is quite another. If other credits can be found, it might be enough to reconsider. Realkyhick 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the writers had a couple other writers credits on IMDB, but they were for shows that didn't have wikipedia pages. -- Scorpion 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to proper recreation. Unfortunately, being in the credits of one or two episodes just doesn't seem to cut it for WP:BIO. If notability is established through additional professional activities, then keep. If not, delete. -- Black Falcon 02:19, 11 February 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, other such articles exist is not a very good reason for keeping anything. You might want to nominate the others for deletion too. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osten Taylor[edit]

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

Unspectacular Equity trader and eliminated contestant on Survivor: Pearl Islands. Previously survivor (sic) of what was essentially a train wreck. If recap of the goings-on of the show itself (summarised in the Survivor article) is removed from ther article, there is precious little about the individual of note. Scores 348 unique Ghits, all of which I would consider trivial: the overwhelming majority are from sites which advertise or discuss Survivor. The CBS site is probably the most reliable articles around about this individual, but is show marketing and thus not independent. Most of the others are blogs, chat or forum, and fail WP:RS. The only other hit which may be slightly relevant to AfD is a few lines given to him by the University of New Hampshire, of which he is an alumnus. Ohconfucius 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote him off the island for Ohconfucious' reasons. Also, reality-show characters and other TV characters don't deserve their own articles unless the show is a blockbuster hit. Vast numbers of people know who Ralph Cramden and Edith Bunker are, for instance, and years from now that will probably still be the case. Flush the others down the tubes. Noroton 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ugh! and Ralph doesn't even get his own home page!Noroton 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another fine product of the television industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Subject is not of notability in his own right, and should only be mentioned on a cast list of a specific notable television series. NetOracle 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, poor sourcesSlideAndSlip 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I personally would delete these types of articles. However, the discussion of these has already been had and without a change of policy it seems that the consensus is keep. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashlea_Evans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlea Evans (2nd nomination). Not even the most rabid Reality TV fan would remember Ashlea (the utterly unremarkable first bootee of US Big Brother 6) and she has a page, so it seems for now they must stay. SirSam972 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note that each article exists or is deleted on its own merits, simply because other crap exists, doesn't mean that this crap should stay. Anyhoo, Osten Taylor is not Ashlea Evans. Ohconfucius 08:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a subjective list. There would be multiplicity of contradicting sources for this list. List has WP:NPOV concerns which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial literature[edit]

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

Delete Revert. This appears to be a duplicate of Category:Controversial Literature, with all of the same overwhelming reasons for deletion: impossible to define criterion or adequately cite references for definitive inclusion, intractable subjectivity and POV problems, will include far too many works of literature to be useful. For discussion on the deletion of associated category, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_5#Category:Controversial_Literature. pbryan 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC). After insightful input from Uncle G and Pomte, I agree this article should be reverted back to the Library of Congress subdivision content rather than be deleted. pbryan 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia would be better served by focusing on listing banned books, rather than any piece of literature which somebody takes exception to. Using the criteria of a ban or restriction assesses the response of a community or powerful authority figure to a piece of literature, and therefore, is a noteworthy fact. Most truly controversial literature is going to be banned by some community somewhere, anyway. NetOracle 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom as excessively subjective for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective list. Doczilla 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete indiscriminate unverified overly broad POV-ridden list. Otto4711 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The title is absurdly unencyclopedic. However, organizations such as the American Library Association do keep lists of frequently "challenged" books (challenged as in books that parents formally request be removed from school curriculum and libraries). We already have a List of banned books, and I don't see a problem listing frequently challenged books as well. I think merging some of the content to a List of banned and frequently challenged books would be fine, provided that the content is sourced to a legitimate organization like the ALA. GabrielF 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it I'm wondering who is the bastard who keeps putting this artical up deletion. I have worked 3 days on this articel and I still wish work on it to make it better. The other two lists are completly useless and do not give clear information while this list dose. So I say keep ut. - Tony360X

Comment This time, I was the one who nominated this page for deletion. I appreciate the amount of work you've put into the article, Tony360X. Being bold is a major tenet of Wikipedia, and so I appreciate your initiative in creating an article. However, work must stand here on its merit, and therefore that is the subject of this debate. pbryan 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To all of the editors decrying this for being a "subjective list": Please note that before Tony360X (talk · contribs) completely replaced this article with a list of books that xe thinks are controversial, it was actually an article about a Library of Congress form subdivision (see this, this, and this), and a far more specific class of literature documented in The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. Uncle G 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, Uncle G. With this new information, it seems more appropriate to simply revert it than delete it. The original, though a stub, was far more definitive and objective. Thoughts anyone? pbryan 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per GabrielF. There's nothing subjective about it, given the definition it gives — but that definitionm eans that it merely duplicates what's done elsewhere. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Yono 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list is just re-creating the category,and the rest of the information is WP:OR.--Sefringle 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Otto said: "indiscriminate unverified overly broad POV-ridden list". Plus it's a mess. Lack of references really don't help, especially when you're making some pretty novel claims. For instance, I never realised Lady Chatterly's Lover had been banned "for violation of obscurity laws". --Folantin 10:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a list of stuff that got banned in school one day, nor a list of stuff that someone, somewhere was offended by. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy the current version for Tony360X. In the CfD I suggested for him to work on this article and others, though this is not what I meant. Since he is obviously enthusiastic about this subject, what he can do is work on finding references for the banning of books on this list and List of banned books. That list is encyclopedic and has merit if verified. A list of frequently challenged books, what Tony360X intended to combine into this article, may be up for more scrutiny since "frequently" is subjective, unless official organizations have set standards per GabrielF. Revert article to the revision that talks about the Library of Congress subdivision per Uncle G, adding in those sources he found. Pomte 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert per Uncle G, and encourage interested users to contribute to List of banned books. I don't think it's POV to make a list of books that were considered controversial, provided clear evidence that controversy existed can be provided, so if Tony360X wants to develop an article like List of books that some people disliked enough to want to ban, but didn't actually manage to I think this might be useful. Such an article would not be indiscriminate, would not be POV ( provided contributors were careful in their work ) and could ( if it used the format currently in place ) provide additional information that a simple category does not. If Tony360X takes up this project I hope he will seek collaborators: it's not easy to do a big piece of work on your own. Finally, I'd like to commend Tony360X, Uncle G and Pomte, among others, for sparking such a thought-provoking debate. WMMartin 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It I admit its just like the banned books and most challenged book article but unlike those articles I feel that Tony360X article is more useful cause he not only includes books but also short stories, essay, and goverment reports. I was shown this article on Thursday 2/8/07 by my english teacher at Stanford and he said it was more reliable then the other two articles. So the best thing to do is delet the other two and keep this one.BigFrank100 , 11 February 2007

Shenanigans. BigFrank100: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: the same misspelling of the word "article" (artical), you registered this account today and then claimed support for this work with only one other contribution. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I need this list to see what books have caused problems. Cockmaster500

Shenanigans. Cockmaster500: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: You registered this account today and then claimed support for this work with no other contributions. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delet This artical is the most useful one I have read about book censorship on Wikipedia. I find it more useful then then Banned Books becuase its a bigger list and covers a wide verity of books and its not that confusing. - Bryson 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the above comment was not made by me, but by 24.23.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), see [6]. --Bryson 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans. 24.23.201.236: You appear to be a sock puppet for Tony360X. The basis of my suspicion: the continued misspelling of the word "article" (artical), you're not logged in, yet you signed this as another user User:Bryson109 all in succession with other suspected sock puppetry. If my suspicion is correct, please reverse your position in this discussion. pbryan 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like Tony360X is staking me. I did not make the above comment, but I did Rv. vandalism by Tony360X and leave a warning on his talk page.--Bryson 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let it Be: I see no reason to delete this article since every person who has said "Delete" has not made a good argument except for “Its like Banned Books”. I will change my opinion if somebody has a better reason. – 153.18.19.188

Comment. Your only two-edits, [7](as of this time) are on this page, why is that?--Bryson 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a "runaway train" list, unverifiable to an encyclopedic standard. YechielMan 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Revert back - Per nom and Uncle G comments (and No I did not already vote). --Bryson 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The essential subject, "controversial literature", seems like the kind of thing we ought to have an article on. I don't know if the article should extensively list examples the way it does, but I feel we can handle the general topic in some sort of sensible, NPOV way. We could look at how various types of literature are restricted or frowned upon by societies in various times and the reasons for that, how literature can highlight polarization when different elements in societies react to it in sharply different ways, and how it can bring an issue to the forefront of debate, etc. Everyking 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just cut out the unverified junk and it is a pretty interesting page. I went to it expecting to see a lot of problems, but it overall did not seem so bad. The advantage it has over banned books is that it can link to books that simply caused verifiable and significant controversy but never faced a ban. The Behnam 21:52, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Christian School[edit]

Hillcrest Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Little assertion of notability, if any. Reads like an advertisement. Complete lack of encyclopedic information. Húsönd 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding an info box including other encylopedic information such as year founded, acreage, history, etc.--12.152.127.226 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep doesn't appear hugely notable, but potentially so as there is no real policy for notability regarding schools. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability. Sounds like any of the other thousands upon thousands of high schools in the United States. TJ Spyke 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I argue that schools are notable because they have a profound affect on their pupils (this could be several thousand people, depending on the age & size of a school). As such, this makes them notable, not only to their community but to the world at large if former pupils move away. Markb 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We already have an article about High schools, any information about how they profoundly affect their pupils can be described there. No need for thousands of useless, school website mirrors, poorly written, rampantly vandalized, unsourced and POV'd articles.--Húsönd 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SCHOOLS3. Inkpaduta 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment will someone please look at the articles at Category:Elementary schools in Florida? It's one thing to do high schools if they are at least factual, yet another for elementary and so on... Chris 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Niffweed. Schools are a very debated topic and no real policy exists in dealing with them. There are many high schools that have articles on wiki. Does the controversy arise from the fact that this is both an elementary school and high school? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is starting to take shape and should be allowed to develop not culled. This school is significant in its community, has notable sporting achievements and its presence does no harm to WP. Bridgeplayer 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer. Mathmo ^Talk 10:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor demonstrated. There is nothing about this school that distinguishes it from its peers. Inadequately documented, too. WMMartin 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High school, elementary school, or a combination, there has to be something to say beyond the mere directory info. I usually say delete, but thats only because the articles usually say nothing notable about the school. The solution to the problem of what to do with school articles is to write better school articles. DGG 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that the sourcing issue has been dealt with, the school does appear to be somewhat notable partially due to its sports program. (jarbarf) 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referencing back to the first comment, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Oo7565 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a nice starter article on a school. There can be redirects if there are more than one. Rkevins 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with any high school. Cloachland 03:45, 15 February 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. Dakota 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Pack Adventure[edit]

Jet Pack Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating Jet Pack Adventure for deletion as Wikipedia is not a gameguide. This page is a game guide detailing how to play and includes a level guide. Squids_and_Chips 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect - AfD is not cleanup, to be fair anal, but there's no substance underneath to merit an independent article. --Kizor 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, no sources and Wikipedia is not a game guide. James086^Talk 10:04, 11 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American National Socialist Workers' Party[edit]

American National Socialist Workers' Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a brand new neo-nazi political party with no known followers and no media coverage. The founder, Bill White (neo-Nazi), is slightly notable and already has an article. Will Beback · † · 04:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete potentially notable but fails WP:ORG Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a neo-nazi doesnt make you notable. No other assertion of notability. Mystache 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to Bill White (neo-Nazi), his group's online forum has 300 members. Mazel Tov! He's surpassed the Sarasota FL Jungian society[8]. GabrielF 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ORG. --MaNeMeBasat 12:02, 10 February 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. ~ Arjun 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Jewell[edit]

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

Looks like somebody's life story. No indication of notability. Steve.Moulding 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of nobility. Is this a video-game character or a living person? Caknuck 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real person. Infact, that person is my grandfather. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.242.240 (talk • contribs).

Anon IP person, I doubt your grandfather meets WP's notability criteria. Specifically, WP:NOT#DIR states "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Nothing in the article speaks to being notable. Sorry. Caknuck 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. All kindness to the creator, we need a good reason to include someone in the encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, unless some assertion of notability is given. Bob talk 16:30, 10 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drpresha[edit]

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

This is not a notable organisation, it is a vanity page for a group of students who did well in a class project. Luckyherb 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Despite the quality of the grammar and formatting, this is just a project group for a college class from last June. All edits (except some maintenance edits using AWB and the like) are by User:Drift180sx, who hasn't touched the page since June. Dave6 talk 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - no assertion of notability. Resolute 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not speedy as failing WP:Notability. CSD.A7 does not apply as there is a claim of notability: "The group is perhaps most famous for its class-topping design of a 10 cubic-metre horizontally orientated pressure vessel." However, perhaps WP:SNOW can be invoked after a few more comments or after another day or so. Black Falcon 02:35, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Batman[edit]

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

Delete this POV-laden, OR-laden article. Superheroes' personal timelines are nto generally pinned down to specific "years ago". Batman's age is not specified. The issues cited for some of those items refer in no way to specific dates or connected to now. All fiction is supposed to be written in present tense anyway. Real world calendars do not correlate with superheroes' fictional personal history, and the fictional personal history is rarely dated. It exists on a well-established sliding scale of time without exact spans of time. Even when exact spans of time are mentioned, they continually shift to fit the sliding scale of time for the fictional history. Batman and his supporting cannot naturally age. Doczilla 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and add Timeline of the DC Universe to it. Otto4711 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Almost exclusively original research and speculation. ~CS 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is WP:OR. janejellyroll 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK. I will respond to each of the points that you have raised here.

"Superheroes' personal timelines are nto generally pinned down to specific "years ago".

This is debatable as no official stance has been provided on this. If you can provide one, please do.

"Batman's age is not specified."

True. However if you'll read the hidden comment I placed next to that section you'll find determining the character's age (approximate with a 1-2 year margin of error) is a matter of simple addition.

"The issues cited for some of those items refer in no way to specific dates or connected to now."

Character's ages, such as Tim Drake's, are often mentioned in the comics (they vary). The time differences between the points in this article are based on the differences in the given ages of the characters between stories.

"All fiction is supposed to be written in present tense anyway."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are clearly chronological gaps in the Batman stories, as shown by the changes in the characters' ages.

"Real world calendars do not correlate with superheroes' fictional personal history"

This article is a chronicling of a fictional personal history and doesn't refer to real world history.

"the fictional personal history is rarely dated."

No dates are given in the article.

"It exists on a well-established sliding scale of time without exact spans of time. Even when exact spans of time are mentioned, they continually shift to fit the sliding scale of time for the fictional history. Batman and his supporting cannot naturally age."

I realise that the timeline the DC universe uses is not parallel to that of the real world. This seems to be the misunderstanding here.

• Delete Not a repository for movie or TV-show trivia Usedup 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOR and WP:NOT a plot summary. The idea of an absolute timeline for a DC character is ridiculous, as adherence to such a timeline, if it exists, is never a concern for writers. Also, where are the sources for exact years? Where is the source of Jason Todd becoming robin and dying in the same year? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. The understanding of specific fictional events in the world of Batman is not useful to the understanding of the significance and notability of the Batman series. NetOracle 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it now

I see this article as no less relevant than a plot summary in a film article. It is a list of the most siginifcant events in the current version of the character. If it is clarified within the article how this timeline is irrefutable to a one year margin of error, will that satisfy everyone?A gx7 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeline of the DC Universe is not fancruft, it is an official DC comics institution, featured in their comics (usually on Annuals or Secret Files specials) and used as reference by both creators and comics fans. It therefore deserves inclusion in Wikipedia as much as the timeline of any other fictional series or universe. Complaints that it might contain inaccuracies are irrelevant, as we're trying to present the facts as DC publishes them, not getting into fan arguments. (Whether Batman deserves his own separate timeline or should be merged with the main DC Timeline is debatable- I understand an official Batman timeline was once published but have no access to it.) - Wilfredo Martinez 03:06, 11 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snake-jitsu[edit]

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

No case made for notability - not verifiable - looks like WP:OR maybe even WP:COI Peter Rehse 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be figment of someone's imagination. Cannot find any references. Glendoremus 06:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree. YechielMan 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. MightyAtom 00:05, 15 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braddock Middle School[edit]

Braddock Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Húsönd 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, and will someone please look at the articles at Category:Elementary schools in Florida? It's one thing to do high schools if they are at least factual, yet another for elementary and junior high... Chris 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Schools are not inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. And anyway, there are no satisfactory references. WMMartin 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would not necessarily delete an article for a lack of notability in the case of schools and other institutions if the articles contain some substance. I believe that the assertion of notability is far more important in articles on individuals or say, commercial institutions. My delete vote here is inherently based on the fact that this article has very little useful information, has no references, and provides no external links or evidence that it could be formed into a functioning article. If one of the previous editors could provide a credible source of information, regardless of any notability, I could consider keeping the article. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:14, 12 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of appearances of C96 in popular culture[edit]

List of appearances of C96 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate, largely unreferenced collection of appearances of not only a particular weapon but of things that someone decided look kind of like that particular weapon. Rife with verifiability problems and original research. Otto4711 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I recommend to start a discussion or suggest a guideline about articles in Category:In popular culture instead of going after them one by one. I fully agree with your opinion about the quality but these articles have been created for a purpose and usually result in the main article being better. I view them as a typical Second Best solution. Pavel Vozenilek 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that removing this material from the main article on a topic is appropriate. That does not, however, mean that it may then be housed in a separate article, if the material is in violation of the non-negotiable policies WP:OR and WP:V. Otto4711 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd created dozen or two "... in popular culture" leaf pages by offloading the main text and my personal experience is that this works: the people who add this kind of references (and nothing else, typically) do use these leafs and stay away from the main article. I do remember lenghty discussions on Village Pump on what to do with this kind of "information", resulting in no action or decision. The idea to create leaf pages grew gradually popular for lack of alternatives. IMO this problem is impossible to fix until stable version will be implemented (freeing up some time to work here). One such page, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, has been elevated among features articles as a result of heroic effort of an editor, so there's some hope. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the difference between the JoA article and this one. First off, the subject matter is wildly different. One documents cultural representations of a saint and national hero. The other documents the appearance of guns that kind of look like the C96. The JoA article is completely referenced and sourced. The C96 article is completely unreferenced and unsourced. The intro to the JoA article provides real-world context for its subject matter. The intro to the C96 article provides no real-world context and isn't even spelled correctly. I have nothing against the "...in popular culture" concept, but I expect that such articles be held to the same standards as every other article and this one clearly falls so short of basic standards that it should be deleted. Otto4711 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, editor appears to be making a point aganst "..in popular culture" articles? Mathmo ^Talk 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, editor is seeking to remove an unreferenced, unverifiable, indiscriminate list from Wikipedia because it violates Wikipedia policies adainst original research and the requirement of reliable sources. Otto4711 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Almost all content here extremely trivial. This article was created as a fork of Mauser C96, to get rid of this ugly cruft from an otherwise good article. I worry a little that deleting this article would lead people to start adding this stuff to that article again, but in this case, the balance should be on the side of deleting the fork article, it's very unencyclopedic. This issue has come up before. I will write a little essay at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles to get started. Mangojuice^talk 18:44, 12 February 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus 2[edit]

Catullus 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Last summer I had a long debate with User:Sophysduckling about whether translations which are created by wikipedia users rather than published sources should be considered original research, as well as whether pages like this one, which focused more on the text of a poem than significance and meaning, belonged on wikipedia or wikisource. You can read the debate at User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 4 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catullus. We reached a sort of truce in which most catullus articles were removed, but the fundamental debate about whether an original translation violates WP:NOR was left unsettled. This page was originally redirected by Sophysduckling, as he thought it was not notable enough for an article, but it has been remade by User:Alakazam138. I feel that an original translation should be considered original research, and that articles like this belong on wikisource, not on wikipediam as per WP:NPS. Furthermore, I believe that this and most poems of catullus are not notable enough for their own pages. Delete or Move to Wikisource Samael775 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research and non-encyclopedic. Glendoremus 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, seems much improved so I've changed my opinion.
• Keep - please note the NOR policy: a translation does none (or should not do any) of the 7 things listed at WP:NOR (copied below). A translation replicates content exactly as is without changing its meaning, and only replacing words with their equivalents in another language. If the translation is not available in a source (i.e., it is an original translation), that should be noted and source(s) provided for the original language version, but I don't believe it constitutes original research. Black Falcon 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An article is OR if and only if:
  1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  2. It introduces original ideas;
  3. It defines new terms;
  4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
• It seems as though someone is looking too closely at the words of the NOR policy, as opposed to the spirit. But to humor you, a translation of a published work makes an implicit argument about what a proper translation of that particular published work should look like. Allon Fambrizzi 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • I am indeed humoured by your comment. It seems to me that looking at the "spirit" of a policy rather than its text falls under "original research". There are no assumptions about what a proper translation looks like. As long as two different languages have words for the same objects and concepts, they can be translated without any "assumptions". No assumption is needed to translate the English "flower" into the German "Blume". Cheers, Black Falcon 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although WP:NOT#BUR states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." (and I believe this to be an excellent idea), I do not feel the NOR policy includes translations (if that is the case, shouldn't we also delete any articles that were translated from a foreign-language wiki?). If a translator makes any kind of implicit or explicit "argument" or "assumption", then she has failed in her task, which is only to replace e oncombination of letters denoting a concept or object with another such combination that refers to the same concept or object (minor changes in the word ordering to conform to appropriate sentence structure does not, if done properly, affect content). -- Black Falcon 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello. I recently wrote this article, but I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of the situation with the poems. I'm only a newbie and I apologise. Should I write these sorts of things up at WikiSource? After all, Catullus is a great poet and there is so much meaning that can be derived from every poem. Surely a collaboration between all the Latin scholars can make each poem worthy of its own page? Obviously it is my fault, (probably for rushing in to Wikipedia too quickly), but it is slightly annoying as I did feel I was doing a service, rather than a diservice. However, as a newbie, I'm not exactly sure how I can fit all of Wikipedia's criteria for articles, nor am I to make the decisions, that is for you good people here. Sorry again for causing a bother. Alakazam138 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Oh, for crying out loud: Are there noncopyright translations that aren't bowdlerized or in stilted 19th century language? If so, the translation can be replaced. If no such a published translation exists, or isn't available, then the editor's translation is useful and should be kept. Samael1775, as to notabiity: after two millennia, I think his poems have become notable enough to warrant individual Wikipedia articles, and I see nothing wrong with every work by every major Greek and Roman author getting the same treatment. Alakazam138, even if you were wrong, and I don't think you were, there's no need to apologize -- you did just what you're supposed to do around here, jump in and be bold. Thank you, and please don't stop. Allon Fambrizzi, even with a poem, a translation can be as "objective" or "neutral" as possible, particularly in more literal translations, which seems to be in keeping with the NOR policy, both in letter and spirit. Noroton 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had another look at the article -- ORIGINAL research? It's all very straightforward, uncontroversial, obvious information of use to readers who, for instance, are unaware of the Atalanta myth. Although a citation is always nice, it can also be overkill when the facts are well established. There is no reason for a deletion here at all. Noroton 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translations, especially translations of poetry, are based on judgements of the translator, it is impossible to precisely translate every aspect of a poem, because there are all kinds of things like idioms and connotations that can't be directly reproduced in another language. Furthermore, I see no reason why the text of a poem, let alone annotations and latin vocabulary, should be in an encyclopedia. This is an annotated, translated, original source document and as such belongs on wikisource. See WP:NPS and WP:L&P Samael775 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: I did see WP:NPS and in the second paragraph found this:

        Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.

      • Ozymandias is a 14-line poem that's actually a bit larger than Catullus 2 (one less line, slightly fewer words). Frankly, it's hard to come to a better understanding of a short poem when to refer back to it you need to jump between WikiSource and Wikipedia. As a reader, wouldn't you prefer to see short poems included in the articles about them? Samael, you make a better point concerning translations -- ANY translation done by an editor here (or done anywhere else) will necessarily involve word choices. But Wikipedia does, in fact, allow translations because sometimes their usefulness is more important than the potential harm of a bias. Anyone with a competing translation of a word or line could perhaps note it in the article with a simple "or ...".Noroton 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (slightly self-edited)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unsourced original research. Without citations from reliable sources, how can the average reader be assured that the translation is accurate? The content of this article relies entirely on the judgments of Wikipedians, not on outside sources; that's original research. Also, there is no evidence offered for considering this particular poem notable. Furthermore, the vocabulary list is outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. If the article is rewritten using reliable sources, I'll change to keep. Without that, it should go. Nick Graves 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has significantly improved. There is still some content that needs to be sourced, such as the identification of the poem's meter, but the original research content is sufficiently reduced to warrant keeping this. Kudos to the editors who took the time and care to improve and save this article. Nick Graves 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do have 3 sources that support my 'loose' translation. I have now cited them at the bottom of the page. I feel that a vocabulary list is not outside encylopaedic format since a word means either one thing or another; there is no real debate. I appreciate your point about it being uncited though, yes, I should not expect people to just believe what is written there. Thanks for all your feedback, it's been a help to see how to improve my service to Wikipedia.Alakazam138 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about sourcing. Translations are creative works and there is no such thing as a "definitive" translation; you can't just use Wikipedia as a publishing service for your own translation. Facts can be verified; translations cannot. Delete. Allon Fambrizzi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • This is in no way what I am intending. "Publishing service for my own translation?" No. I merely thought it would be good idea to put up a poem by great man, so that everyone can benefit from it. But what's the use, I can see where this will end up. It's quite disheartening really. Alakazam138 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because you aren't expending your energies in the right place. See below. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there's room for every joke in every episode of every 4th rate sitcom, there's room for a translation and commentary on ancient literature. Call me a snob if it makes you feel better. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for source texts and commentary. Articles about literay works should focus on impact, significance, and crtical opinions. Samael775 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Policy is clear: Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material, nor are they annotated texts. This article is an annotated text. It gives the source text, an original translation thereof, and then line by line annotations. The proper place for annotated works of literature is Wikibooks, which will quite happily take all of the poems, not just selected ones, as long as they are actually properly annotated for study use and not just raw copies of the source text. See WP:FICT#Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource for how to use Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource in concert for situations like this. I've started The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus for you. Delete. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is not nearly as clear as you make out. Here's the only place "annotated texts" appears in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

    Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.

  • We don't have a textbook here. We have the beginning of an article with the necessary foundation for further information. This poem isn't nearly as important as Ozymandias and the article will hardly have as much information as that article, but if you notice the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article, you'll see something very similar to what we have here (aside from the necessary translation information). Is the article attempting to teach subject matter? I see it as presenting enough information to understand the poem in some detail, which is necessary to get enough of an understanding of the poem to make the article of any use to the reader.

    Here's another policy statement from that same policy article, under the section "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" or WP:BURO:

    A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Noroton 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Policy is quite clear. What you are constructing is what is known as a straw man. You've just quoted the second half of the full sentence, which, in full, reads "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts.". That's quite clear that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts. You've then proceeded to argue that since the article isn't a textbook, which no-one said it was in the first place, it doesn't violate the policy. That's a straw man argument. The article is a canonical annotated text. It contains the text of the poem, a translation, and line-by-line annotations. (See b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text?.) Policy is quite clear, saying so in as many words, that that one of several things that Wikipedia articles are not.

      The latter half of your argument is largely irrelevant, and, in attempting to make the argument that policy should be ignored (which is not what that section is about at all), is merely a strong indication that the former half of your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. Uncle G 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? I was quoting Wikipedia policy, not your personal pronunciamento, and the only spot where I could find the words "annotated texts" in the Wikipedia policy article you linked to. The only clear thing in that policy page regarding annotated texts is that the idea of annotated texts was closely wedded to the idea of textbooks. I was assuming that your citation of a Wikipedia rule had some relationship to the actual text of the rule. If policy is so clear, simply give me the quote from the relevant sentence or sentences. I did. And to say that there are limits to bureaucratic rules is to cite a Wikipedian bureaucratic rule, not to deny any Wikipedian bureaucratic rules. Again: I cited, you pronounced. Here's a sincere (if a little angry) suggestion for you: Rather than searching for debating points to score, you might want to search for ways of reaching consensus, a Wikipedia goal which appears to have eluded your marshalling of rhetorical weaponry.

        Looking back on your comments, I found your reference to b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text? a useful, very constructive point which brings up some (nonrhetorical) questions:

        1. Do you really want to say that no references to the specific parts of a text are appropriate in a Wikipedia article about that text? Could they be part of an article?
        2. Could an article that starts out as annotating a text grow into a proper Wikipedia article? I've already made a (small) change to the article so that it is not, now, 100 percent text and annotation. I see no reason why that process should not continue until the article is mostly something else. But as I've said above, annotated text is an integral part of understanding a poem, particularly a translated poem.
        3. What do you think of the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article that I mentioned? Inappropriate?
        4. If this article were to be kept, if only in name and subject matter, what would it include in your opinion to be a proper Wikipedia article?
        5. How would it work in conjunction with a Wikibooks annotated text?
        6. What subject matter would be appropriate to each, in your opinion?
      • I'm open to agreeing with you. Let us (all) reason together.Noroton 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? — These are not my "pronouncements". This is the very text of the policy as written right there in front of you. "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts." are the exact words directly from the policy. You ask for the relevant quote. You've been given it twice already. It's even in boldface in the policy. To say that I've not been citing the policy but "making pronouncements" and "rhetoric" is highly disingenuous, and is another strong indicator that your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. For the third time: Policy is quite clear on this. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response: My apologies, there must be something wrong with my computer and with my eyes. I typed your quoted sentence, even parts of it, in the page-search function of my computer and tried to find even part of that sentence on that Web page and I couldn't find it. Perhaps you could help me out by telling me what section that sentence appears in. Seriously, I can't find it. Also, I'm afraid I was a bit irritable in my previous replies to you, and I apologize for that. What we have is a serious disagreement over what Wikipedia policy actually is (I also don't think your view of it is actually workable, especially for articles on poems, given how poems work and what a reader generally needs in order to understand them). Please take another look at the Catullus 2 article, which is much changed, and tell me if you think it works better with translation and translation notes present on the page or moved to Wikibooks. My point elsewhere in this discussion is that to understand a poem the reader goes back and forth over various aspects because it is the interaction of those aspects where the power of a poem coheres. For an encyclopedia reader of an article about a poem, understanding the poem is not the only aspect, but it remains an important one, and to understand the history of the poem, having the text readily at hand is important. I'd be interested in your opinion, and also how you think the Catullus 2 article might be further improved. Noroton 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Specific parts of a text are appropriate when used for analysis. However, these Catullus articles seem to focus entirely on the text of the poem, and specifics about translation, which is much more the domain of wikibooks. While the potry of Catullus as a whole is certainly notable, I don't think there is much to be said about individual poems of Catullus. If you look at Ozymandias, you will notice that the text of the poem is in a small box off to the side, unintrusive. The table on Catullus 2 dominates the page and the rest of the article is little more than a collection of footnotes. According to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
2. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for annotated texts. While sourced analysis of a poem may be appropriate, an annotated text is not an encyclopedia article. While I agree that in some cases annotations could grow into a full article, I don't think Catullus 2 meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. While the poetry of Catullus is notable, there aren't many of the individual poems that have been the subject of multiple nontrivial works other than translations.
3. There is a differnce between annotated text and analysis. Annotations focus on explaining specific points of a text, analysis focuses on the whole.
4. I don't think that this article should be kept at all, as I don't think the poem is significant enough to justify an encyclopedia article.
5. Catullus or Poetry of Catullus would link to the wikibook, which would provide annotated texts of individual poems.
6. Wikibooks should contain information about specific parts of specific poems, such as what this idiom means, what this refers to, ect. Wikipedia should focus on analyzing poems or corpi of poetry as a whole, such as what techniques the poem uses, what this poem is about, how this should be interpreted, as well as inspiration and impact. Also, Analysis on wikipedia should be from the interpretation of published critics, and should be sourced. Samael775 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you for your reply. Please see the expanded version of the article, which should meet some of your objections, in addition:

1. As I say in my comment below, I think all aspects of a poem interact with each other and so the best way to present a poem to a reader (if space considerations allow) is to do it all on one page so the reader can easily look back and forth at different aspects (discussion, notes, text, translation). As for notability, see the comment by the academic in paragraph 2 of the article. The poem has been the subject of serious articles, but, as with most poems its size, no books solely on the poem. But I don't think that's determinative.
2. Again, all aspects of the poem interact with each other.
3. There is too much worthy information in this one article now for it to be combined easily with articles on more of the poems. I just don't think that would work now.
4. Covered in other comments.
5. Covered in other comments.
6. Yes, a Wikibooks article on the poem could concentrate on the meaning of specific parts of the poem, but that's all tied in with discussions of the poem's theme, so you're either divorcing two elements that would go well together, forcing readers to bounce back and forth between pages, which wouldn't help comprehension at all, or you're repeating much (all?) of the same information on two different Web pages. I agree that Wikipedia articles should do all the things you say they should do, and my additions to the article go part of the way toward doing that. Further comments below, just under Folantin's contribution. Noroton 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you feel you must, for the sake of doctrinal purity, move the text and translation to Wikisource, do so if it isn't already there; but keep the brief commentary, and the article to link to it. There needs to be a better way to integrate Wikisource content into articles beyond merely having a link. FWIW, I feel strongly that translations produced by editors for Wikimedia projects are not original research in any meaningful sense. They advocate no new theory, and are subject to emendation for greater accuracy by the ordinary collaborative process; and finally, they are more desirable than copyrighted recent translations and likely superior to old PD translations. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The article subject matter itself is noteworthy, so the only real dispute seems to be over WP:NOR, which is not grounds for deleting an article. Simply add references for any unreferenced claims (including disputed translations or academic disagreements over translation, which Wikipedia should report on, not weigh in on). Moreover, I see no policy or guideline saying that it is original research to translate a text, as long as the translation agrees with general academic consensus. As for the Wikibooks issue, this seems to be a case of sacrificing useful information for bureaucracy; there is no value to our readers in forcing them to go to an external website to view a short passage that we could just as easily quote here. -Silence 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, original research can be grounds for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please read it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including the policy that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts, is also grounds for deleting articles, again per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. First, I'm not sure translation constitutes original research, especially a very literal translation like this. After all, we have a whole department of Wikipedia encouraging editors to translate foreign articles. What do we do if we find literary texts in them? Leave them untranslated? I'm not sure about the status of the detailed vocabulary guide and other features of this article which I've never seen elsewhere on WP. But I think the poem does pass notability, though maybe the article should also include Poem 3, which is on a similar theme. Both influenced a whole line of later poems about pets, from pieces by Martial and Ovid to John Skelton's Philip Sparrow and beyond. This should definitely be included in the article (yes, I can dig up most of the necessary references, though I'd appreciate any help). --Folantin 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I've made significant additions to the article:
  • It is no longer primarily a text with annotations. There is significant discussion (all of it reporting, not original) of the poem and its theme, and everything is annotated. This should meet some of the objections above.
  • The discussion of theme is intimately connected — interwoven — with discussion of the Latin text. I don't see how those two aspects of the poem can easily be separated. This doesn't make Catullus 2 unique, by the way — any poem, to be discussed adequately, should be discussed with a lot of interplay between various elements, often including theme, sound, form, individual words and, in the case of a translation, often alternative options for translation. I think that's all part of the business of describing a poem. That's why I think the full text of a short poem needs to be in the Wikipedia article about it, along with a translation for poems in other languages, and textual notes. They're all intimately connected. My additions are only a start and should be added to, especially with an expansion of sources, and they should be looked over by others. I'm putting a note on the discussion page to that effect. Noroton 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering how much the article has been improved, I have changed my mind. Keep(not speedy keep because others argued for deletion). However, User:Alakazam138 has started working on the wikibooks page Uncle G created, where he can put things like latin vocabulary and speciic notes, so consider using that rather than wikipedia for annotative details. I am also not sure wikipedia is the place for latin text, but its not really worth arguing over. Samael775 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my page. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource are all collaborative projects, and everyone is welcome to contribute to building them all into an interwoven whole, with annotated texts on Wikibooks, the source texts and any (free, and already published) translations on Wikisource, and encyclopaedia articles about the Poetry of Catullus on Wikipedia, all linked together. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I was just refering to the page you created. Samael775 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but the article should be about the poem, with the translation deemphasised. It shouldnt look like the article is an excuse to put in the translation. That's what the real problem is--its easy to see only that. Also, shouldnt the title be the conventional name--or first line--, not number in a standard list?DGG 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a section about the poem's influence (it could probably be expanded). I have references for the metre (plus other things) if anyone needs them. --Folantin 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki per Uncle G. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there is more here than just a text (even an anotated taxt). It might be better at wikibooks, but it works here well enough, I think. Eluchil404 11:39, 15 February 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. User has been blocked for creating nonsense pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfire248[edit]

Moonfire248 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for a speedy deletion on nn bio grounds, the tag was removed by another editor. Fails WP:BIO, almost zero context. janejellyroll 05:34, 10 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30LL[edit]

30LL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable spam? -- Big Brother 1984 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN, seems to be promotional. janejellyroll 05:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be promotional to me too. Delete Anonymous

I do not see the ads in this entry, definitely a keeper. METALLICAH

• How is it different from other podcast entries such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget_Podcast ? Amasoussou

• comment whether or not this is notable is perhaps questionable, but this is written from a neutral perspective and does not appear to be spam. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I don't think this can be classified as spam (it's just descriptive). However, notability may be an issue--but one I'm not commenting on except to say that it has a low Alexa rating of >6,000,000. Whether this rating is really meaningful is another issue which I won't go into. Thus, I remain neutral. -- Black Falcon 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is definitely not spam and I think we all agree on that one (as a side note, I'm Lebanese and have listened to those guys' podcasts and interviews, no spam detected anywhere). The article is appropriate for wikipedia and does not bypass any of the requirements. Not having a high Alexa rating is not an indicator of genuineness anyways. Objectively and through some common sense, this article is valid and should add value to the wealth of wikipedia and should be treated no different than some very valid entries as / My two cents . 30LL is another idiom and the article explains that with the source behind it. Gentlemen, we've got a keep. -- METALLICAH 23:35, 10 Febryar7 2007 (EST)
• Neutral, doesn't appear to be spam. But only 22 results from google [9] does make me wonder about its notability. Mathmo ^Talk 10:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There seems to be consensus on the fact that this is not spam. In regard to notability, 30LL is the first result of about 999,000 for a Google search on "Lebanese Podcasts" [10]

Amasoussou 11:00, 11 February 2007 (EST)

• Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the entry, it's objectively writen and the site is quite popular User:Anonymous 23:00 EST, 11 February 2007
• Delete Few hits and even fewer editors. Rkevins 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article seems to be objectively written, and accurately describes the website and its features. There doesn't seem to be any promotional material in the article and therefore I don't think it can be considered as spam. Regarding notability, 30ll.org seems to be a respected web media outlet in the online Lebanese community. I would also note that its podcast is rather unique and that its format is somewhat of a first in the field of Lebanese and Arab media. I say keep it. -- Kartrab 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If every podcast would have it's own Wikipedia page, that would fill the site with irrelevant blogs and podcasts, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.28.232 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This popular podcast concept is pioneer and is picking up steam extremely fast. Key podcasts and blogs actually do have wikipedia entries. This is no different. METALLICAH _{16:42, 14 February 2007 (EST).}

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con[edit]

Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN in-universe Simpsons cruft. It appeared briefly in 2 episodes and wasn't a major plot focus in either. Amazingly, this article has somehow survived more than a year and a half (most likely because it is not in any Simpsons categories). Scorpion 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the show or the episodes in which it's featured. I'm not fussy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was actually featured very heavily in both episodes it appeared in (about 1/3 of both episodes very held entirely in it). TJ Spyke 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but we can't have every single setting and character which has been in the show have their own page. It has had no notability within the show and it was not a key plot point. -- Scorpion 05:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a List of Simpsons locations-type article this could be merged into? If not, I say Delete; it may have been relatively prominent in the two episodes, but that doesn't make it as notable as, say, the Kwik-E-Mart. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Update: Redirect to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons, per Dgies' suggestion below. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of fictional places on The Simpsons, although it seems to mostly contain information on other towns. -- Scorpion 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In-universe Simpson cruft. --Maitch 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources to indicate notability, original research. Nick Graves 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect it's possible someone might be looking for what show this was in, and it would get them to the right place. SkierRMH 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to wherever is found to be the best place for it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly redirect to whatever episode this appeared in. (jarbarf) 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons as it is not a location, per-se. —Dgies^t c 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be a good place for the redirect; previous suggestions have been less than stellar (with it appearing in two episodes, pointing it to just one or the other isn't that great, and List of fictional places on The Simpsons is, as Scorpion pointed out, not quite appropriate). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to either the episode, or the recurring jokes thingy, or to the List of fictional places on The Simpsons. >Radiant< 14:37, 14 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (colonial captain)[edit]

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

No claim of notability. No references cited. Cannot find anything that supports even the non-notable assertions of the article. Glendoremus 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if this article had sources, it would still be completely nn. janejellyroll 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sourcesSlideAndSlip 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory for Genealogical entries Ohconfucius 03:43, 14 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Allen[edit]

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

Bio of an eleven-year-old who is said to be working on his debut album. Completely unsourced (save for some stuff on youtube). Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely not notable. Glendoremus 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is this non-notable but it's quite possibly a joke or an attack article. The creation edit summary of this page was "Zachary is a 11 year old homosexual, overweight performer" --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should have been speedied. An attack template was originally placed and removed by Camplifiedtour --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zach is an up-and-coming internet phenom. He has to have a page on wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rip.anna.nicole (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete: Zachary Allen is not only an outstanding performer, but a noted philanthropist in his hometown. Check out his website for updates on tours and his upcoming album! www.zacharyallen.com

• Speedy Delete. Fails WP:BIO, pretty blatant marketing. Korranus 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. ElinorD 13:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately Zach has not acquired the notability to have a Wikipedia article devoted to him. --Ozgod 04:00, 15 February 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; possible merge to Hughes H-4 Hercules or articles on Simpsons/Talespin/etc.—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:13Z

Spruce Moose[edit]

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

Fails to mention why it's that notable. It seems to just be a grouping of three completely seperate NN articles. And it is definitely not notable within the Simpsons universe. Scorpion 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cobbled-together nn collection of unrelated stuff. Otto4711 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Hughes H-4 Hercules, the "Spruce Goose" that inspired the name. --UsaSatsui 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's acting as a sort of drawn out disambig page right now, with multiple (non only Simpsons) references - not only to fictional planes, but also to the UK contest. I do agree with UsaSatsui that some mention should be made in both directions to the Spruce Goose. SkierRMH 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Improvements suggested by UsaSatsui would be helpful. --Eastmain 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs more improvementSlideAndSlip 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to List of fictional places on The Simpsons or somesuch. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not just a name used in the Simpsons...it's a pretty common pun. --UsaSatsui 18:43, 14 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Bomb Squad[edit]

Broadway Bomb Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Christian Ska band with absolutely zero claim to notabiliy. From the article: "BBS normally played at churches and youth events. Their biggest and most successful shows are always at The Outlet, a concert venue run by Foundry United Methodist Church." Speedy tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not even close to making WP:MUSIC. Borderline speedy. Heimstern Läufer 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another non-notable band. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, did find this mention of them but can't be bothered looking for anything else that would make me believe it should be kept. So for now I'm neutral on it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No offense to the creators, but if "The band was only able to record one full song during their existence." is a claim to notability, shoot me (with a phaser, on a strong "stun" setting). Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 03:33, 12 February 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 List of fictional places on The Simpsons, but you can decide where you want this page to redirect to by discussion and gaining consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawl-Mart[edit]

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

NN Simpsons cruft, written from an in-universe perspective. Sprawl Mart has never been featured significantly in an episode, although a few minor plot points occur in it. But, we can't have every Simpsons location having an article. -- Scorpion 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with The Fat and the Furriest, the Simpsons episode where this store first was mentioned On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister, the best-known Simpsons episode featuring Sprawl-Mart. --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I mean redirect, not Merge. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Fat and the Furriest On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister. --Maitch 11:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but I don't know where. Either Criticism of Wal-Mart, or On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister (that's the episode where it was most prominently featured). --UsaSatsui 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to wherever is found to be the best place for it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to some of the above, or possibly List of fictional places on The Simpsons. >Radiant< 14:36, 14 February 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 Eluchil404 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Isotopes[edit]

Springfield Isotopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) NN Simpsons fan cruft, written from an in-universe perspective. Yes, the team has been in a few episodes, but it's really not that notable. It's not like Duff Beer, where real Beer has been created solely because of the show. If there was an actual team based off of the Isotopes, then it would be slightly more notable. -- Scorpion 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Gran2 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as one of the few things from the Simpsons that has real-world significance, as the source of the name of the Albuquerque Isotopes. Otto4711 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: To most significant episode in which the team is important. According to above statement, a team was created becuase of show. AlphaShroom 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, the real team was not created because of the fictional team. The real team was named for the fictional team per the outcome of a "name the team" contest. That still in my opinion establishes the sort of real-world significance required for the article. Otto4711 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Albequerque Isotopes took their name from the Simpsons universe Isotopes. Has a real world connection and significance. Resolute 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominator's condition has been met, but I'd say keep, or at worst merge or redirect to an appropriate Simpsons article. No obvious candidate springs to mind though(no single episode is appropriate since they've been featured in several, and they're not really a character or location...) That said, the article itself needs serious improvement, such as listing the episodes they have been important in. FrozenPurpleCube 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Albuquerque Isotopes, maybe? It's not significant enough on its own to have an article, but the team named after them is. --UsaSatsui 15:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why can't that just be mentioned in the Albequergue Isotopes page? Why do the Springfield Isotopes need an entire page just because of that? -- Scorpion 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they're not that team, but a fictional one found in the Simpsons (And in several episodes to boot). If this were Mr. Burn's employee softball team, I'd say redirect to that episode, but you can't redirect to 3+ episodes. So the best thing to do is describe them, their connection to the Albuquerque team and expand further as needed. I honestly don't see any reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dancin' Homer would probably be the place to point if the redirect were going to a Simpsons episode. --UsaSatsui 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except....Hungry Hungry Homer and Marge and Homer Turn a Couple Play would be equally valid. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per significance of the Albuquerque Isotopes as outlined above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Resolute . Mathmo ^Talk 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- uhh.. fan-cruft? mmmm... don't think so - seems perfectly note worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has been featured numerous times in the Simpsons, and is actually a noteworthy article and topic. Jmlk17 10:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they have been in many Simpsons showsSlideAndSlip 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to some Springfield-related list article (e.g. "characters in The Simpsons"). >Radiant< 14:33, 14 February 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.