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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 and CSD G13 (the "no, we simply don't cover this" criterion). Speedied 7 times now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake thro[edit]

Jake thro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Subject fails WP:BIO and notability guidelines. Hang on reasons are pathetic. Was tagged for speedy but was contested, thus here. DoomsDay349 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy It's been speedied 6 times already. John Reaves 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Contested yes, but not contested by an admin. Worse, contested by article creator. Let's just salt this thing and call it a day. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:03, 12 January 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 Steve Ross (artist) per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Ross (artist); Steve Ross is now a disambiguation page. --ais523 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Ross[edit]

Steve Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Page has not grown following addition of merge tag so nominating for deletion. Article should be merged into Bob Ross Zerbey 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably meant Steve Ross (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'd recommend a merge and redirect with Bob Ross, which wouldn't even require an AFD. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, and that is what I intend to do, but other users showed interest. Please continue discussion on the correct page. Zerbey 21:22, 11 January 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 School District 38 Richmond. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School[edit]

Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was prod'ed by another member, with the reason stated as "School article with absolutely no notability asserted; the page is nothing more than a directory listing; only 86 total and 40 unique Google hits for the school's name, inc. WP and mirrors, and absolutely none of them are anything besides trivial mentions and directory listings." I'm posting it here not because I want it deleted but rather I want a proper deletion debate first. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 274 Google hits ([1]). Bigtop 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability whatsoever.Ganfon 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominations. Wikipedia is not a directory. Unless this school becomes particularly notable.... --Dennisthe2 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is not noteworthy. Darkwhistle 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original prodder (note: I found this page using Special:Random; I wasn't targeting school articles). There is no notability of any kind asserted, and nothing on Google suggests otherwise. This is a simple directory listing, and there are no non-trivial reliable sources presented. -- Kicking222 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody's accusing you of targeting school articles, as far as I can tell. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability might be controversial, so I'm going with the utter lack of sources here. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not even appear to meet guidelines under WP:SCHOOL --Haemo 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:SCHOOL and WP:V. SkierRMH 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Richmond, British Columbia per WP:SCHOOLS.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:SCHOOL. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think if we rewrite this article it can be proved useful. Many other elementry schools have articles and seem to be okay. Rasillon 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Schools in Richmond, British Columbia. There is no need for a separate article for every elementary and middle school in a city - especially when the only thing that can be said is "it exists". Perhaps a group article for such cities is more appropriate. Resolute 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... and do you have sources which would make it verifiable? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you will find plenty of references at Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about per WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS? Try through those - and in particularly, WP:N. I think the concern isn't so much that the school is verifiable, but that the school is notable and that the notability is verifiable. --Dennisthe2 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, my concern is that the only information which is verifiable is some statistics, which is not enough for an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no consensus on notability for schools. In such cases, the only rule is that the article be verifiable and NPOV. None of the policies or guidelines you direct me to says that a verifiable and NPOV article on a school, even if one assumes notability is not established, should be deleted. The proposal at WP:SCHOOL recommends, at worst, to merge to the community or school district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the lack of Google hits might be a result of the school's unusual name -- some people may spell the school's name slightly differently (ie. without the apostraphes). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Zero Google hits... so nope. -- Kicking222 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 277 Google hits spelled correctly. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was merely one example... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not opposed to merge/redirect. Shimeru 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - There's plenty of precedent for keeping school articles, this is a stub, not a deletion candidate - with some expansion I'm sure it would be a fine article -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Richmond, British Columbia per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline, current references meet verifiable standards so no objection to keeping it either. Yamaguchi先生 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not assert notability in any way. There is plenty of precedent for deleting useless stubs which this has been for over 6 months. At present, this is a directory listing, and so violates WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-direct to School District 38 Richmond, which is the school board which has jurisdiction over this school, until it becomes notable. A redirect is the recommended course of action under the proposed WP:SCHOOL, as opposed to a delete. Luke! 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to School District 38 Richmond per above and WP:LOCAL. The various proposed school-related guidelines also suggest merge/redirecting in situations like this. RFerreira 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect per commenters above. Zadernet 04:36, 15 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Balsiger (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

An editor argues that this is an attack page. I disagree and vote Keep, given the news sources cited in the article. But we should take allegations that something is an attack page seriously, so I'm bringing it here. Note that this is a different Les Balsiger than the subject of the first AFD. NawlinWiki 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an attack on this person by some one who is obviously Catholic and disagrees with him. One of the citations is a blog, which is hardly proof of anything and the other citations are all from religous organizations except one which was reporting and attack on this man. He is of no note and this all happened years ago. And if it is a different person the result will be that people who google the name will be confused, it is hardly a name like smith or jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.211.55.195 (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Not a singe example is provided to demonstrate this is an attack. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral there was POV disparagement in the 'fifteen minutes of fame' opener which I have removed. --Steve <sub>(Slf67)</sub> <sup>talk</sup> 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fifteen minues of fame" was just a cute wording not a disparagement; non-encyclopedic style anyway, so your deletion was sure OK. `'mikka 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the press coverage of this individual is sufficient to make the topic notable. As for POV concerns, those can be addressed, that is not sufficient justification for deletion. TSO1D 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is nothing 'slamming' this man in the article as it is currently written. Nashville Monkey 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the article itself could use a little clean-up, I don't view it as an attack page.Ganfon 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis is old information from 1993 and is implying that he "led" a major attack on catholicism. We deleted a page about him before what makes this difference how does user Nawlinwiki "know' that is is not the same person. BillBates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• keep; verifiable and certainly the event was notable. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Placing an artricle for deletion with vote "keep" is not best approach IMO. A better solution would be to block the anon for trolling, if he fails to understand wikipedia policies or at least to register, so that it could be possible to tutor him in his talk page. `'mikka 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability and verifiability requirements met with non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable sources. Deletion is rarely the best option for WP:BLP or WP:NPOV issues. -- Satori Son 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As usual, I'm with Vic. This person was, given the sourcing, notable, and his actions were certainly verifiable. Remove information that violates BLP guidelines, but not sourced information. -- Kicking222 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability has been established and it is sourced. However, it is totally unbalanced, but POV can be addressed. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "campaign" (if you can call it that) is notable. I'm not sure, though, that there is enough for a reasonable article about Les Balsiger himself, though, as the only sources of information about him are newspaper articles telling about the campaign. It might be better to consider moving the article to a different name ... like the name of his organization or something. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment perhaps move it to his organization would be a better idea I agree with BigDT
• Keep as per Ganfon. Icemuon 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep guy passes WP:BIO - AfD is not the place to bring content disputes. WilyD 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ... uh ... nominator is arguing keep, so surely something is wrong with what you wrote here. Do you mean Keep per nom? Or do you mean Delete for some hard to guess reason? WilyD 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think its quite a good article and perhaps if it can be restructered and properly contributed to, it can be kept. Rasillon 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is well-sourced and the subject is notable, I also agree that this is a rather unorthodox AfD - this isn't the place for content issues.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he seems notable enough. I made some changes in the article to make it more neutral in style. Steve Dufour 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with TSO1D above. highlunder 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not quite as well known as Fred Phelps but IIRC there are plenty of printed references to him and his activities. Dragomiloff 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• move, do not keep as is unless there is some nformation about the person. As he apparently was acting for an organisation, perhaps the article could be retitled to either "The Protestent" or "Printed Page Ministry". It is the actions not the man who seems to be notable. I cannot determine whether the splinter group with which he is affiliated has a name--it it does, that would be the best title. DGG 23:20, 15 January 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. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada[edit]

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Forking of information which is either POV and unencyclopaedic, or should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada. Tewfik^Talk 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is undoubtably a POV fork. I often want for such articles to be kept, but only for balance, not for POV pushing. --Ezeu 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument that it is a POV fork does not seem to hold, so withdrawing my comment. --Ezeu 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 6SJ7 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. This should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada? That article doesn't even mention these allegations - actually, now that I think about it, I think Al-Aqsa Intifada itself is violating NPOV (I note that it's been tagged as such). Have a look for yourself. Do a search in that article for the phrases "war crime" and "allegation" and see what you get (excluding the link to this AfD'd article):

"war crime" : Not a single mention.

"allegation" : Mentioned a few times, but all in relation to allegations of Palestinian misconduct. We've got:

• A link to "EU investigation into Allegations of Incitement to Violence in Palestinian Authority textbooks".
• Some "false allegations of a massacre of thousands of Palestinians" that were later disproved
• Photo caption: the shooting of a 12-year old Palestinian that was "surrounded by allegations of staging."

The subject matter - documented allegations - is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, we just need to make sure those allegations are addressed in a NPOV manner. The one concern I have about merging this into the main article is size - the main page is 69 KB already. If it's decided to combine all the offshoot articles back into the main one, and turn it into one massive NPOV article, I suppose that'd be fine, as long as other offshoots like Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and The lynching in Ramallah are similarly merged back in. If it's decided that that'd make the main article too large, all the offshoots should be kept separate. Quack 688 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The subject matter may be encyclopaedic, but a page that singles out one side is almost the definition of an NPOV violation. I would like to see allegations of both sides given their own section on the main page, and only if they become too large should there be a subpage, but one in which they appear together. Tewfik^Talk 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd be perfectly happy with a combined allegations page for both sides - mention all the allegations on the Al-Aqsa Intifada main page, then link off to the allegations page for more description. As long as both sides' allegations are treated the same way. While on the subject of allegations, I think it's a bit POV for Al-Aqsa Intifada to have only two photos - one of a confirmed Palestinian suicide bombing, and one of an Israeli shooting that was alleged to be staged. Aren't there any photos around of verified Palestinian casualties to use instead? Ah, that's a topic for another day. Quack 688 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I just wanted to make sure you realised that this article does not mention "War Crimes" once either. Tewfik^Talk 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article presents some POVs, but also presents a lot of facts. Similar to articles such as Islamic terrorism, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islam and antisemitism; all articles which, more or less, make some sort of accusation against a group.Bless sins 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep bad nomination of legitimate topic, main article is a mere umbrella article hosting several spin out articles. The only thing that is missing is for the main article to link to this article in a spin-out summary section. --Striver - talk 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:POVFORK. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As admitted above, this is a WP:SOAPBOX to overcompensate for Islam and antisemitism and Islamic terrorism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a valid enough topic to me, although it might arguably work better as an article covering crimes by both sides. Gatoclass 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid article and subject. This isn't SOAPBOX any more than the following articles that single out issues concerning the Palestinians:
  • List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks,
  • Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
  • List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks,
  • List of Hamas suicide attacks,
  • List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada - a list that only includes massacres from the Israeli point of view.
  • --70.48.243.138 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the IP's third edit on its month-long history. In any event, you would have a point if Israel committed suicide attacks or had child suicide bombers which were then kept out of WP. The point is even clearer in List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada - it is not titled List of massacres committed by Palestinian during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, just because no events were committed by Israel during that period which are widely considered "massacres" does not make the entry POV. On the other hand, both List of massacres commited by Israeli forces (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces) and Terrorism against Israel (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism against Israel (2nd nomination)) were deleted for being one-sided. Tewfik^Talk 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Tewfik - me again. My point is still valid. But I do think that these lists can be combined. The number of civilian Palestinians killed far outnumber civilian Israels -- in these various lists that fact tends to get lost. Also I find that one problem with your perspective is that you feel that military deaths are just collatoral damage, and thus not questionable, thus giving the side with a formal military a general pass. It comes across as convenient reasoning around your blindspot. --70.48.240.99 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said anything about collateral damage, only that the existence of lists of suicide bombings has no relevance here since this isn't a list or discussion of either Israeli suicide bombings or events that are recognised as "massacres," just allegations (and OR) about possible human rights abuse on only one side which do not even discuss the concept of "war crimes". Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for anti-Israeli campagning. Beit Or 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP 70.48.243.138, and quack. When pages such List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada exist, (actually i expected to see Israeli war crimes on that article, but i found that it was highly israeli point of view) deletion of this article is one sided. I also propose a rename to Israel war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada or something like that. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is NPOV by definition because it does not name the perpetrators in advance. This is in stark contrast with the article you want to keep. Beit Or 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is NPOV because of the title, even though the contents are totally one-sided? Well, by that reasoning, this article should be renamed to Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian massacres of Israelis, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli massacres of Palestinians.

Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian allegations of Israeli war crimes, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes.

What's the difference between those two, exactly? Quack 688 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think the content of List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is one-sided. It doesn't contain "Israeli massacres of Palestinians" only because there were none during that time period AFAIK. If you think one is missing, then please add it. Tewfik^Talk 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly my point. If this article is renamed to Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, then Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes could be added. Are there any such published allegations? If so, I'd be happy to see them listed. Quack 688 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine except that very little of the information in the entry is actually about "Allegations of war crimes..." - most of it is simply unrelated data being used to present a novel argument (OR style). There would be no "List of massacres..." if there was only one or two massacres, and I don't see this page as needing to exist if only one or two claims exist which could be dealt with on the main article. If however there is enough content to warrant a separate entry, then I would wholeheartedly agree. Tewfik^Talk 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Fair call on the OR. The article needs to find citations for its arguments, not just its facts. (i.e. if the article says, "Israel did X, and X is considered a war crime", it needs to find sources for both "Israel did X" and "X is considered a war crime".) That's still not a reason to delete the entire thing, though. Quack 688 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above. Why on earth was this also posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam? Call me naïve, but is accusing Israel of war crimes now a component of the Islamic religion?Proabivouac 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and removed it. Which sorting do you think it should be listed on, if any? Tewfik^Talk 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- Tewfik^Talk 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, For some reason this was listed on the log for 5th Jan - relisting as may not have been widely seen--Doc^g 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and all above. Bigtop 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (pov fork is reason. Bigtop 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete pov fork.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Clean-up The information present is important to the topic. I don't think the article can be necessarily merged into Al-Aqsa Intifada and I think it is deserving of it's own article however it needs a strong clean-up effort if it is to remain on Wikipedia.Ganfon 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom Elizmr 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename to Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The "Accusations" is pointless rhetoric that has no good precedent. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on - I think this article's content should be kept in some form, but there's no way it can be renamed like that. Look at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (which has just survived its third AfD). It describes the hypothesis, but it doesn't say "this is what happened". Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare these war crime allegations to a conspiracy theory. My point is that there's enough published material out there for us to outline the allegations of war crimes (by either side) in an NPOV manner. But it's not Wikipedia's place to say whether or not they were war crimes. The title "Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies exactly that. Quack 688 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime, I must agree that the word "accusations" is awkward and forced. How about, "Criticism of Israeli responses to Palestinian terrorism?"Proabivouac 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli Massacres against innocent civilians" is a good one too. 72.88.146.173 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the closing admin note that the rationales for 72.88.146.173, Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ, Nielswik, and TruthSpreader^reply are in opposition to WP:NPOV and be given the appropriate weight, since AfD is not a vote. Tewfik^Talk 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Israeli. I didn't even "vote." 72.88.146.173 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above GabrielF 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kirbytime. TruthSpreader^reply 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment hey, Allied war crimes during World War II has similar title to this one, but without "accusation" thing. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would guess that this is because the war crimes are not disputed. Whether Israeli war crimes happened or not, you cannot deny that their existence is widely disputed. Thus, in the interest of NPOV, the article title should reflect that. -- Where 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is a reasonable topic for an article. If the nominator has problems with POV the article can be improved. Seems to be part of an attempt to remove several atricles portraying Israel in a negative light. Also per Quack 688 Akihabara 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per leftist/liberal votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy. Khodavand 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do here? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article has over THIRTY SIXTY sources for an article of it's length. It's heavily sourced. Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic based on amount of sourcing. F.F.McGurk 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT. Admin, please userfy if someone deems to delete, for rewriting, and notify everyone of who gets it. F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on POV Fork argument: Hardly. The oldest version of this page is from 13:32, February 8, 2004. How is this a POV fork and of what exactly, that is slipped through almost three years of cracks and hundreds of people editing it? F.F.McGurk 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It did not have more than 50 editors, and age in any event does not make something less of a fork. As I mentioned before (and Quack 688 confirms), most of the references merely cite unrelated facts who are positioned to synthesise novel arguments (OR). Tewfik^Talk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, or merge — Article has some definite neutrality/POV/propaganda issues that can be addressed. But as long as we're covering accusations from both sides, we should probably keep this. To me it just reads like a typical war-time scenario. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Al-Aqsa Intifada (why do the names have to be so hard to spell! FirefoxMan 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important topic, and has citations to show notability. POV issues in any statements should be dealt with by editing. But the citations should be changed to inline sitations to allow seeing what they are without cicking on them and going to the site. Edison 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its more of a type of article that wikipedia doesn't need. Delete on sight to me. Rasillon 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Arkon 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. All these complaints are all the fault of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Israel directly.--Sefringle 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this absolutely fits the definition of a POV fork. Perhaps some of the content can be merged as suggested above but this article and others of its type do not belong on wikipedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had a look at WP:POVFORK, and I'm still convinced that this isn't a POV fork. If anything, it's an article spinout due to size. There are two quotes in WP:POVFORK that I think are relevant:

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

...

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

After reading that, one thing's clear - both articles are in violation of WP:POVFORK. This article is in violation as it doesn't present any Israeli rebuttals of these claims. Meanwhile, Al-Aqsa Intifada is also in violation, as it doesn't even mention the existence of these allegations (as I said at the start, the only "allegations" mentioned there are allegations of Palestinian misconduct, and the phrase "war crime" never appears.) Quack 688 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep on grounds that merge (which would be preferable) is not option given length of intifada article. any other npov etc problems can be dealt with by editing the article. it's name, given it's obvious controversy, shld be dealt with thru a rename request, not here.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear POV fork per above. Eusebeus 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is quite old. Where exactly did it POV fork off of, in 2004? Also this is, agreeing with previous people, a size fork. F.F.McGurk 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Forking' research for closing admin. OK, we have Al-Aqsa Intifada which is 70kb long--longer than recommended. New or different related material would be considered a SIZE fork. We have List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created January 30, 2004. Its just a table. We have Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created February 8, 2004, and 38kb which is just a bit too big for it's own article--it cannot all go back into Al-Aqsa Intifada. This smells definitely like a content/size fork, not a POV fork. If this is a POV fork, why is there no push to delete the matching (and poorly structured) article which lists crimes by Arabs? I call foul but want to AGF. Additionally, the matching articles that listed crimes by Arabs WERE nominated for deletion last year seen here. All were Keep. Precedent says this should be keep then as well? I dunno. F.F.McGurk 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several editors have argued that the critical flaw of this article is original research. You can find no "accusations of war crimes", even the phrase "war crime" does not appear in the text. It's merely a list of episodes; the "accusations" come solely from the authors of the article. Beit Or 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada. The allegations are significant and should be discussed, but they do not merit an article of their own. - ClemsonTiger 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename per Bsnowball. --Magabund 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accusations of povfork hold no water for a near 3-year-old article. If there are POV issues within the article, then address and revise as appropriate. Tarc 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of errors that survive on Wikipedia - I've never heard of their age making them correct. That logic especially doesn't hold for those who will agree that the name was in error for just as long. Tewfik^Talk 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- strongly agree with Quack.
  • POV is not grounds for deletion.
  • I notice nominator has not made a single edit to the article's talk page -- the appropriate place to start to address a concern over POV. My comment to the nominator, if you don't first make an attempt to address a POV concern on the talk page, and jump right to a nomination for deletion, you put a huge strain on everyone else's ability to assume good faith. Please don't put such a strain on the rest of us. -- Geo Swan 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Strongly agree with Quack as well. -- Rei 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic title. --Mardavich 08:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is Allied war crimes during World War II also an "extremely POV and unencyclopedic title"? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merge any WP:RS into primary article(s). metaspheres 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont think it's a POV fork. Just look at the extensive article List of war crimes. This one isnt any different from the rest.--Zereshk 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly! That is what makes this POV, since this isn't about some objectively agreed up "Israeli war crimes", but only allegations of such (and the article doesn't even include any of those!). Tewfik^Talk 02:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• week keep I agree that it is unbalanced and full of POVs, BUT! this accusation exists, so I think we can have this article and a section for rejecting the Accusations must be added. --Pejman47 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changing my vote to Delete; it is a POV fork of the the main article--Pejman47 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and delete all of the "Accusations . . ." and "Allegations . . ." articles as violative of Wikipedia against WP:NOR. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ganfon above. alternatively, merge into Al-Aqsa Intifada. ITAQALLAH 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merge info if needed --Rayis 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious WP:SOAP article, and votes solicited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam should be discounted. Also, almost none (or is there even one?) of the "sources" actually seems to refer to "war-crimes". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What soliciting? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a blatant soapbox pov fork. Guy Montag 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork Kuratowski's Ghost 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just to be clear, when I previously said that both this article and Al-Aqsa Intifada were violating WP:POVFORK, I wasn't suggesting that either be deleted. This is just a case where both articles need to be edited to be brought into line with policy. Tewfik is quite correct when he says that this article shouldn't be allowed to just present a list of facts regarding (blank), then make the argument that (blank) was a war crime. It needs to find sources which explicitly say that. However, judging by the number of Google hits that the phrase israeli "war crimes" gets, I feel confident that we can find several sources which not only list facts, but make explicit allegations about Israeli war crimes. Actually, the very first page that shows up on Google, BBC NEWS | Middle East | Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes', is as good a place as any to start. The Amnesty International Report 2005 that it quotes from could also be used as a source. Another possible source is Israeli evades arrest at Heathrow over army war crime allegations, although that just deals with the actions of one Israeli general. Remember, we don't have to make any novel arguments ourselves. All we have to do is outline what existing sources say on the matter, both for and against. Quack 688 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork that combines a hodge-podge of accusations, statements, charts and numbers, while making very few specific claims of war crimes. Alansohn 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Crimson above. Just H 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RJH. Given the number of similar articles listing suicide bombers etc it is justifiable to have an article on Israeli actions. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per quack, swan, edison, etc. if there are some pov issues, fix them. afd is not a substitute for the normal editing process. that such accusations exist, and are notable, is unquestionable per article references. hence, it is a legitimate subject for an article, even if every accusation could be proven false. no valid grounds for deletion have been yet advanced. complaints in 2007 that a 2004 article is a "fork" is flimsy stuff indeed. Derex 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derex, can you point me to any of the sources that actually refer to "war crimes"? Much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see quack post above. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources appear to be in the article though; instead they use dozens of other sources that say nothing about "war crimes". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to an article name change to something more neutral. However, that's a garden-variety editing issue, not an AFD issue. Clearly there are documented and notable accusations of "bad things". What exactly you choose to call those "bad things" is an entirely different question than whether the article about accusations of "bad things" should be deleted. Derex 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are, but they don't appear in this article, which inherently is POV because it only deals with one side and is primarily based on OR. Tewfik^Talk 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse NPOV, which is policy, with balance, which is not. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV article dealing with allegations against only one party in a conflict. I would, by the same token, object to deletion of an article on allegations of Palestinian terror during the intifadah. There is no reason to combine two such articles into a single article except to promote a faux balance. Derex 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review both WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK, as policy is quite clear about cases which are not simply the separation of two aspects of an argument due to space or technical constrictions, but rather the intentional presentation of only one set of arguments to argue a nonneutral position. Of course we mustn't forget that in this case said argument ("war crimes") is not even mentioned in the article, which is instead filled mostly with WP:OR. Tewfik^Talk 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we work together and improve it instead of deleting it? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no allegations of war crimes in this article, so deleting it is improving it. That said, we should include criticism of both sides in the main article, and if there really is no room there, maintain a summary and move the detail to a new article. You are certainly invited to work together to add such criticism (of course in line with WP policies). Tewfik^Talk 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would it be proper to have an Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent article? I would argue that if this article should be kept, then people should have no problems if I later create that article. Another nice article to have from the pro-Palestinian point of view would be Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy. I think the question we face is "Is Wikipedia the place to comment on every argument (whether it be mainstream or extremest) for every issue under the sun, or is that not within its mission?". I'm not sure what the answer to that question is, in all honesty. -- Where 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of one article does not necessarily validate the existence of another article. An article created merely to prove a point will not last. --Ezeu 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me clarify. This article is meant to cover pro-Palestine arguments. If we keep this, in order to be balanced, we should also allow articles covering pro-Israel arguments (such as Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent). In addition, we should cover other pro-Palestine articles, such as Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy, as we should not selectively cover extremist anti-Israel arguments. -- Where 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean. What I mean is that every article should carry its own weight. I mustn't be created merely on the premise that a POV article exists, therefore a counterPOV one must exist. If one deems an article to be POV, then one should edit it to remove POV, not create a new one with ones own POV. You can create any article you want, but it must meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Ezeu 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you are right in that what I am saying is mostly irrelevant as to whether to keep or delete the article. Thus, I suppose I should have never said it here anyhow. Oh well. -- Where 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would agree in principle, but as of now there is no content accusing Israel on this article, and I imagine that any allegations regarding the Palestinians could fit in the main article. I would be equally concerned with creating a separate article not dictated by space etc. which would in practice only deal with the Palestinians. Remember that even such an article as you suggest would have to have its main points incorporated in al-Aqsa Intifada. Tewfik^Talk 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note: jayjg removed a vote which he said to be a "banned editor" [2]. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your faction contains a relatively large number of banned editors, as appears to be the case, whose fault is that? Additionally, please stop saying, "peace"; informed editors know the reason for this, and it is annoying.Proabivouac 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize AFD was a team sport. What's this "faction" thing you're on about, and how do I get "informed"? Peace. Derex 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam, per our discussion above.Proabivouac 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't belong to any faction. I didn't even know the so-called "banned" editor before this. And I don't see anything wrong with including "peace" in my post sign. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Proabivouac discusses is not there anymore, but you can see evidence that it was there once here. -- Where 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is apparently a misunderstanding by an inexperienced editor. Anyway I don't see any problem there since it has been listed there for less than 7 hours (insignificant). And let's come back to the topic. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Accusations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada so it can be NPOV and cover alleged war crimes on the part of both the Isaelis and the Palestinians. Examples of an alleged war crimes on the part of the Palestinians would be some militant/terrorist groups' alleged use of human shields or alleged use of civilian clothing while engaging in hostilities. -- Where 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. --Ezeu 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another attack page. The day we can even imagine a page like this in the Enyclopaedia Britannica is the day we should consider having one here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Britannica the benchmark? If so then this is too easy, delete. --Ezeu 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy, it appears that there is a double-standard here - if articles like that can be deleted (in my opinion wrongly), then this article can be deleted for the very same reasons as that one. Where is the "reliable sources" here? Who is the judge of what accusation and allegation is "reliable" or "unreliable"? If we ask most people, they will say that any accusation or allegation is "unreliable"! If this article is kept, then this system is a nepotism where people gang up and vote delete on articles they hate and vote keep on articles they like making this completely pointless. If there are rules and regulations in place, then they should hold true for all articles, not just because of the preferences and prejudices of people. Whats worse is when they attack a person (making personally-motivated, hateful attacks, not calling someone a "liberal" or "right-winger" or "neocon" or something!), and that is what happened to me. This is an appalling behavior and that it is used in these processes is not right. At least with the article I wrote I attempted to invite others to provide counter sources, but instead they attack and ridicule me and vote keep on this types of articles. You can see their votes here, same people. Khodavand 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience is that useless articles are sometimes kept (by popular demand), but that the same articles (unless they improve substantially) eventually get deleted anyway – especially articles about contentious subjects (such as this one). The axe may well fall on this one, but if not, there is no need for doomsaying. --Ezeu 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. Please discuss specifics of the merge on the here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Dad! episodes expanded[edit]

We already have List of American Dad! episodes. We don't need two. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Tagged. Bigtop 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed your speedy as this one may be kept, instead of the old one. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, There is no need to have two articles for the same thing. Nevertheless, I actually like the format on this one better, so perhaps it could be merged with the former. TSO1D 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "expanded" content to List of American Dad! episodes. Luke! 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to have two articles. I oppose merging the extra content for two reasons: The information on the expanded article can be found in each individual article for the episodes, and the expanded format is too long. Think of what it'll look like when there are 3 seasons, or 4. The List of The Simpsons episodes also follows the current format. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above as a POV fork. Work out the appropriate level of detail on the talk page. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Any vital information can be added to List of American Dad! episodes that's not even a merge.Ganfon 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Information already exists elsewhere and per nom. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Content Infinitely superior to the other version. Replace this content into the other article and merge any extra from the old. Then make this article a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems obvious course of action here - PocklingtonDan 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of American Dad! episodes... though I would stronly suggest jettisoning the "3rd Season" info per WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete move what needs to be moved, then delete. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per isotope FirefoxMan 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - content into the List of American Dad! episodes, but maybe remove the American Dad icons from the article. Its use again and again could violate WP:FAIR. --tgheretford (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this is just a more thorough treatment of List of American Dad! episodes.-- danntm ^T _C 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need for this. Eusebeus 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, if someone is interested in saving, otherwise delete. highlunder 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge with list of american dad episodes.RiseRobotRise 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per above -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful. Completely unnecessary fork. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:39, 19 January 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. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Long[edit]

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

The organization he is head of was deleted via AfD, the individual doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO and the article doesn't appear to meet WP:V. There also appear to be WP:BLP issues, repeating unsubstantiated allegations of Satanism against a living person who is simply alleged to use the pseudonym which is the title of the article, even though the person so accused denies the allegation. Tunnels of Set 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Although not extreamly notable, the article is well referenced. He also doesnt seem to out-right offend WP:BIO either. However it wouldn't torture me to see it go.Ganfon 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If the organization isn't notable enough the keep, then it follows that an individual whose notability is tied to that organization should not be kept. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aylahs FirefoxMan 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per aylahs --Isolani 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this article is deleted, could a sentence be added to the article on David Myatt to cover the suggestion that the one is a pseudonym of the other ? WMMartin 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if it can be proven. See WP:LIVING. Tunnels of Set 17:05, 16 January 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 del-eat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked Meatloaf[edit]

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

non-notable subject matter Nashville Monkey 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Source is a forum post. Therefore, unverifiable —Dylan Lake 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a recipe. You can "verify" it by cooking it. Smoked meatloaf is becoming very, very popular among the competitive barbecue circiut in the United States. I would agree also to integrate it to the meatloaf article.--Paul McDonald 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - If it's a recipe, then it belongs on Wikibooks Cookbook. As it stands, this is just a stub about a non-notable food item. -- Kesh 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete It's one line long and the only source is a forum as Dylan noted. This should go quickly.Ganfon 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, if verified, merge and redirect to barbeque. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT Bucketsofg 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. First, Wikipedia is not a recipe book; such facilities exist on Wikibooks, as I understand it. Even so, coming to my second point, the article, contrary to Paul McDonald's assertion, is not a recipe: as of my entry here, it describes it as a new favorite amongst barbecueniks, and a variation on meatloaf - and that's it. This is not a recipe, and in fact it's not even a definition. --Dennisthe2 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Short" -- does just being "short" constitute a bad article? I can remember many one-line entries in other encyclopedias
• "source is a forum" -- are all forums automatically disqualified as sources?
• "merge to barbecue" -- it isn't "barbecued" meatloaf, but "smoked" meatloaf - Smoking (cooking technique) might be more appropriate

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• "not a recipe" -- I didn't think it would be appropriate to copy what already existed on one page into another on Wikipedia
• "not verified" -- what kind of "verification" would satisfy you at this point?--Paul McDonald 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with some clarifications. As said earlier, if a recipe were presented there, WP:NOT a recipe guide. Of course, that doesn't mean we never have articles on various types of foods-we most certainly do. What's necessary to establish notability, though, is exactly what it says in that guideline-multiple, non-trivial, and reliable sources. Forums, due to their anonymous and unverified nature, are not a reliable source-though sometimes a post on a forum can point you to better sources which would be considered reliable, I've had that happen more than once Googling for references. As to smoked meatloaf, let's say it really takes off. A couple of big, respectable cooking websites cover it, followed by some "food section" coverage in newspapers. Now we got what we need-multiple non-trivial reliable mentions. At that point, it's time to create an article! Hopefully, that makes some amount of sense out of it-the notability and sourcing guidelines can be tricky at first! Seraphimblade 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverified new food. One forum post is not a reliable source. JIP | Talk 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I gotta say, "you verify it by cooking it" is the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. JuJube 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Meatloaf. The source in the article doesn't constitute a reliable source, but as Seraphimblade mentioned above, it gets enough Google hits that it appears to be a somewhat common cooking method. The idea it is getting popular on the U.S. Competative BBQ circuit is not bourne out by the sources I see, so I'm not sure this has enough notability to warrent a separate article at this time. I've already added "smoked" as a cooking method to the Meatloaf page so this could just be redirected.--Isotope23 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Delete! per nom. FirefoxMan 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. You can add a sentence to meatloaf and/or smoking (cooking technique) if you so desire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge to Meatloaf, add a sentence or two about it -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe redirect to meatloaf. Can't see this being a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 12 January 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 source that was added still does not satisfy WP:WEB, and the two external links aren't to independent sources (meaning that WP:V is still not met). --Coredesat 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIchan[edit]

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

Speedy deletion under A7 contested. No assertion of notability is made, article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Should be deleted. RWR8189 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete unless... more sources are quickly added. As of now it doesnt have nearly enough sources to be argued as notable.Ganfon 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tagged this as needing sources back in November and no attempts have been made to add sources. Just fyi. Wickethewok 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Little notability is asserted, and there is no third-party sourcing. I wouldn't speedy this, as Google hits lead me to believe that it could be possible to find reliable sources. -- Kicking222 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, should have been speedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any media mentions whatsoever. I can't find any non-blog mentions either. I searched for common newspaper names and IIchan too, nothing. I can't find any reputable non-blog articles, plus the whole article is WP:OR. With no sources it can't even be stubbed. --Quirex 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the prevailing sentiment should be reconsidered. There are 39,000 English-language ghits for llchan, most of them still live. Almost all of them are postings on various blogs, IRC chanels, and the like. About 5% refer to the boards themselves, and the rest to the content for them. I do not think it is reasonable to find much on this topic in other media.

It is very strange of WP not to accomodate the development of new media, published in whatever way that media is naturally published. We may need to evelop new criteria and this is where we should start. The concept of such software is surely notable--there are a number of related articles. This is a derivative of what seems to be the most widely used program, and notable as such

There is no problem finding material--the difficulty with V is only the nature of the sources. It is time WP recognized that this is 2007, not 2004. Books write about books, and blogs write about blogs. I've added a ref from what seems to be a reliable 3rd party online journal, and a good third party directory refered to elsewhere in WP. I think that solves the basic problem. Documentation of many of the details will come from appropriate sources for the subject, once WP learns to accept them.

I once more am grateful to an AfD for widening my education into previously unexplored areas, when the people who do know the area won't do the work of finding references. Now the rest of you take another look.DGG 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as notability does not seem to me to be clearly asserted. We need to know why this is different from any of its peers, and the article doesn't address this. WMMartin 16:00, 16 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidoze[edit]

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

This article is likely no more than an ad. There is no discernible notability, it is the author's only edit, and it is written in a way that smacks of ad. Badgerzilla 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Advertising --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM—Mitaphane _talk 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above - PocklingtonDan 09:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX, this reads as an ad and nothing more. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above FirefoxMan 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified probable advertisement.-- danntm ^T _C 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earnock High School Closure[edit]

Earnock High School Closure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no assertion of notability for either the school or this event. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Has no sources at all. I could possibly see this being included in an article on the school itself, but not by itself.Ganfon 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I don't see it meeting any WP:CSD criteria) as non-notable events (schools are closed and demolished all the time, being structures with a finite lifetime, renovation even more common). If the old or the new school is notable, then this could be a note in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If an article on the school exists, its closure should be mentioned there. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Metropolitan90. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Earnock High School if exists, else Delete. - PocklingtonDan 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if merged it should go to Calderside Academy, though that could probably bundled in this AfD as well because it is the same situation as the nominated article and they are related.--Isotope23 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a couple of relevant links... there is apparently an online petition to stop the school closure on ipetitions (can't link because it is blacklisted)... not that this constitutes a reliable source. Here is a mention on a parliment site. This mentions "Earnock High School, Hamilton" which has a website. I'm not Scottish, so I have no idea how Hamilton relates to South Lanarkshire geographically or politically, but I assume this is the same school. Regardless I don't think this article should stand as is. It should either be deleted, merged, or moved to an article on Earnock High School with sourced mention of the impending closure.--Isotope23 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Earnock High School does not exist. Bigtop 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earnock High Schools website can be found at: http://www.earnock.s-lanark.sch.uk/

• Delete per bigtop and with funny behavior of annon. FirefoxMan 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has now been updated with sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.19.166 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the notability of the school article was questionable, but I think that there's no reason to have an article for the closure of this school. TSO1D 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the closing of a school tends not to be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now also nominated Calderside Academy for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calderside Academy — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The closure of a non-notable school will not, even five years from now, be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable: schools are closed all the time. WMMartin 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in the Alien series. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Officer Ash[edit]

Science Officer Ash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Non notable secondary character with no references or sources. Daniel J. Leivick 01:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following secondary Aliens characters with similar formats.

• Bishop (Alien) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Engineering Technician Brett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Captain Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Navigator Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chief Engineer Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per nominator; fails notability. Yuser31415 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide an explanation. This is not a vote, this is a concensus. --Dennisthe2 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So clarified. Yuser31415 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a relevant character, who plays an important role, you obviously haven't seen Alien, DO NOT DELETE

• It is interesting that you should say that as Alien is my favorite movie of all time, I have seen it more times than I have seen any other movie. But none of these characters are notable outside of the film, if they are the topics of any articles that assert there notability please reference it on the page for the character in question, I would definitely be interested.Daniel J. Leivick 02:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I can't justify a delete because there aren't really insignificant characters in Alien, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for character stories. If anything, merge the characters with their respective films. --Dennisthe2 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I assume we are throwing in our fourpenneth on all 4 nominations here so.... General point: If anyone wants references and sources for anything then drop in the appropriate tag and someone will try and address it. Obviusly there are the fims bit, if you want one from a source other than the films, then Beautiful Monsters covers them all and there are other volumes for other films [3] - the first step is to ask for them though (no one has). I would also query their being defined as "non-notable secondary characters" in the proposal - they are important supporting characters in a major (even iconic) film. There are, potentially, non-notable members of the cast but they don't have an entry. Let's look at some of them: Kane has the most iconic scene in the film (in fact it is one of the most famous in cinema). Bishop plays an important role in the first 2 films and appears in the third (reappearing as another version of the android at the end) and appears as the man the design is based on in another film - surely a character whose appearances span 4 films (as well as appearing in a whole range of spin-off merchandise) has to tick the notable box. I could go on but I hope I have made my point. (Emperor 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• CommentThe reason I chose not to ask for sources was that I have a pretty good knowledge of Alien literature and the like, this is not to say that it is impossible that some of these article could be sourced, I would just be surprised. The problem is not that these characters are not important within the film (that is why they are mentioned in the plot summaries) but that there are no external sources referenced. In order to be notable in Wikipedia terms the character has to be the subject in multiple third party sources, non of these characters are. The subject of Beaurtiful Monsters is not Ash or Dallas but the Alien and Predator series.

• Comment Well yes I doubt there are any actual books about the characters - the best you'll usually get are books on the films (or possibly some media studies papers - the Ripley entry also needs beefing up in the reference department with that in mind). The problem is we are in a bit of a Catch 22 - no one has bothered asking for references and the entries are damned for not providing them. There is a process and we seem to have skipped a stage. I doubt I could find enough references in the time requied for all of the entries. I also think it is unfortunate they appear to have been lumped together as less strong cases will drag down the keepers - I genuinely think it is a mistake throwing Bishop in with the others as his multiple film appearances should make it a dead cert if it had been proposed on its own. (Emperor 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete everyone of these offers nothing but a plot summary. None have any secondary sources. WP:NOT states: 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.. WP:FICTION states: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." These are the articles that should be built at avp.wikia.com. --maclean 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per above--SUIT⁴² 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's simply unacceptable for articles to consist of only two factual statements followed by a large, undigested lump of storyline. Wikipedia is not a fan guide, nor should we rewrite every article about every film to shift focus from character to character. Postdlf 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have fictional biographies for many other characters including the Simpsons and American Dad. I hope we aren't going to throw them away in 30 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • "Keep, because it's a fictional character"? Please address the particular merits of these articles and subjects. Postdlf 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simpsons are irrelevant to this discussion" - It is entirely possible that the other fictional articles you mentioned should also be deleted. It may very well be pop culture information worth remembering well into the future - but the question here is whether Wikipedia is the right place for it. Much of the article appears to be plot summary of the Alien film, which is already provided in the main Alien article. I think this could be merged back to the main article with no great loss. Zaku kai 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Either into the movie itself, or a list of characters from the movie. I'm not especially troubled with the problem of sourcing these articles, these are notable movies, all of these characters are more than just a walk-on guy, but if you object to them having their own article, they should be well-described in the movie's page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some, merge some. Bishop is certainly not a minor character, and the article on him provides a good synthesis of a lot of detail from the multiple movies he appears in, so I'd !vote a strong keep for him. Since Ash is only in the one movie, his information could be merged, but he's fairly central to the plot and I think deserving of a separate article. For the others, I'd keep them if I ran the world, but would be happy to compromise on a merge to Alien or a new Alien characters article, since they're not as important. Pinball22 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a list of Minor characters in Alien with dramatically reduced plot summaries as per WP:FICT for minor characters. If any evidence of out-of-universe notability of any of the characters is found, consider recreating those articles separately. Cheers --Pak21 17:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely, let's do it. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That'd be a suitable compromise (I was always suprised there wasn't one but having some many character entries meant it wasn't worth creating one). Would it be worth making it a list of characters in the Alien movie series or just for the Alien film with longer character outlines (I'd slightly favour the latter). As per what I said above and Pinball's comments I think Bishop needs his own entry. I have done some digging and can expand the entry to look at the academic studies of him (as he touches on various aspects - I'll expand his entry soon). (Emperor 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Bishop, merge the rest. The Proffesor 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've now updated the Bishop entry with 4 academic papers where Bishop is a central example for the various points they want to make. [4] (Emperor 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge to a list of minor characters in Alien. It is unencyclopedic to break up works of fiction in separate pages for each non-notable character, location, weapon, monster etc. Edison 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Bishop for lack of encyclopedic noteworthiness. These articles also fail to explain where their information comes from. Not all of this stuff is mentioned in the movie(s). For most of these characters, their history need only be covered by the Alien article. For Bishop, however, his article helps cover his treatment over multiple films and non-film sources. Doczilla 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Seperate articles for secondary characters are confusing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all but Bishop (Alien) to a new characters list, e.g. List of characters in the Alien series, to be consistent with Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. (Reduce the amount of content somewhat, though.) However, Bishop's notable across several films, and has enough background information (including that "academic importance" section) to justify an independent article, so strong keep for him. Quack 688 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all (except Bishop) to list of List of characters in the Alien series per Quack 688. The Alien Quadrilogy seems notable enough for a list of characters. Strong keep for Bishop (Alien) as he appears in two films and is a very major character in Aliens (film). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Unencyclopedic trivia. Eusebeus 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge most, maybe keep Bishop per Quack 688. highlunder 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see why this is even up for debate. List of Characters in the Alien series. Go!Darkwarriorblake 00:37, 16 January 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 speedied Opabinia regalis 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophilus brachyura[edit]

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

Delete. A fictional animal created in a school science class. WP:NOT a free webhost for this class project. Violates WP:V, no WP:RS indicating notability outside of this classroom, etc., etc. Probably a foregone conclusion, but brought here anyway, since it really doesn't fall into any of the speedy categories. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the above post explains my sentiments. --Ox-Puller 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Looks like it'll be speedied anyway. --Wizardman 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. WP:NFT, but the note at the bottom of the article, in particular, seems to imply this is being used as webspace. Serpent's Choice 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete being used as webspace. sorry kids. --Tainter 04:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 04:49, 11 January 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. Majorly 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apronym[edit]

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

Neologism. Good thing I sent it here because it kept being completely deleted by some random user. Looks like it violates WP:NEO, but we;ll see what the opinion is. Wizardman 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The word does not appear in dictionaries, but the phenomenon of apronyms is notable, and it should use that name until a better name is found. (By the same criteria, RAS syndrome is also a neologism. It's a good comparison bec. both articles are about unusual acronyms.) YechielMan 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comparison was coined in a magazine, while this was coined more recently on an internet forum. PLus keep WP:INN in mind.--Wizardman 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the origin of a term is a form whose name includes the term, there is really very little question that the term is a neologism or protologism. That issue entirely aside, the article does not meet inclusion standards on the merits. There is no means to determine if an acronym is sufficiently "appropriate" to be considered. Because no third-party sources address this term, the topic inescapably fails WP:OR. Serpent's Choice 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously JuJube 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the pheonomenon is real, interesting, and notable. If it should be moved to another name, then so be it, but the phenomenon should be noted in an article somewhere, whatever its name - PocklingtonDan 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would anyone want to consider merging some of the content into acronym? YechielMan 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We went through the same with snow clone and eggcorn, neologism yes, but a recognized one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eggcorn has lots of good sources; this does not. I am always a little wary when people say "this is well-known." Well-known by whom?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A neologism created on a non-notable forum. The article makes all sorts of claims for the term, including the summary's false claim that the term is used in linguistics; the concept is of limited interest and extension. Googling reveals virtually no links that aren't to copies of the originating site or similar blogs and forums. At most this might be mentioned in Acronym. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BuickCenturyDriver 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this is a discussion, not a vote. Would you give your reason for keeping (and, if possible, explain why you disagree with those who argue for its deletion)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Bob 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. neologism. Eusebeus 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this is a widely used term, as shown by the examples. There are obvious sources for the examples given, and we hardly have to prove that CAN-SPAM exists--though we do, since it has its own article documenting it. If a particular use is questioned, that one gets to be discussed on the article talk page. . If it has become widely used, it is notable. That's what notable means. The applicability of the term is proved by the two independendent sources, and that's what V means. Mel, that is why we disagree with the deletion. WP is not a fossil. DGG 10:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that there are not "two independent sources". Within the article, there are no independent sources, just multiple links to the website that created this neologism. There does exist one arguably independent source[5] using and (although I find the referencing of an Internet forum in a scholarly paper unusual!), but it does not discuss the term as required by WP:NEO, only using it in passing. This would qualify as a Wiktionary attestation as I understand it, but is not sufficient for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. So far as I can tell, all other appearances online are in wikis, wiki mirrors, blogs, and other user-submitted sources without editorial control. Some of them even make the purpose of the term's use obvious.[6] "Plugging for [this] neologism", indeed. Serpent's Choice 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the examples show this term is in wide use, rather other facts about acronyms are twisted into examples used to prop up the neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliably sourced... Addhoc 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from Wikipedia: we're not a dictionary. Offer it to Wiktionary, and if it meets their criteria for inclusion they can have it ( though I suspect it won't ! ). WMMartin 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources and failure to meet guidelines on neologisms.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability ::mikmt 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note that there's even an apronym in Wikipedia: WP:PAIN. The word "pain" seems a propos of "personal attacks." (YechielMan) 129.98.212.64 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That sort of argument would also justify an article on Hawaiio-Greek portmanteaux. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nn neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nn neologism. Move to wiktionary, it's an interesting article and term (if contraversial)

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

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

The result was merge to Rurouni Kenshin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakabato[edit]

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

This article seems to concern itself with a non-notable fictional object inserted as fancruft. The page contains no source citations, and seems to be extremely confused in general, even on the historical existence of the item. Ox-Puller 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin. The Japanese wikipedia has an article on this, but it doesn't say much more than what has been translated already. The Japanese wikipedia entry also has a mergeto tag suggesting the same thing, although it is being contested on the grounds that the sword makes appearances outside of that series. Neier 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Neier. Edison 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overzealous and misleading cruft. The first sentence in the English article says: "A sakabatō is a real type of Japanese sword." The first sentence in the Japanese article says: "A sakabatō is a fictional sword." Need I say more? TomorrowTime 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are apparently true; not a historical sword, but a real sword available in modern times. -Amatulic 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I proposed deletion is (and I'm saying this in connection to Oroshi's post as well) that fans will keep warping this entry to suit their own ideas as long as this particular weapon is mentioned in an article, unless somebody with a keen eye keeps watch and reverts every single fan entry about noble samurai who decided not to kill (huh?). See Ninjaken and Ninjato, for instance - I don't have enough knowledge to get those two in order, nor do I have the energy to fight hordes of neo-ninja with no respect for actual history. TomorrowTime 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Neier. Maikeru 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin, and mention it in Katana. There are some references to the fact that this type of sword is real, if not historically, then at least currently. ([7] as well as several eBay auctions) -Amatulic 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin, whilst making clear that it is a fictional creation. I would argue against mentioning it in Katana, as it's not a katana - any actual 'sakabatō' are just fan memorabilia. One might as well put bokken under the same heading, as it has more in common with real Japanese swords than a 'sakabatō' does: bokken are actually used in Japanese martial arts! The general consensus on Sword Forum International[8] is that the 'sakabatō' is a fiction, and while cheap decorative replicas can be bought, they are not fully functional and could not be used in martial arts. The claim on the Japanese wiki of a pineapple being cut in half validating the blade's efficacy is laughable to anyone familiar with real test cutting. Also, the traditional way of making katana precludes having a cutting edge on the back, as the sword bends naturally towards the blunt soft-steel side during the cooling stage of the forging process. Oroshi 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only suggested a mention in katana because I originally went there to find information about the sakabato, not knowing the name "sakabato" at the time. I am sure others will do the same. It seems to be a common enough question in other forums, that the katana article should at least mention it briefly by way of disclaimer somewhere.
  • Fascinating forum you pointed out. Reading a few pages into it, it seems that traditional forging processes (even simple things like a higher-temp quench) can be used to reverse-curve a katana blade, and some have been forged by forum participants. But the consensus is that these blades aren't historical, aren't practical for sword fighting, although some swordsmiths in Japan reasonably would have experimented with such a design before abandoning it. -Amatulic 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect, largely per Oroshi's reasoning, but also because doesn't appear to be referenced well enough to stand as an article in its own right. WMMartin 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, not a suitable redirect. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I walk Alone (song)[edit]

I walk Alone (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced, already exists at Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Pieguy48 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've heard this song before. BuickCenturyDriver 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't address a single thing the nominator brought up. --Wafulz 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Wafultz makes a good point below - change to Delete --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Redirect The article already exists under it's proper name. See: Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song).Ganfon 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back on Wafulz's point, I too will have to side with deleting' this article.Ganfon 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, same as above. --Wafulz 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, delete as an unlikely search term. Nobody is going to search up "I walk Alone (song)" (especially with the brackets and the capitalization). --Wafulz 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely search term, the name isn't actually used anywhere. And what's with the "mistakenly marked explicit" part? "Fucked" is enough to get the warning. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Nobody will ever search for this. Ever. Obviously, there's also nothing to merge into the BoBD article. -- Kicking222 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD, specifically Redirect criteria 3. This is about as unlikely a search term for Boulevard of Broken Dreams as can exist. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JuJube 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Umm, yes, people will search for this. Considering that "I walk alone" is repeated as the chorus of the song many times, it is more than likely that people will think that is the name of this song. I've gone ahead and boldly redirected to the existing article. --- RockMFR 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to point out that I doubt people will be looking for I walk Alone (song) specifically. I imagine that they would either capitalize the first letter in each word or just capitalize the I in the title. It's pretty unlikely they'll not capitalize walk but then do it for Alone. So while I don't object to a redirect for "I walk alone" or "I Walk Alone" (as both would be common search terms), this random capitalization is NOT common. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is where this discussion could get catapulted over to WP:RFD if it doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#R3! Bubba HoTep 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as already rightly done by RockMFR. In my travels sorting album and song articles for WP:ALBUM, I would have done so anyway. Bubba HoTep 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no one would search for anything with "(song)" after it. Maybe a topnote at I Walk Alone, which is about a 1948 film. Recury 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no use as a separate article and useless as a redirect --Pak21 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this is just a article full of junk - useless. Jordanhatch 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely redirect. Pointless article. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary as an article or redirect. —ShadowHalo 04:18, 14 January 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 complex.

This article and the issue of syndication as distribution has been the nexus of a tremendous amount of discussion:

Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1
A&B in guideline creation discussions: 1 2 2a 3
Arbitration resulting from previous deletion discussions: 1
Syndication discussion: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Following these lengthy discussion, and noting that guidelines and policies are descriptive not proscriptive, it's not unreasonable to view this deletion discussion as a referendum on the question "Does syndication satisfy the content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators criterion of the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guideline?"

Clearly the consensus is that it does not. Some suggestions exist for merging or redirecting to its syndicate,Dayfree Press but these are not supported by consensus. Delete.

brenneman 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker (5th nomination)[edit]

Able and Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

If you ever wondered how GNAA got up to 18 AfD's, here's how. The 4th nomination was speedily kept by a participating admin, but the decision was overturned at deletion review where a new nomination was asked for. So we're now up to #5. Oh, the article is about a webcomic and this is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion other than that this should run its allocated 5 days, or otherwise it'll end up at DRV again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is not the responsibility of people who want it deleted to show beyond the shadow of reasonable (and unreasonable) doubt that no sources exist now, existed before, or ever will exist. It's the responsibility of people who want it kept to provide sources, and they have not. It's been quite long enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's absolutely no notability asserted, and absolutely no third-party sourcing. If somebody can establish importance in the next five days, I'd be happy to change my !vote. However, I doubt that's going to happen. -- Kicking222 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability established and zero third-party sources. Naconkantari 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. There is no assertion of notability, and as noted above, no coverage in reliable sources.--RWR8189 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article does not give a reason to believe that the comic satisfies WP:WEB. I agree that this nomination should be allowed to run a full 5 days. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless sources can be provided that it meets WP:WEB (my poke around found nothing) --Haemo 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom users above Nashville Monkey 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per nom? Trialsanderrors listed this as a procedural listing, meaning there is no nom opinion. Metros232 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • well then if you want to get anal about it then it's just a friggin Delete vote... isn't it? Nashville Monkey 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment well considering that AFD isn't a vote and is actually a consensus builder...Metros232 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you possibly give it a rest? and maybe consider being constructive by placing yor opinion as to the article itself and not other user's choices of words? Just a suggestion. Nashville Monkey 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you possibly not call other established users trolls? Metros232 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Amarkov   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and general lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody. I at least looked at the page and the website referred to. Can't say why this should be in an encyclopedia. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a reason that there is a majority keep at Old South Road, which has no third party sources, yet this is being !voted majority delete for the exact same reasons? Which rules are we supposed to be following here, because it gives the outward appearance as a double standard to delete this and keep some sub-trivial article from Lord of the Rings just because WP:WELIKEIT. Yamaguchi先生 03:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow policy. Just because people want to keep one page for bad reasons does not mean that we should keep another one. You should point that out of the AFD for the page in question and you could consider appealing to deleteion review if you think the page was kept againts Wikipedia policies. In case you are wondering DRV can also be used to contest keep decisions. To rilteate we should not be following WP:ILIKEIT or we are going to have AFD 6 any time now. --70.48.110.117 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly systemic bias. Though as I pointed out in the Merge "vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road, lage, active fandoms like Tolkien actually produce third-party published works covering the minutia of their worlds so that alot of Tolkien-cruft meets the primary notability criterion by being covered in multiple independent works. Eluchil404 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no new information presented since previous deletion debates, no changes to notability policy. Recommend censure of those who feel that it is appropriate to continue using AfD until one gets the desired result without actually changing their arguments at all. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this doesn't seem so cut and dry. 2 of the discussions resulted in delete, 1 was keep, and 1 was speedy keep which went to DRV where it was overturned and relisted now.--RWR8189 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before we do that, we should censure the people who kept recreating the article until an AfD resulted in keep. Would you like that? -Amarkov

^blah_edits 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so many people keep recreating, it could also be a clue as to notability, of course :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Then try unprotecting the GNAA article: it must be notable, since people keep recreating it, right? :-) bogdan 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the GNAA they were actively working to subvert wikipedia. I don't think the same can be said of Able and Baker (what with them being fictional creatures and all :-P ) Kim Bruning 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: I've seen several people ask you to insert some claim of notability into the article itself. It might be a good idea to provide that data in the article itself. Could you quickly do so? Thank you! :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done for ages, though I've clarified it in the article. The problem isn't that the article doesn't assert notability - it's that people with no knowledge of the larger subject (webcomics) are making judgments of notability, and people are treating this as a democracy in that "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch" sort of way. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is more that the article has no reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the definition of reliable sources being applied to articles like this is useless, and has nothing to do with reliability. The sources being used for this article would be considered reliable for any reputable study of the subject. They are what would be used for scholarship and journalism about the subject. But this whole debate has nothing to do with reliability, and everything to do with using the word "reliable" to mean "notable," which is misleading and wrong. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any kind of claim to notability or any references in the current revision of the article. Perhaps they have been lost during previous edits? Could you (re-)state them? --Kim Bruning 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wait, you made an edit just now. Hmm, I'm still not entirely sure how that makes the comic notable. Would you care to explain? Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Have a look now and see if that helps. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a statement of notability now. Kim Bruning 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this comic is in no way notiable FirefoxMan 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; No assertion of notability. No reliable sources that verify notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect - If this AFD isn't given 5 days then it will mirror the GNAA AFD pretty well. This article should be deleted but someone should make a neat article (or just redirect to Animals in space) about notable space simians Able and Baker who are notable and have many Reliable Sources [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Previous AFD commentators have pointed out a general failure in meeting WP:WEB and WP:RS. I searched google, google news, google archives etc and found no media mentions for the webcomic itself. Also I searched Jim Burgess and found no media references to the comic author. We should redirect to Animals_in_space. --TrollHistorian 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or just write an article about the actual monkeys. Either way, this has to go. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good idea, but I think Monkeys in space would be a slightly better target. Able and Baker were both monkeys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record: GNAA managed to make it up to 18 nominations because basically a number of bureaucracy-fans didn't give a hoot that GNAA was damaging wikipedia, as long as people followed their own precious process. (As I discovered during one fine overnighter, until eventually several stewards dropped by and terminated the gnaa-nomic alliance for that night at least). Many moons later, finally someone decided to ignore all rules and just zap the article. Game over! ;-)

In fact, I'm feeling a lot of "process process process" vibes right now:

Discussion with the previous closing admin? What's that?

Go talk with him! He might actually provide some kind of reasoning!

This article has previously been fine since 2005 and has had many contributions from many contributors. Perhaps it could be improved somehow? --Kim Bruning 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has no Reliable Sources, it can't be improved. And getting many edits is not a proof of notability: see Gay Nigger Association of America, which had 2722 edits. bogdan 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I've asked Phil Sandifer (who is apparently a subject matter expert) to find some. If he knows his stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to do :-) . As to GNAA, isn't that what I said? :-P It got kept for bureaucratic and/or conflict prevention reasons for quite a while, until someone just deleted it per IAR. --Kim Bruning 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Opinions made after additional information about notability 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(move your statement here if you have indeed reviewed the article)

• Tentative keep, looks like the article now does claim notability, at the least. Kim Bruning 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting response from Phil Sandifer (or perhaps one of the article authors) Kim Bruning 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no desire to go find mine, so still endorse my original delete !vote. This is going to have to be relisted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How can we improve the article further? Kim Bruning 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability's fine; it wasn't really my problem in the first place. My problem is that there are no reliable sources (for that matter, no sources at all outside of the official website). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, notability isn't fine; nothing shows that this specific strip is notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have read the additional claim to notability, and I agree it makes a claim to notability, but the article still has zero independent sources. Keeping in mind that everyone who is involved in the world of webcomics as a creator, reader, or critic has access to the Internet, I don't think it's asking too much to require independent sources to establish notability of this comic under WP:WEB. I don't think we need a re-listing; the supporters of this article had ample warning that independent sources were needed. --Metropolitan90 05:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My vote has not changed, regardless of claim of notability it fails to meet WP:WEB and back that claim up with something verifiable and reliable. --TrollHistorian 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Delete, per my above view. Please don't change the format of an AFD in the middle of it. Naconkantari 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto above users, you should know better than to change or modify an Afd during it's process. You want my opinion? It's still ↑ up there where it belongs. Nashville Monkey 08:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is up for deletion, it would be unfair if people couldn't actully change the article to fix the problems as people mention them. It's an aspect of consensus. :-) Kim Bruning 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Where are the sources? Why haven't any been found after all this time? WarpstarRider 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no WP:RS or WP:V bogdan 09:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The evidence for keeping it is that it has a notable publisher. Is everything from a particular publisher notable? Is it being asserted that everything they do is good? What Ive been looking for is numbers about readership or whatever passses for it on the subject. Or sources with critical attention. None have been offered. If it existed, we could evaluate it. As far as I can tell, its only source of critical attention is this discussion. DGG 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again - I continue to be baffled by the willingness of people who seem to have little knowledge of the subject to declare what a reliable source is and what the notability standards are, even when people who are familiar with the subject and (in my case) working academically on the subject assert otherwise. AfD increasingly resembles two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner. Phil Sandifer 13:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the claim to notability is still not yet obvious. Apparently people still require reliable source(s) to back up why this comic is notable. See the opinions of other people above for how this could be achieved. Also, a reasoning as to why it is reliable might also be welcome, as many wikipedians are not webcomics experts. Could you provide that? --Kim Bruning 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - basically, there are two types of webcomics. The first are independent ones - self-published, either hosted on the writer's own webspace or on a free webcomic host. These comics are sometimes notable - indeed, Penny Arcade, which would be a strong contender for "if we include only one webcomic, this must be it..." falls into this category. Then there's the second category - comics that have been picked up by one of what one might call the webcomic syndicates (Though syndicate is an odd term, since there's not always the sort of external publication that one gets from a newspaper syndicate). These syndicates are picked by editors who are respected figures in the webcomics community, and create a sort of brand identity of webcomics. Keenspot and the Modern Tales set are probably the two most important, but also on the list is Dayfree Press, which has some of the most important strips going on in webcomics - Questionable Content, Dinosaur Comics, and Girly. The editor of Dayfree Press, for example, was named one of the 25 big names in webcomics in 2004 by Comixpedia - one of the major places one goes if one is looking for information about the larger webcomics community. (Websnark and The Webcomics Review are the two other biggies at present.) Able and Baker is a member of Dayfree, and has thus been identified by an important figure in webcomics as an important webcomic, and has become part of a significant brand identity in the webcomics world. Ergo it is a notable topic in the coverage of webcomics. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is picked up by Dayfree Press, which is indeed a notable "syndicate". That does mean that it has been identified as an important webcomic. That does not mean that the particular webcomic is notable, or that the particular comic has reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the comic is a reliable primary source. The Dayfree website would also be a reliable primary source. I'm not sure I see the problem here. As for notability, that the comic was picked up by a notable syndicate ought, I should think, make it notable. It was, after all, judged significant by a notable figure in the field (the editor). Phil Sandifer 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. Every scientist Lloyd Cross collaborated with isn't notable, every game Nintendo published isn't notable, and every comic strip Dayfree Press picks up isn't notable. Notability must be established seperately for a seperate article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic collaboration is a stranger issue, since grad student/professor collaboration is very important in the sciences, which raises a special case. I would, however, imagine that every game published by Nintendo would pass AfD. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a secondary source which confirms Dayfree press does indeed host it? Can you provide a secondary source for any of the character descriptions in the comic? Can you even provide secondary sources about the author himself? --TrollHistorian 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Dayfree isn't a reliable source on what it hosts? Phil Sandifer 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said secondary sources. The fact that none of the article has citations or references to anything but the author's site and the host's site is a serious issue. We need reliable secondary sources WP:RS, the only good a Dayfree link is for holding up the verifiability. --TrollHistorian 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Not knowing this area of publishing, I ask you seriously if you think everything published/distributed by Dayfree has been notable? everything? There must be very few publishing entitiies of any sort of whom this can be said.DGG 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please if this is syndicated by dayfree press that is notable enough for me Yuckfoo 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that something exists doesn't mean it automatically gets into wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (no change of vote) there's still no sources, so problems with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB still exist. I'm inclined to think that if after all this time and effort no sources have been found, it's probably because they don't exist. It certainly isn't due to lack of attention to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above is a duplicate !vote reiterating comments made above)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article as it stands now is a perfect example of what happens with articles about non-notable fictional works; there's nothing but plot summary. Unless you can say something substantial about it, or cite some secondary source, there isn't a legitimate piece of article content to be had. The fact that it's published in a syndicate can be reflected in a list of comics published by that syndicate, and it doesn't really take more than one line there to give a decent summary of what it is. the rest is just getting into a level of detail unverifiable by secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I assure you, none of the problems of this article are unique to non-notable fictional works. Phil Sandifer 23:45, 15 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge[edit]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Ye Winston Old English Bulldogge was speedily deleted, ostensibly as a breed failing to assert notability, but dog breeds don't have to pass WP:CSD#A7 so the deletion was overturned at deletion review and the discussion now moves here. Note: Please heed WP:CANVASS. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the history of the breed is located here Headphonos 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not CSD. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the total lack of verifiable information and lack of available sourcing. Currently the article has no assertion of notability and the only source is a homepage for the breed. The AKC doesn't register this as a breed, and probably consider them to be nothing more than mixes with consistent characteristics. Searching for the term Winston Olde English Bulldogge brings the Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors as the first results, and the search also returns results for Old English Bulldog, making it almost impossible to differentiate without checking each and every source. If this has been contested so hard, the editor doing the fighting should have produced some sources by now. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lankybugger, try "'Winston Olde English Bulldogge' -wikipedia" in Google to get all non-Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror hits; this gets 426 hits, none of which belong to a major kennel club or other reliable source on dogs. Thus, the Winston Bulldogge fails the importants policies of WP:V and WP:RS, so it has to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A paragraph in another article would suffice. Xiner (talk, email) 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable type of dog. Edison 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the sole breeder. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I searched and searched for this breed while I was waiting for the Deletion Review process to end, and found nothing that indicated to me that the article should be kept. I also searched for this breed while developing my perspective on the Olde English Bulldogge and the Wilkinson Bulldog, respectively kept and deleted recently per AfD. Regards, Keesiewonder 10:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a "dog peddlers dog" and the citations are to more dog peddlers touting their wares. User:PBurns3711 15 January 2007

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Yamato (Star Trek)[edit]

USS Yamato (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completing incomplete AfD by anon user -- non-notable ship, worthwhile content summarized on ship's class page; page should redirect to that class page. --EEMeltonIV 11:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you want, withdraw this nomination, and make a redirect yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. I've done it twice. This seems an apt way for this annoying anon user from complaining that it needs to go through AfD. So, *shrug* might as well. --EEMeltonIV 11:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable Star Trek ship, important appearances in two canon episodes. JIP | Talk 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone had redirected this to Galaxy class starship, and then an anon came along and claimed that it had to be AFDed first. This is false. Turn back into a redirect. This is an incidental ship, and 90% of the content of the article is a plot summary of the episodes in which it is seen. Very little is known about the ship per se, and what is known can be perfectly well covered in a single paragraph in Galaxy class starship. Morwen - Talk 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, the article is completely unsourced. Iffen someone wants to fix that, I'm not opposed to keeping then .... WilyD 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: all encyclopedic content is already in Galaxy class starship and useless as a redirect (that's what USS Yamato is for) --Pak21 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Pak21. The article also doesnt feature any additional sources or important information. Overall, poorly put together.Ganfon 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pak21. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, non-notable fictional ship, no substantial coverage in reliable real-world sources. Sandstein 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this with Star Trek. BuickCenturyDriver 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you don't mean with Galaxy class starship (Star Trek) or somesuch? There is no appropriate place in the Star Trek article for this to go. Morwen - Talk 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Has enough information for a page, first Galaxy ship to be destroyed/lost, canon in two episodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Important enough for a page. Not every ship mentioned in Trek is as important, but this ship got two episodes with one basically fully devoted to her.--David Foster 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek). There was no need for this article to be AfDed in the first place, as the AfD started due to a misinformed anon thinking an article has to be deleted before being made a redirect. Redxiv 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect, but do not keep. Not notable enough in its own right- a ship that appears in two episodes is pretty fancrufty, especially without reliable sources to establish notability. -- Kicking222 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Galaxy Class Starship as above. Kyaa the Catlord 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - this is not good: little real-world assertion of notability, severe problems with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FICT, WP:RS. Trekkiecruft and Gundamcruft? All the same to me. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek) per above comments. RFerreira 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a dedicated Trekkie/Trekker ( call me what you want ), but I do feel we're getting over-enthusiastic in our coverage of Trek. David Foster is wrong when he says that the ship is important because it appeared in a couple of episodes: no-one is ever going to say something like "Do you remember that episode with the USS Yamato ?". What they might say is "Do you remember the episode with Nagilum ?", and when they look for Nagilum here they'll get directed to the appropriate episode. We have to distinguish between the notable and the merely crufty. I'm in favour of a Merge and Redirect per RFerreira. WMMartin 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - it's a notable ship - but not article worthy :-( thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Notable, but for a whole page? Probably not, but include some facts about her in the merge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|contribs]]).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no reliable sources were found.. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Wars By Web (second nomination)[edit]

Advance Wars By Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The game was already deleted a while ago but I don't know if the content is similar. Either way, the current article is not verifiable through reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:WEB. Nothing from Google Wafulz 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you can say "Nothing from google" when when I do a search it comes up with "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,400 for "Advance Wars by Web". (0.25 seconds)" Some of the fun links I found from it:

• http://www.wayoftherodent.com/backissues/71cover.htm
• http://www.racketboy.com/retro/2006/01/play-advance-wars-against-people.html

I'm sorry but I'm a bit new to this, are you saying despite having over 38,000 results on google and approximately 32,000 registered users on the website doesn't make it "notable"? Painezor 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment if you look at WP:RS you'll see wikipedia doesn't give blogs much credit at all. Since anyone can trivially write and publish a blog entry blogs usually don't meet WP:RS. So you should argue that these aren't blogs and show us evidence they are reputable sources, then integrate them into the article. --Quirex 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no good reason to delete an article about a popular website like this. - MTC 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. By "nothing from Google" I meant I couldn't find multiple non-trivial independent sources. I never once mentioned notability. The two links you've provided look to be minor gaming sites- one doesn't even have information, it just basically says "this is my favourite game" in a blurb. --Wafulz 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless someone is going to provide some non-trivial references, WP:WEB is a good reason. The second URL above, incidentally, implies copyright violation - if correct, the link should be removed even if the article is not. CiaranG 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... as for failing WP:WEB I direct you to the 38,000 :). Still having a look around for the WP:RS thingy, it would help if I had a clue. Painezor 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what part of WP:WEB does it pass? I can find no media mentions, and no reliable secondary sources. You need 2 or more reliable secondary sources to pass WP:WEB or you need 1 notable web award or someone has to include this pages content elsewhere. Perhaps you want to try WP:SOFTWARE. Can you find any non-blog coverage of the game? --Quirex 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 23:07, 14 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Doctrine[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, appears to be an essay of some kind, or other original research --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Cleanup Have you tried searching "Discovery Doctrine" on Google? Even a wikipedia article mentions it. Right now it reads like a personal essay, but it is a legit topic. —Mitaphane _talk 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nothing here is sourced, if it can be cleaned up then great, but without sources it fails WP:V and WP:OR. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify. Easy to find sources for this. It's a shame the articles currently blows though.
  • http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html
  • http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
  • http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/Dec04/Recent%20Cases/US_v_JohnsonFTX.pdf
  • http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=2541
  • http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Discovery+Doctrine%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search --Wafulz 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Definitely a valid topic. Cleaned it up a bit, using some of the sources Wafulz pointed to. It definitely needs some more work, though. I'm certainly no expert in the field, so I'm not sure if I got the most important bits. -- Jonel | Speak 08:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify per above. Wryspy 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks much better now, thanks for the good guys. Consider me a Keep now too - someone can speedy keep this now if they want. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rewrite and rename [[Discovery (legal doctrine)]]. The doctrine is a well known one, and should be sourced easily enough. Ohconfucius 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rewrite? I just did... with sources... about two days ago... What is wrong with the article as it is now? And why the rename? The sources clearly use "discovery doctrine" as a phrase, sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, but the term is certainly used. -- Jonel | Speak 07:56, 13 January 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. —Cryptic 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain (internet)[edit]

Public domain (internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

too short to be a article Tooshorty 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (although "too short" is not really a deletion argument) since almost all uses of "public domain" at IANA's website are the usual understood intellectual property meaning.[14] -- and there are no occurences of "private domain" at all. This is simply a misunderstanding of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed that there is some sort of fundamental misunderstanding here. The author appears to take "public domain" to mean "place where you can post content", but then compares this to a Generic top-level domain. I don't think there's an article here. Wickethewok 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dicdef of a term that isn't used this way. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per above--SUIT⁴² 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy something so bad it must be a troll. (The author is so proud of it that he cites it on his RfA.) -- Hoary 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, and I read the RfA. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor definition of public domain, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 06:18, 11 January 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. --Coredesat 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHistory[edit]

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

Wiki failing WP:WEB. No reliable sources of information about WikiHistory. It doesn't seem to have been around too long and doesn't have many entries. PROD was removed by article creator, so its been brought here. Delete. Wickethewok 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --BozMo talk 10:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the deletion policies, the Wikihistory page is just as encyclopedic as any other page, does not defame anyone, contains information about a significant Wiki (over 1500 pages). There is no policy for how long a resource has been around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcoombs (talk • contribs)

• Please read WP:WEB, as I suggested to you on the talk page. It outlines a couple of the basic guidelines for web site articles. Your website does not meet them. Wickethewok 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't make the grade yet. Nuttah68 17:43, 13 January 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. --Coredesat 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXL Magazine's XXL Albums[edit]

XXL Magazine's XXL Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This appears to be a list of albums a particular magazine gave a particular rating; Wikipedia should not be a database for all critical reviews of everything (because where do you stop?). This posting was previously speedy deleted as a copyvio, but while I think the cover gallery fails to qualify as fair use here, I don't think the list in this article is itself a copyright infringement; the magazine didn't make the list (as far as I know), it instead made a series of choices that can simply be documented in list form. This list is akin more to a list of films Roger Ebert gave thumbs up, rather than Roger Ebert's Top Ten best films of 2006. Anyway, we should delete it based on the topic to give it finality. Postdlf 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added to this AFD XXL List of Reviewed Albums, the intended parent for the above, which looks like it is to be just a list of every album ever reviewed by XXL. At a minimum, the separate list of albums rated "XXL" (it's the highest rating as well as the magazine title) should be merged back there, but both should be deleted. Postdlf 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just a list of albums without actual content. Wikipedia is not a list repository. JIP | Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could cascade into an unmaintainable list. Bubba HoTep 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete There doesn't seem any discussion about deleting a similar list of ratings from The Source magazineList of The Source-rated albums. If one is acceptable so should the other. User:BryanCUFF 18:55, 12 January 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. --Coredesat 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Dickie[edit]

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

This article has been prodded twice and its been removed once by an anon IP and once by its creator. As diligent as this game designer is, I do not think he meets WP's criteria for verifiability as the subject lacks reliable sources. Google searches for "Mat Dickie" yield 140 hits, almost nothing I would consider reliable. The article cites 2 sources; however one is his own website and the other, from Scunthorpe Telegraph, is more about his dealings with D12 and Michael Jackson rather than his accomplishments as a game designer. I also suspect WP:VAIN as the creator has only edited this article. Whether that is true or not, I don't believe this subject meets any criteria for WP:BIO. Mitaphane _talk 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as both non-notable and unverifiable, per the above.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With only one source, and not a particularly relevant one at that, it doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Side note - if you're not sure if this is vanity, it's perhaps not wise to make such an accusation. The text doesn't seem particularly POV to me, for the most part. CiaranG 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, particularly with reference to concerns on sources, which look poor to me. WMMartin 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Street Fighter (video game). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major Street Fighter characters[edit]

List of major Street Fighter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Aside from the fact that this article's title is a complete MISNOMER (none of these characters are major in any way other than being fighters), it's more of a list of trivia than an encyclopedic list og characters. Jonny2x4 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Whether this is kept or not, the Trivia sections are full of OR and, well, trivia, and should be nuked. Wickethewok 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR; there is no criteria which defines "major" in the world of SF. Ironically, in terms of SF's story, these characters are minor, hence the reason why "they do not have enough information about them to have their own articles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaphane (talk • contribs)
• Delete All of the useful information should be taken over to the Street Fighter (video game), since all of these "major" characters are from the first Street Fighter game. That pretty much m4akes them non-notable, since the Street Fighter series didn't gain prominence until Street Fighter II. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Street Fighter per above. JIP | Talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Street Fighter (video game); none of these characters are notable for much more than trivia. Yes, even Retsu. JuJube 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Street Fighter (video game) - lack of criteria for inclusion & most seem minor players. SkierRMH 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per JuJube and SkierRMH. BuickCenturyDriver 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No criteria for 'major' characters of a relatively overlooked video game. Current article is fancruft, and presumably contains original research. --Scottie theNerd 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominator. Combination 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Street Fighter (video game). As mentioned, Street Fightert didn't gain prominence until Street Fighter 2. --Alan Au 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Street Fighter (video game) - If something has to be done about the article, at least this is the better solution. (BackLash 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Most of the revelant non-trivia information was present in the SF1 article before you created the article. Jonny2x4 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Street Fighter (video game). Street Fighter II has had a great influence on our society. To remove the minor characters simply because they didn't appear in as many games as others would be absurd. Also, to remove the minor characters would do the series no justice. I say merge them with the first game.
• Rename to List of minor Street Fighter characters. The Star Wars articles have lots of "List of minor Jedi characters" and "List of minor clones" pages. Things like original research should be removed, but that results in a clean-up tag, not a page destruction. Kimera757 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that theres already an article titled List of minor Street Fighter characters, which itself is also a misnomer considering that it's really a list of NPCs mixed with supporting characters from other media versions of Street Fighter. Jonny2x4 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like that page doesn't exist. It could have been renamed, had it "lived". Kimera757 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Street Fighter (video game), but that leaves the problem of what to do with Q's entry then which is smack dab in the middle of it all.--Kung Fu Man 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. The article name is misleading; it should be "minor" not "major."Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge--D-Boy 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup, though with caveats, first the article's title should be re-named, as per suggestions on this AFD. I would re-name it, but I don't know what an appropriate name would be. Second that the bias in this article is cleaned up, and if it is not, no bias against a re-nomination in a few weeks. If this is done right, concerns over size issues on Muhammad can be dealt with. I leave the name change up to talk on the talk page. Cheers!. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Muhammad in the West[edit]

Image of Muhammad in the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Obvious POV fork of the article on the Prophet Muhammad. Any useful information can be incorporated into the article on the Prophet Muhammad itself. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does "The West" mean exactly? "West of whom"? I know that it is generally used to mean Europeans/North Americans but the term is not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion in the title. Title should be more specific. To many people, Arabs are also "Westerners" as are Russians although Russians say "Westerners" for other Europeans.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpelstiltskin223, for future AfDs, please notify the user who has created the page. I've updated the page and add more information. --Aminz 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge - back into Muhammad per the above. Article is almost entirely written from one source, and is short enough that anything useful can be merged back. I am a big fan of the philosophy that that sub-articles should not be created until there is enough NPOV material on a sub-topic that for reasons of space a split is necessary. This article doesn't meet that standard. - Merzbow 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is not a POV fork but a main stub article created very recently. Encyclopedia Britannica has a detailed article on this very topic. See [15]. The book "Muhammad in Europe" for example is also on the very topic. [16] The sources used are also all reliable sources. --Aminz 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Merzbow and Rumpelstiltskin223 Nashville Monkey 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Merzbow. Aminz initially wrote the respective section in Muhammad in a POV manner, and when the section was NPOVed by other ediotrs, he copied his initial version of the section into this article. This is a clear POV fork. Beit Or 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A POV fork. There is no good reason the verifiable and NPOV content of this article cannot be covered in the main article under a heading such as "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If a separate article ever becomes justified, such a title would be a much better name for it than "Image of Muhammad in the West," for reasons given above. Nick Graves 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a POV fork. Please check the page. --Aminz 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I have a lot of respect for you, but this article is very POV - making statements like "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities" like they were fact, and other statements. Most of the wording you use in this article was rejected by other editors when you inserted it into Islam and Muhammad, but you're putting the same wording back up here. - Merzbow 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, thanks for your kind words. please see this by Bernard Lewis [17]. (starting from "The west too...")

Muhammad was once viewed as a demon, Lewis says. After refomations and after the crusades, he was viewed as a self-seeking imposter. Lewis says: "The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter." Now, either Modern scholars or Medieval ones were misunderstanding?

Merzbow, I can send you the journal article from which I took "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities". At least it is a POV. I am fine with attributing it. --Aminz 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article - the phrase would have to be attributed and reworded to make it clear what "the misunderstandings" were specifically that he thinks were brought on. - Merzbow 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this attempt to have Aminz personal and biased version of a section in the Muhammad article published elsewhere. -- Karl Meier 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image of Muhammad in west has already been discussed in Encyclopedias and this topic definitely deserves space on wikipedia. TruthSpreader^reply 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you believe that the fact that the subject might be notable, makes it a good idea to keep what is nothing more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article? -- Karl Meier 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to "Understanding of Islam in the West" or similar - although article contents as definitely POV at the moment this is an important topic - the Danish cartoon controversy, for example, shows the different attitudes and understandings between East and West on matters of Islam. I think the current article is too specific and POV but could be expanded into something much more worthwhile. - PocklingtonDan 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Muhammad article is too long anyway, this topic could be expanded and does not duplicate it. --BozMo talk 10:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think article has potential of getting expand. Muhammad article is already too long we can keep the start of article in Muhammad and expand it here. --- ALM 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Rename For two main reasons 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on this topic 2. The information merits a separate article but with a rename. --- Palestine48 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has potential. I'm not sure about renaming to "Understanding of Islam in the West". That's a vast topic, and would encompass everything from the 6th Century to 9-11. It might be better to have an article striktly focused on how the Prophet himself has been viewed rather than Islam and Muslims in general. -Doc^g 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Use of the term "The West" in the context of this article is unencyclopedic, due to its ambiguity, and because the terminology is POV-centric. What is "The West"? And, more importantly, who defines it? Is it the US, the Americas, Europe? Does it include Australia, even though that continent is geographically east? What about the large portion of Russia that is part of the Asian continent? Are Israelis "Westerners"? What about Palestinians living in the same region? Why separate the views of eastern non-Muslims (Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) from those of western non-Muslims? What about the views of Muslims who live in "The West"? Are these not "Western" views of Muhammad? A much clearer, less POV-centric, more encyclopedic title for this article would be "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If the article is kept, a summary paragraph will still need to be included in the Muhammad article. Nick Graves 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a summary paragraph with a pointer to longer article is quite normal. As for the 'West', it is a bit vague, but not unencyclopedic. It is used for short hand in many academic discussions to mean Europe, America and those part of the world sharing much of their their cultural assumptions (so yes Australia and NZ etc.). THe nations that would once largely have been seen as predominantly Christian. As for Muslims in the West, there's no explicit reason why they shouldn't be included, although probably only in so far as their views might be distinguished from other Islamic views of the prophet (I don't know whether they can be or not).--Doc^g 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently does not define what it means by "The West." If the term is commonly used in academic discussions to mean Europe and culturally related countries, that ought to be clarified and works cited to support the distinction. I found that Non-Islamic views of Muhammad already exists, and this article is redundant with that one. What is the justification for keeping this separate article? Nick Graves 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should see how Britannica Encyclopedia is using that. In medieval times, it refers to Europe I think. This article focuses on the views about Muhammad as they historically developed and explaining the reasons behind this development etc etc. Non-Islamic views of Muhammad presents different sample views of different scholars but not in a systematic way. --Aminz 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article currently consists mostly of a list of quotes, which is a weakness. However, the namespace is a natural home for the contents of this article. Nick Graves 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge to Depictions of Muhammad.--Sefringle 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any reasons behind your recommendation here? Also, please note that image in the title of this article refers to views or opinions about Muhammad, not pictures or visual depictions of Muhammad. The article you suggest as a target for merging is not appropriate for this article. Nick Graves 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I generally try to avoid political, religious, and political-religions articles, but I have to say, all these articles that keep getting created (like this one) are just serving to make wikipedia ever more a publisher of original thought, essays, and synthesis, however "encyclopedic" the article's title makes the page sound.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be POV but it is not OR. --Aminz 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The section for which this article is supposedly an expansion is actually entitled "Medieval Christian views of Muhammad"--that's a huge disconnect. I would have to agree with Dmz5. This article is a synthesis of views of various authors (heavily weighted toward Muslim scholars), and thus constitutes original research. A more apt name for the article in its present state might be Muslim views about the image of Muhammad in the West. Nick Graves 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand why somebody calls it POV. There are different POV about him in the west. We can't merge it in the main article(Prophet Muhammad) because that article is long and this is not a main issue. So we should make a new article.--Sa.vakilian 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title certainly isn't a problem. The famous scholar Maxime Rodinson has a chapter on "The Western Image and Western Studies of Islam" in the Oxford University Press book The Legacy of Islam. It's the article itself that is the trouble. It's incredibly POV and inaccurate in its current state. Using just one source for this kind of thing is never a good idea. It is perfectly possible to have an article on this subject. Whether that means delete and wait for someone with better info to recreate, I don't know. --Folantin 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please use the sources to include other POVs as well. --Aminz 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the resources at the moment. Currently this piece is little more than opinion-mongering. How about some mentions of Dante, Edward Gibbon or Thomas Carlyle and their very different takes on Mohammed? --Folantin 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article doesn't touch post-medieval times. The work of Thomas Carlyle should be mentioned as it was a break-through. --Aminz 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• stong keep and rename to Christians view of Muhammad, making it a sub-article to Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. Having this much content on the christian view would seriously unbalance the Non-Islamic views article, that article already having to much christian views material compared to other religions and non-religions. So, merge the chritian views of the non-Muslim view article to this article, and make a short summary there. I am going to be bold and do that, except for the renaming part. --Striver - talk 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like your idea of changing the name, though I would tweak it to Christian views of Muhammad (there is more than one Christian view). Nick Graves 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the North Korean views of Muhammad?--Patchouli 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not, just fix enough material to make it worth an article.--Striver - talk 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Well sourced and nicely written.--Patchouli 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doc. metaspheres 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Beit Or, POV fork. --Magabund 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a special aspect is not a POV fork. That there was once a negative image in the west is not POV; first of all it's objectively true, and it can perfectly well be used equally to show the ethnocentricity of W Europe. DGG 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact remains that this is incredibly POV as it stands. There is no attempt to explain why such a negative image arose. Western contacts with Islam hardly began with the Crusades. Heraclius and the Battle of Poitiers, anyone? As I've said, it also has little about later attitudes, particularly those of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment figures (e.g. Voltaire's highly ambivalent attitude towards Islam and Mohammed). At the moment it is an extremely crude, black-and-white propagandistic piece, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. There's a quotation from Jerry Vines, but no reference to Louis Massignon (there is a longish Wikipedia article on the latter).Using this article to "show the ethnocentricity of W Europe" is hardly going to solve the POV problems here. --Folantin 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, you are right. The article lacks the views of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment people and most importantly the view of Modern scholars. Please help. It is 100% justified to add POV tag to the article. --Aminz 11:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm relying on memory and I don't have the resources to hand at the moment, except for that Rodinson chapter, which is good but relatively short. It also deals with the image of Islam as a whole in the West, rather than Muhammed in particular, and it makes no mention of Carlyle, who is probably going to be a key figure in any article with this title.

However, I will attempt to do what I can for the moment. I can also recommend a few sources which those with access to a university library may be able to use to fill out this article. I'll make any further comments on its talk page. --Folantin 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well-sourced and encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Important comment:The article Userspace Folantin2 has been created in article space, claiming to be a sub-page of this article. J Milburn 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, I've fixed that now. --Folantin 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "Any useful information can be incorporated into the article on the Prophet Muhammad itself", incase you haven't noticed, the Muhammad article is getting waay too big.Bless sins 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest renaming to "Western views of Muhammad".Bless sins 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KeepInteresting topic that deserves coverage--CltFn 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as "Western" not "Christian" is in the title I plan to expand this to cover figures such as Voltaire, Gibbon and Carlyle who were Western but not really practising Christians. --Folantin 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why lump Christian views of Islam together with those of secularists and humanists, while excluding those of Hindus and Buddhists? Christians have a lot more beliefs in common with Muslims than they do with secular humanists. This distinction between the West and the East really makes no sense in the context of this article, and is quite arbitrary. And what about Jewish views. Do they come from the "East" or the "West"? Nick Graves 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of "West" in the title is not arbitrary since major scholars like Rodinson use it. See also: Islam and the West by Bernard Lewis, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West by Gilles Kepel, Islam, the West and Challenges of Modernity by Tariq Ramadan, The West, Islam and Islamism by Caroline Cox and John Marks, Islam and the West: Conflict or Cooperation? by Amin Saikal, Islam and the Medieval West by Stanley Ferber, and - above all - Islam and the West: The Making of an Image by Norman Daniel and Image of the Prophet Muhammad in the West by Jabal Muhammad Buaben. You can look "West" up in a dictionary: it means European civilisation and its offshoots. Voltaire, Gibbon, Carlyle et al. emerged from the same culture as Dante and Peter the Venerable and this article should examine the shifting attitudes of Westerners towards Muhammad (it is often very difficult to assess just how Christian, agnostic or atheist some of the major Western figures are after the Enlightenment). Hindus and Buddhists have had a completely different historical experiences of Islam so their attitudes towards Muhammad should have separate articles. --Folantin 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete* as per nom. (There could possibly be an article on this but this is not it. ) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV Saying the truth 16:09, 17 January 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.