< May 1	May 3 >

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

The result was merged to CD by nominator. - Chaser - T 15:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunger (song)[edit]

Another non-notable Steve Holy song; barely cracked Top 25 on country charts. Also makes no assertation of notability, contains no actual text, just an infobox and table. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked regarding the last one of these, can't this be speedied? I thought there was a CSD for "nothing but infoboxes/templates", but I could be wrong. If it can't be speedied, then delete per our verifiablity policy and precident having established that even Led Zeppelin don't get articles on individual songs unless the song itself is somehow notable. Heather 22:59, 2 May 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. Tyrenius 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kirk-patrick[edit]

nonsense Mseliw 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've nominated this for speedy, no reason to go through AFD on something this blatant. Someguy1221 22:17, 2 May 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush, Jr.[edit]

Jeb Bush, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)This article is a walking BLP violation. Bush hasn't done anything notable during his life, but because he's related to a prominent politician, he received some small degree of media coverage when he was arrested on a pair of comparatively minor offenses. It's just not reasonable for us to have an article about every person who had sex with their girlfriend in high school, or drank alcohol from an open container in public, and since those are the only things about Bush that have attracted any public notice whatsoever, they create disproportionate weight within his article. As such, I think this should be deleted. Please note: it was nominated for deletion once before, and that discussion closed with no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr.) -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - you can't get much more notable than the Bush family. He's the next generation and is already finding his way into the news. Think of the Kennedy children. andy 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the comments below I've changed my mind - merge and redirect andy 06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just being in a famous family doesn't make you notable. If we used your reasoning, Andy, we'd have to have articles on all kids of presidents. And we don't. I'm not sure that we need an article on most of the people in the Bush family category, to be honest, including this one. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I hadn't looked at the category; I assumed that it'd just be Barbara and GHWB and people like that. I mean, I can't imagine why we'd have an article on someone like Timothy Bush. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before somebody gets the idea to nominate Timothy Bush et al. for deletion, I would suggest merging them into the Bush family article. The following should probably be merged: Timothy Bush, Timothy Bush, Jr., Obadiah Newcomb Bush, James Smith Bush (merger will likely reduce the total amount of text, as some repeated info on relationships can be dropped). The next generation after that (Samuel P. Bush) seems notable enough, but some minor Bushes in later generations could probably be absorbed by the family article as well. Pharamond 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some others, too, like Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay. The whole category needs a good going-over. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's Wikipedia precedent that children of Presidents are automatically notable, if only because they generally receive an enormous amount of non-trivial third-party coverage. Amy Carter had something like 500 articles in major magazines written specifically about her. But this guy is a nephew of a President, not a child, and I don't think he's notable, so Merge the Bush nephews and nieces either into one group or into their parents' articles. --Charlene 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeJeb Bush, Jr., Timothy Bush, Timothy Bush, Jr., Obadiah Newcomb Bush, and James Smith Bush to Bush family. A Smoking Gun copy of a police report which says that Jeb Bush, Jr., as a teenager, was caught having sex with a teenage girl in a car or that he got drunk does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. For cripes sake, we routinely delete articles about murderers and rapists. The only reason to keep a standalone article about a nonnotable offspring's juvenile misadventures would be as a way of discrediting the politician dad or uncle. Per WP:N, notability is not inherited. For that reason and because Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, the non-notable ancestors of the Bush family do not qualify for standalone articles either. They go into far more detail than their own references justify. They lack multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage on them apart from their contribution to the gene pool. Merge and chop out the genealogy cruft and miscellaneous details of their rather average lives. Edison 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd oppose merging the non-living Bushes. The articles make a pretty good case for individual "notability," but let's leave that out of this discussion about Jeb Jr. and take it to the talk pages with the proper merge notices if we really want to merge them with Bush family. --JayHenry 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Merge as noted by Edison -- notable, but not so much to be his own article. Bearian 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jeb Bush unless much better sources are provided. My traffic violations are public record, the only reason Smoking Gun didn't publish them is that my dad's not famous and I wasn't having sex when I received the tickets. More important, I think there are real verifiability, living person and reliable source issues here. Without further sources, we don't really know what happened from the arrests. Were charges pressed? Were they dropped? Were the initial reports accurate? Smoking Gun isn't a very reliable source when it comes to follow-through reporting or correcting previous omissions. --JayHenry 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think children of presidents are one of the very few exceptions where people are notable just by being relatives of someone. The reason for this is that the public typically does find their doings notable; additional news stories could undoubtedly be found--if the NYT noticed this , lots of less staid papers would have. DGG 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone at The New York Times just died a little death because you confused them with the New York Daily News. --JayHenry 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Jeb Bush, Jr. is not the son of a president. He's the son of the Governor of Florida, the nephew of one president, and the grandson of another. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if we assume that this is a 'private' individual per BLP, most of the information can be sourced to a secondary RS, and there is nothing in the writeup that sounds malicious - as the nom himself has pointed out. Don't see any automatic BLP issues. Hornplease 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did a Nexis search and I can't find any reliable secondary sources about any of this information. The only secondary source is the one New York Daily News story. I think there certainly are WP:BLP issues, because this article is almost entirely about legal misconduct. But we don't have the sources to say how any of those situations were resolved. What if the police admitted that the arrest was a case of mistaken identity? We would have no idea. We don't have enough information to determine that this is complete and therefore accurate. I have no confidence that this entry is adequate; since it concerns legal misbehavior that's a big red flag for me. --JayHenry 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could go either way here. If the US were a monarchy, he'd stay like numerous otherwise nn children, nephews, etc., of heads of state, because there's some reasonable chance he'd rule (he'd be 2nd or 3rd in line under Salic law, given that the current pres. only has daughters); but we're not. That being the case, what claim to fame does he have? What has he done that stands him out? Apparently not much. If he was Joe Blow with the same "accomplishments" he'd be out in an instant; so how much does "famous" breeding count? If he stays, we should be prepared to keep the nephews of the presidents of France, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, etc. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, this nowhere near a WP:BLP violation. Not even close. RFerreira 07:14, 5 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Drapeau[edit]

From prod. Prodder had WP:BIO concerns, there might be some hints of notability. Punkmorten 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if he actually played for the Habs at any point instead of being drafted-and-dropped; delete otherwise. Presumably one of our Canadian editors can answer that one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per satisfies general guidelines of an athlete. He has played high level amateur/major level sports. the_undertow ^talk 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies general criteria of an athlete. Sr13 (T|C) 02:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming the facts on the page are correct; he satisfies WP:N as an athlete. JodyB 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the above arguments - I don't see anything to prove notability. Iridescenti: According to the article, he didn't play, he was just drafted. Thus I think you may want to change to delete. Oh, and JodyB, you linked to the wrong page (I think), so I changed your link to WP:N. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said if he played as the article as it stands doesn't make it clear whether he's played as yet. If he has played - even if the article hasn't been updated to cover this - he should be kept. Where's a French Canadian when you need one? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If we adhere to Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports, then he passes notability. I am also curious if we can get a French speaker to translate a few sites, as he gets quite a few hits. I wonder if he is notable as a musician. the_undertow ^talk 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article were to be kept, you'd have to include more details like the vitalstatistics of the player, and note any notable events during his career as well as a short biography and section on personal life.--Kylohk 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as he played for the team. Maybe expand the article a little more.Shindo9 Hikaru 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NHL keeps historical information on players that have played at least one game. Here is the entry for this individual. -- Whpq 16:25, 4 May 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 per consensus; CSD A1 also applies. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pfargtl[edit]

Violates WP:NEO, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. I'd note, for reference, that this word is apparently considered too minor for the Homestar Runner wiki. JavaTenor 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Someone's redirected this; ~~I've reverted it for the AfD~~no I haven't, someone beat me to it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or speedy redirect. Not sure if anyone would ever even search for this word, let alone use it for information. (I made/reverted the redirect by the way). --Wafulz 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, someone mentioned only once in email? No. The best would be redirect, if you understand what it means. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, not notable.--Dacium 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless, non-notable. The picture dominates moset of the article and the rest of it is useless informaton Elfin341 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NEO and WP:WEB. Delete corresponding image. - Chardish 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1. Sr13 (T|C) 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn-neologism. —dima /talk/ 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JodyB 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not notable per WP:FICTION. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect, until it proves itself to be a meme on the level of fhqwhgads. I doubt it will. JuJube 04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NEO Thunderwing 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism without reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 20:54, 2 May 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. — Scientizzle 01:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Bambery (2ND NOM)[edit]

Second AfD. First one was anemic. Still no references, still not enough notability, still going nowhere. -- Y not? 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last AFD's keeps were entirely over her work with the NRA. WP:BIO says she personally needs to be the subject of secondary sources that are reliable. THe only sourced coverage is trivial.--Dacium 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fopkins | Talk 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dacium. The sources I am looking at are surface and unreliable. Without references, this should go. the_undertow ^talk 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, unreliable sources. Sr13 (T|C) 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One would think there would be some notability for the staff counsel of a lobbying group. So, if it's not here she's sure not notable. JodyB 03:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIOShindo9 Hikaru 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Picaroon (Talk) 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connor_Wilkins[edit]

Extensive profanity and hate speech and no purpose for an article Commodorepat 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - In fact, I just tagged it. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Useless as an article, no referances, contains profanity/nonsence, nn notable, could even be made up Elfin341 01:00, 2 May 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 user subpage can be considered on MFD if needed. --Core desat 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stephanie Miller Show bits and gags[edit]

Indiscriminate information. Good trivia for a fansite, but this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also largely unsourced, and being a live radio show, probably largely unverifiable too, but even if everthing was sourced that wouldn't make it any more suitable for Wikipedia. Saikokira 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can obviously be saved else where, not notable. The individual gags would need sourcing for each one that is independant of the show, this is never going to happen, the sources currently are primary, in that they are the actual gags themselves, not indepedant coverage.--Dacium 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really believe this article should get deleted, then you should also nominate Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show for AfD. --SM Fan 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to The Stephanie Miller Show, then delete ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the article is junk anyway (Wikipedia is not a directory), and it's not notable at all. Sr13 (T|C) 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic information that doesn't even really warrant merging back to the parent article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if for no other reason than the majority of these things aren't remotely original to the S.M. Show. I was expecting this to be about substantial segments of the show, like "Right Wing World" and "News We Don't Want to Lose" but instead it's an indiscriminate listing of every trivial laugh line and impression. Otto4711 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information. -- Whpq 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: All this information used to be in The Stephanie Miller Show, but the article got to be too cumbersome and unwieldy, so the information was split into its own article. --SM Fan 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up The article has been copied to User:SM Fan/List of Stephanie Miller Show bits and gags, with an edit summary of "in case it gets deleted." This might be against policy. 129.98.212.50 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Tower Defense[edit]

Non-notable Flash game. Fails WP:WEB. Entire page is original research. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Chardish 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - : Contested prod that was removed by an anonymous user with very few edits without leaving a reason. - Chardish 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete This article is a video game walkthrough. Although it produces some ghits, it doesn't assert notability. the_undertow ^talk 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, does not show notibility. Its not verifiable outside itself. Is largely against WP:NOT for the indepth unit details. Would consider revising if any notable indepedant publication is shown and included.--Dacium 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, hardly reviewed in WP:RS, WP:NOT a game guide. Aside: this is a fun game, even though I suck at it. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower defense, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD, Turret Defence, and Flash Element TD. (Some duplicates, some variants of the original.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a video guide or walkthrough (WP:NOT) and fails WP:WEB. Sr13 (T|C) 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because violation of WP:N and its a basically the same game as Flash Element TD.Shindo9 Hikaru 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these games might be fun sometimes but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information like game guides. -- Mithent 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article or bring back the Tower defense article and merge this into it. I just added a reference to it specifically, which is actually very tiny part of article, but I thought you all should know that that's what has been said about it so far as far as notable goes. Also when I search for news articles on just "tower defense" I get a total of four results. --luckymustard 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails across the board. We don't collect trivia on everything ever created here. WP:NOT covers that in various forms.--Crossmr 19:55, 5 May 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. However, given the extremely high participation level of this debate, I think it would do to explain my take on the debate overall. First, the !vote is split nearly even. The main delete arguments are that this is a topic about the speculative future, and issues of OR. First, the OR concern is not explained well and seems to be misplaced (or, is on-target only for a part of the article that could be edited out). It's the crystal ball argument that is the major concern. But then, many keep comments have ignored that this is on a "crystal ball" topic and pointed to the sources as justification for keeping, but some have addressed it: this is not, they say, a topic about a hypothetical future event, but a topic about a movie project that has never gotten off the ground. When viewed that way, notability is a concern, but one quickly laid to rest by the abundance of sources. I don't think the community came to a consensus here but I think this keep counterargument has not been well addressed, except by refering to "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" in a dogmatic letter-of-the-rule kind of way. There does appear to be significant consensus that cleanup is needed, though. Mango juice^talk 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Entire page is nothing but speculation; relevant information can be merged with Star Wars. Chardish 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp. There is no speculation on the pahge. It is sourced with comments from official sources. The Wookieepedian 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- o rly? I didn't see any referenced statements. There was only one link in the body. The stuff is most certainly not sourced. Milto LOL pia 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious OR problems. There are a plethora of weasel words, all adding to the notion that this is all guesswork. Is this article about the rumor itself (meaning the rumor was notable) or about the rumored films? This certainly poses a problem. the_undertow ^talk 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the article is about the actual discussion which have taken place. Only a small part, dealing with what might take place is speculative, and even it is sourced. I think this is a reasonable exception to the usual practice of not including articles about possible future films. DGG 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Wookieepedian. Article is fairly well sourced with print and online references. TheRealFennShysa 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless some AfD-happy jerk went and removed them before I read it, there is not a single referenced statement in the entire body of the article. Exactly which parts of the article do you feel are "well-sourced"? Milto LOL pia 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep yes, it's speculation, but it's sourced, however poorly. That said, it could use some workup to improve the quality since it does come across as a bit of OR. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well-sourced articles may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. - Chardish 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a position I've taken myself on other subjects, however, while this is indeed a future event, if it had occurred, there is no doubt it'd have an article. There's certainly interest today. Here's a CNN interview where the question is asked [1] to Mark Hamill about his thoughts. So, the question is, is this speculation which can be verified to having existed? I would say so. [2] is one possible source. Certainly not a great article, but it's on a reasonable subject to cover. FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - : This is not a future event; it is a speculative event. I believe that you have (in good faith) misread WP:CRYSTAL - it says that articles on anticipated events (in other words, events that are expected to occur) may be permitted under circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that a "sequel trilogy" is even being worked on, and Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids articles that consist entirely of speculation, even collections of well-sourced speculations. - Chardish 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: There's no IMDB entry for any future Star Wars films (IMDB even covers movies in pre-production) and the notability criteria for films, though still in proposal stage, states that unreleased films do not warrant articles unless they are in production and the production is itself notable. - Chardish 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point being expressed and taking an overly literal approach to rules. See WP:BURO (Mostly brought up because you asked about it below). It's clearly established that there is existing speculation on these movies outside of Wikipedia. The movies are highly notable, and therefore, a carefully written article that discusses the speculation is appropriate. Perhaps you might want to look at the WW3 AFD, another situation about a thing that didn't happen, probably won't happen, yet people have talked about, written about, and otherwise commented on it. That applies in this case as well, not just one blurb in Variety, or a single interview, but a number of sources. FrozenPurpleCube 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, and not the letter, that says that speculative articles have no place on Wikipedia. I agree that a couple of the cited sources are worth including in the Star Wars article, but a series of rumors about a film that isn't even being planned doesn't warrant its own article. It's not an "upcoming film" or an "anticipated film", it's rumors. World War III is an idea that has been explored in fiction and applied by the press to actual wars, making it notable. - Chardish 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the spirit of the section is that there are problems with unsubstantiated ideas being tossed around that never amount to anything. In this case though, even the fact of nothing happening is notable because well, several people involved in the films have said some things discussing it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, despite having serious problems. Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has serious problems, why should it be kept? I am curious. - Chardish 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the original research and weasel words can definitely be fixed. As long as there are reliable sources, WP:NOT#CBALL can be deemed void. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry to press the issue, but how can WP:NOT#CBALL be deemed void? Most AfD discussions are concerning notability or verifiability - but neither of these are the issue here. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a repository for speculation - even sourced speculation - on films that are not being produced and may never be produced. - Chardish 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because WP:NOT#CBALL says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis mine). This article meets both criteria in the first sentence, and is on a subject that is described as appropriate in the second. Therefore this guideline does not say that this article should be deleted. JulesH 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, sorry about that. Sr13 (T|C) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        These films are not "anticipated" at all, since Lucas has been saying for the past 24 years that they won't be made. They're just as "anticipated" as, say, Harry Potter 8, and any claim to the contrary is an OR judgment. - Chardish 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The films clearly were anticipated, as can be seen by the number of independent reliable sources that have discussed them. I've never seen any reliable sources discussing the possibility of an eighth HP installment. Besides, the last phrase in the section I quoted clearly acknowledges that discussions of whether something will occur or not are a form of anticipation, and that is the kind of discussion we have here. JulesH 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Being "anticipated" and actually going into production are two different things. What you are condoning is that we create an article for every dick, jane and harry film that any studio "would like" to make, but never actually even starts the process for. .......Did you guys hear that?? Warner Brothers wants to make a movie about Wikipedia, let's create an article called "Wikipedia (film)". I mean, it isn't like that belongs on the Wikipedia article, it's something that deserves it's own article outright, just because someone happened to mention the idea. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough valid sources. Needs major work to remove unsourced and unverifiable details, but enough of it is verifiable and sourced.--Dacium 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, TheRealFennShysa is a significant contributor to this article (History), and thus has breached WP:COI by voting here.

I don't see anything in WP:COI that says someone who contributes significantly to an article isn't allowed to take a position in an AfD. Craig Butz 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:COI does not prohibit participation in AfD discussions when one significantly contributes to an article, but attempts to prevent participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, and I see no precedent to conclude as such. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's wrong for a person to participate in an AFD for articles they've worked on, but in the interest of keeping the right appearances, it's a good idea to disclose being a major editor. FrozenPurpleCube 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a Star Wars sequel trilogy is a noteworthy historic (decades-old) cultural meme worth documenting. I stumbled across it because I was looking for exactly this kind of encyclopedic information on the subject. The article isn't speculative. It is a documented factual account of a speculative subject. We don't delete Apocalypse and Rapture because they're speculative (and less likely to occur than further Star Wars sequels.) Craig Butz 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apocalypse and Rapture are notable aspects of notable religions. The study of religion deals with matters of speculation, and it's acceptable to assert what people believe about those events. The study of film, on the other hand, is concerned with films that have been released or films that are in production. It is not interested in vague rumors about upcoming films that may never be made, especially when the official statement of the filmmaker is that it will never be made. I challenge you to find another article about a film idea that is not in any stage of production. - Chardish 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you suggest another film idea that would be as notable as these would be if they were to be made? JulesH 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For many committed Star Wars fans, it seems a Star Wars movie that will never be made is only slightly less real than the ones that have been committed to celluloid. Looking at the sheer length of the article, which goes on and on and on, one appreciates the true dedication that StarWar fanatics bring to their craft. (The reworking of the projected timeline from 40 to 39 years is a good example.) But, ultimately this is an article about a movie (or movies) that don't exist. You don't need WP's Crystal Ball guideline to tell you that this isn't right: that's common sense. Eusebeus 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The sequel trilogy was inherently notable, as part of the Star Wars series. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blantant original research and speculation. Mangoe 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, not original research at all, contains important historical information about Lucas's plans for the film series and how it changed over the years. That Lucas originally said there would be nine stories in the series is widely reported and hence notable. That such films will probably not be produced (at least in the near future) does not make the article any less valid. Meets the tests suggested by WP:CRYSTAL for valid articles discussing speculative events. JulesH 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research often has a lot of sources too. This article is basically a synthesis of a bunch of primary sources, trying to assemble a picture of what may or may not be happening. By WP standards, it is original work. Someone else could put together the same or additional sources and come up with a different conclusion. Mangoe 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What conclusion does the article make? It doesn't advance one position or another, as far as I can tell. Zagalejo 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - : It is worth noting that the article on the upcoming sixteenth season of the reality show Survivor was deleted, even though it is very likely that the season will be produced. The notability of Star Wars does not mean that speculative rumors about Star Wars are notable. - Chardish 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that this argument is just the negated form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the comparison is ludicrous. Frankly, the yet-to-be-made sixteenth season of Survivor is substantially less notable than the possibility that additional star wars films will be made. What can be said about Survivor 16? It is the (numerous) discussions that have occurred about whether these films will be made, leading towards the conclusion that they won't be, that makes the idea notable. What discussions have occurred about the possibility of Survivor 16? Have third party reliable sources discussed the possibility? See WP:N. There have been multiple, nontrivial independent reliable sources written about this subject. Many of them are listed in the references section of the article we're discussing. JulesH 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that the article was deleted in violation of WP:NOT, which all the "keep" !votes here seem to be brushing over. I challenge you to find another article on a film idea that is not even planned to be produced. I would be surprised if there are any that have survived an AfD. The big-name appeal of Star Wars does not grant it immunity from WP:NOT. - Chardish 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, you can find many examples at Category:Cancelled films(not to mention the categories on the same branch, for television and even books). And while it was merged, Ender's Game does have a film section as well. Not quite the same, since there are plans for production, but I don't think coverage of this subject is as anathema as you think. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of those examples are of films that either had scripts written, had been picked up by a studio, or had entered production. Since none of those apply to any rumored Star Wars sequel, they're more of a mythical idea than actual planned films. I might be prodding a couple of them for lack of notability, but at least there's something concrete to base the articles on, apart from just base speculation. - Chardish 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all appropriate discussion to Star Wars. It is crystal balling to create an article on this subject, which has no real-world context (where there is supposed to be one, as opposed to abstract topics like world peace on Wikipedia). Discussion about the film should be preserved, but needs to be referenced inline better and fall under a broader topic, in this case, Star Wars. When this trilogy is actually produced, and there are no signs of that at the present, then this would warrant its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any potentially encyclopedic information. For the first comment by Wookieepedian, The opening sentence doesn't help the article any by proudly proclaiming that it's all "rumor". Sorry, that IS speculation. Since Wikipedia is not a rumormill, this does not need an article, nor mentioning on any other article. Reliably citing some fanboy that says he thinks Lucas might make more films, just because he didn't deny not making the films, is not what we call "reliable", nor does it change the fact that it's speculation. It's all conjecture, based on interviews with Lucas, where people are simply saying "oh...Lucas said this..that's interesting...may he was hinting at making more Star Wars films". It has information like "fans thought", what fans? How many fans? Too many "fans think this"; very weasel wordy. Even better, directly from the article - "Currently, there are no firm plans to produce these films. Lucasfilm's stance is that the six Star Wars films comprise the entire story Lucas intended to tell, despite mentions to the contrary in the press and official publications over time.". Also, "canceled films" and "films that will never be made" are not even close. One deals with films that started to get made, but didn't make it, and the other is about films that are not planned, but more of a fanboy's wet dream. Basing an article on an interview that is 29 years old (speaking of course about the part that says Lucas originally planned 12 films) is a little weak. Especially following recent interviews with him stating that he isn't going to make another film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above the article begins by saying this is a "rumor". That sources exist for a rumor do not make it any less speculative. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. To all the folks saying "Look, it has sources! Sources = not OR!", may I remind you of WP:SYN? That Lucas may have originally written the saga in 9 (or 12) episodes may or may not be the case, but it has become abundantly clear by his own mouth that the 6 now released encompass the entirety of his story. There are no plans to film a sequel, and again, Lucas has expressly made this clear. The bits about having written more stories in the past may or may not be important to the history of the development of the Star Wars theme, and if so can be mentioned elsewhere. How anyone can argue to keep an article that, according to the people in a position to decide, will never exist, is baffling to me. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there is enough valid references to keep, although a cleanup is necessary. Thunderwing 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These rumors have been bouncing around for decades, and I think it's nice to have an article that presents everything that's been said about the issue. (Regardless of what Lucas has said, lots of people still do believe that there are plans for three more movies. It's basically an urban legend.) And I don't see how WP:SYN applies. The article doesn't present an original argument; all it really does is list a bunch of quotes. Zagalejo 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people you say? How about this many? Hmm...no..I think it really takes this many. So, you're saying that this page discusses an urban legend? That's funny, "regardless of what Lucas has said, ther eare lots of people that think there are plans for 3 more movies". Basically, you're saying that regardless of the fact that Britney Spears says she isn't psycho, that of lots of people believe it, then we should put that in her page. The logic behind any argument for this page is priceless. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to cite that? I don't have any statistics, but c'mon, this is common knowledge. I mean, look around: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (I'm not suggesting these should be included in the article; I'm just trying to demonstrate the prevalence of the rumor.) That Britney Spears analogy is pretty out there... Zagalejo 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bignole. The point of avoid weasel wording is to use attributable sources that reflect the widespread nature of certain information. In addition, the Internet can be misleading in terms of judging the public perception. For example, there's a vocal minority protesting Michael Bay's direction of Transformers, but that shouldn't be translated into a larger number. If attributable sources reflect that fans are interested in a sequel trilogy, then that can be reflected. Articles are supposed to be read like the person has never been aware of the subject before, and should be backed accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this 2004 magazine article that says, "But as we went to press, a nasty rumor started floating around the Web that Lucas is actually seriously considering making the Episodes 7 through 9 movies now." I'll see what else is out there. Zagalejo 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge? To whom? It isn't common knowledge to me. I was aware a long time ago that there were more than just 6 stories, but never that Lucas intended to make them, especially after repeated (recent) interviews stating he wasn't. Common knowledge to fanboys maybe, but you can hardly say that what is common knowledge to the whole of society (e.g. 2+2=4) is equivalent to what is common knowledge among a select group of people, especially when the information in question is really "commonly awknowledged rumors". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to request for people to consider what would constitute an article. Some films, when initially announced, do not always enter production right away. If production never takes place, then there could never be enough content to create an article of encyclopedic length. I don't have an issue with the references used in the article, but they can be built into the real-world timeline of Lucas's plan for his Star Wars film series. Especially considering that he does not plan any more films, the information should be merged into Star Wars. The content is redundant, can be cleaned up in a more succinct manner, and placed in a more suitable location on the main Star Wars article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main Star Wars article is already 62K, so expanding it any more is not really a good idea. The information in this article is not a particularly important aspect of the overall subject and does not warrant space in such a cramped article -- the main thrust of it is about the history of the development of the series, and how Lucas's ideas have changed over time, from 12 films to 9 and finally down to the 6 he now seems content to finish with, which is of interest primarily to those who find the history of films and the process of writing interesting (i.e., it is a minority interest subject compared to many of the other sections in the main article). JulesH 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So now we have to create articles about how someone's opinion changes over 29 years? First, the Star Wars article is not 62kb long. What it says on the edit screen does not reflect the size limitations per article. You have to remove all HTML code from the the equation, because any characters, including spaces, are counted in that particular size total. Regardless, there is not enough encyclopedic content (when removing all that "the fans think" crap that isn't allowed in any other article) that would create a problem when merged into the series article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a History of Star Wars article, then? Lucas's plan could be outlined in more than just the trilogies -- permitting the Expanded Universe, creating the Clone Wars series, etc. It just seems misleading to have a "Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)" article when there really isn't any trilogy. The information about this planned sequel trilogy isn't substantial enough to have its own article. I just think that the content could be relocated in a more suitable and encyclopedic location. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Delete per nomination. — D. Wo. 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Shindo9 Hikaru 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflicted comment: Normally a movie (or even three) that was at one time planned but ultimately not made would not merit an article because there would not be independent, reliable sources discussing such movie. However, this may be an exception, as the article quotes (but, frustratingly, does not cite) sources discussing the (apparently planned at one time) sequel trilogy. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Wars without a redirect, then delete. Granted that Lucas has indeed spoken about a third trilogy (thusly, I'm for merging some of this information), but he's waffled about it and has not only not put it into production, he's in fact made clear his current intentions of going no further. Despite his reputation for changing his mind in this regard, all of this pretty much makes this article speculative and crystalballery. The root article would be a better home for discussing this in some brief, unless somebody at Lucasfilm actually does something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is original research via synthesis. Perhaps Wookiepedia wants it; if so, it should be transwikied; if not, then it's probably not worth keeping. *** Crotalus *** 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references seem valid, and for the most part from reliable third-party sources. While the movies are not likely to be made, the fact that they were at one point considered and referenced in national press such as Time confers notability, IMHO. MikeWazowski 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were mentioned in "TIME" over 20 years ago, in a passing interview. Speaking of which, those "TIME" links seem to come up dead. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs some rewriting, not much though. Very well referenced too, all quotes are sourced, and there appears to be no blatant speculation and wishful thinking. I generally accept that unless a movie is in production there shouldn't be an article, but this has been speculated and mentioned for 30 years, and is surely notable as a phenomenon if not actual produced films - it's not guessing dates and actors as WP:CRYSTAL violations usually do, nor does it seem to be under any illusions that a sequel trilogy will actually be made. --Canley 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are funny..."The sequel trilogy was a rumored film trilogy sequel to the original Star Wars trilogy, to be made by Lucasfilm." The entire article is blatant speculation, based on synthesis of interviews with Lucas, where there are even instances in this article with sentences like "this sounds like Lucas is hinting that he may make the films". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boom-tish, we're here all week, try the veal. --Canley 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These statements show original research, point of view, and speculation.

rumored film trilogy
a sequel was inevitable
this remains conjectural
Lucas is reported to have
Although no longer widely accepted, it was once commonly believed
An interview from May 2002 has another interesting quote
Lucas has been known to say one thing and do another in the past, so many fans still hope

the_undertow ^talk 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that they do show OR, but if you're concerned about them, feel free to rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was concerned, I would rewrite. However, I feel this article does not meet guidelines for inclusion, so I'm not sure the jab about 'feeling free to rewrite' is appropriate. Besides, rewriting original research would logically result in the same original research, simply worded differently. I think you meant I should source it, and that I have tried. the_undertow ^talk 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, the problem is, this isn't Wikipedian's saying this stuff, thus it's not *our* original research. Somebody else doing their own research? That is acceptable for inclusion, as long as it's published in a more or less reputable source. Which is clearly the case here. Thus as I see it, if you do have a concern with those words, it's a concern for the choice of words, not a concern for the subject itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand what you are saying, I have a problem with the subject as well as the words. They are not mutually exclusive. You assert that the article is clearly cited, however, the items I listed are not sourced. But this is good to discuss, as there seem to be many users involved in this particular AFD. the_undertow ^talk 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesized original research. Very weak sourcing. — MichaelLinnear 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative cruft. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) Here are some sources that might help. I found these on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis. I think it's painfully obvious that this was a popular rumor, at least at some point.

"Call them the Phantom Movies. During the prerelease hullabaloo for "The Empire Strikes Back" in 1980, George Lucas suggested that the Luke Skywalker saga would not be complete after three films, or even six films. He spoke of intentions to make "Star Wars" a nine-installment franchise. It was widely reported in print throughout the 1980s that he would create two follow-up trilogies, one going back in time to explore Darth Vader's roots and another turning the clock ahead to revisit the further adventures of his heroic son Luke Skywalker. Yet it looks like that third set of films has vanished from the radar like a starship locked into lightspeed. According to Lucas, the new Jedi epic "Revenge of the Sith," is the swan song for the series. He believes the third prequel, which follows Anakin Skywalker's devolution into Darth Vader, provides the closure fans seek." (Lisa Rose, "Six is enough - Or is it? Lucas denies ever planning 9 episodes," Star-Ledger, 20 May 2005)
"After Star Wars took the world by storm in 1977, Lucas made it known he had enough material for nine films -- a trilogy of trilogies, as it were. One would take place before the 1977 film and would tell the story of Ben Kenobi and Luke's father; the other, set after the middle trilogy, would show how Luke governed the universe. By the time The Empire Strikes Back appeared in 1980, this had become the conventional wisdom. The wrinkle here is that other people who worked with Lucas haven't always adhered to the same line. In 1980, Gary Kurtz (original producer of Star Wars), told Starlog magazine he and Lucas had outlines for 12 films. But if you believe what Lucas says now, a sixology was in the cards all along." (Dan Brown, "Busting the myths of Star Wars," Ottawa Citizen, 14 May 2005, F1.)
"He began writing the story in 1971, and the first movie appeared in 1977. Lucas didn't write a draft of the vague story that would follow Episode VI, even though hardcore fans have clung to the idea that the series would eventually become nine films." (Bruce Kirkland, "By George, He's Done: 34 Years, Six Movies, One Dream Fulfilled", The Toronto Sun, 6 May 2005, E6.)
"The original films, as every fan knows, are "Episode IV: A New Hope," Episode V and Episode VI, the middle third of a once-projected nine-film epic. Lucas doesn't mention any plans for a final three films." (Gerry Putzer, "The Force is Finally With Us," New York Daily News, 19 September 2004, 22.)
"George Lucas is said to have always had a nine-film saga in mind, with the three already made in the chronological middle. But like many things about the 'Star Wars' universe, that matter is somewhat shrouded in legend. 'After the first film came out and it was a giant hit, I figured I could do three films of the backstory,' says Lucas, who plans to start shooting the fourth 'Star Wars' movie in England this fall. 'Then everybody started asking about a sequel. But I don't have any stories on that one. The only notion I've got is, wouldn't it be fun to have all the actors come back when they're 60 or 70 years old?' (Bob Strauss, "Lucas looks backward from "Star Wars'", Tampa Tribune, 5 February 1997, 5.)
"Star Wars had its world premiere yesterday, four days before its official May 19 opening. What the tout de Cannes saw was the middle episode of a six-movie collection that Lucas called the story of Darth Vader, the black-hooded villain. "It's the tragedy of Darth Vader," he said. "It starts when he's nine years old and it ends when he dies, and there really isn't any more story."That is to say, media reports of a nine-film series were just misquotes, according to Lucas." (Jay Stone, "'Just being here is an honour,' Lucas says: Star Wars director humble as new movie has world premiere at film fest in France," Ottawa Citizen, 16 May 2005, D1.) Zagalejo 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, we know Lucas was originally thinking of a nine-story series. There are sources to support that. It's just that there's nothing more to say than that, and there's certainly not enough to warrant an article. - Chardish 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC

This is mainly in response to an above comment, which says that "rumored film trilogy" is OR. Zagalejo 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at it as OR or weasel words. Who says its rumor? Fans? What fans? How many fans? I can put a rumor in a forum too, and atleast two of those "sources" are from fan sites. Official fan sites or unofficial fan sites, they aren't not reliable per Wikipedia:Attribution. For OR, you should ask yourself, who said what? If Lucas says "oh yeah, I originally had 12 stories", and you take that to mean "I plan to make the rest", that's original research. This is why Wikipedia is not a rumormill. Wikipedia is about verifiability. Yes, you can verify a "rumor" by placing a source that concurs with your "rumor", but trying to pass it off like it's some nation wide rumor by connecting interviews that are 30 years old is misrepresentative. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the best explanations of WP:CRYSTAL I've ever seen. - Chardish 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming that Lucas currently intends to make three movies! The topic of this article is the well-documented idea of a sequel trilogy. It is not inherently speculative. Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following.... I've presented several reliable third-party sources which explicitly say that there was a widespread rumor about a sequel trilogy. The quotes above are about the rumors themselves; they are not the comments from Lucas that fueled the rumors, and they are not comments from "fanboys" speculating about episodes 7-9. (These quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, by the way. They are just a small sample of articles I found using a single search term. I could keep going forever.)

For the record, I do agree that the present article has problems, but those are mainly clean-up issues. At AFD, we're supposed to vote on the subject's potential as an encyclopedia article (with the exception of copyright issues, perhaps). And I do agree that we could write a good three paragraphs or more about the origins of the rumor, its persistence over the years, and the recent denials of this rumor. There's a lot more to say about this than, say, Love's Labour's Won, a Shakespeare play that may not have even existed, and I can't imagine that article getting deleted.Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you may need to reread AfD. There is not "voting" on AfD, they are meant to discuss an article. If you simply come to AfDs to go "delete" or "keep", then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and your "votes" are probably being ignored anyway. As for what this article is. If you admit that the article is not but the "idea" of a trilogy then again, why is this its own article? You can sum up the "idea" of a trilogy on Star Wars. It isn't that hard. I don't know how many future film articles you've worked on, but there is a reason we don't allow speculation on those articles as well. Yes, it is speculation. Whether or not you want to masquerade it as just an "idea" of a trilogy, the point is that it's an "idea" the "speculates" on the future of the series. The "idea" is not definitive in any direction, and thus it's misrepresentative of what is actually happening. Fluffing a page with tons of he said she said sources, that do nothing but repeat what everying has said before (which is "yes there were other stories, but no we don't plan to make them) is not only unencyclopedic, but it's redundant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote" was a careless word choice. I know that we aren't voting here. And that's irrelevant, anyway.

I imagine this article as, potentially, explaining where the rumors for the sequel trilogy originated and then describing what Lucas has said about them. Basically, it should focus on the history of the rumor, as a rumor, rather than an attempt to describe what would have appeared in the future episodes. My sources do show that the rumor was in the air during the late 1970s and 1980s; Lucas did not clearly say, from the start, that he was limiting himself to six episodes. I stand by my conviction that this is a notable topic, and, if properly treated, it could be interesting and helpful for people who had heard the rumor at some point in the past. Zagalejo 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are already reliable independent sources focusing on the history of the rumor, it's still either original research by synthesis, or it's a collection of quotes with no purpose. - Chardish 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Lisa Rose article I quoted from above is one source that does map it all out. There's a lot more to it than what I posted, although I haven't found it available for free online, and I don't think I should copy and paste the whole thing. (If you have access to a good library, you can pull it up on Factiva.) There's also this, from about.com - would that count? Zagalejo 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If *we* take it to mean "I plan to make the rest" it's OR. If somebody else takes it to mean that, and report it in a major newspaper...it's not our OR. Argue all you want about whether or not their sources are good, it's somebody else reporting it first. See the difference? FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that this falls under a kind of original research called synthesis. Basically, the construction of this article consists of taking Quote A, finding Quote B in another part of the timeline, and bringing them together into the "argument" that a sequel trilogy was on the table at any given time. Nothing's wrong with attributable quotes when they stand alone, but when they're stitched together to make a basis for this sequel trilogy, despite the fact that Lucas has clearly, clearly stated (as emphasized by further information shown above) that the trilogy was not truly ever in development. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have to make the argument that Lucas planned to make the trilogy. We could rewrite it by simply presenting everything that has been ~~said~~ reported about the sequels over the years, without trying to make any conclusions. Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is basically insubstantial for an article. Hence my vote to merge. There is no real-world context for this article; it is inappropriately represented as a widespread phenomenon where it is only a small and unrealized consideration in the production history of Star Wars franchises. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a merge, but I'm not sure where to put it. Zagalejo 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what synthesis? Let's see, this article is about the subject of Sequels to Star Wars. Several sources clearly indicate they are talking about the subject of sequels to Star Wars. Collecting them together isn't OR or OR through synthesis. It's well, making a comprehensive article. BTW, I wouldn't object to a merge myself, but I do feel coverage is appropriate.FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's existence is the synthesis itself. It's making an actual subject out of what's been mentioned offhand in interviews. Nothing has been followed up, based on the information that this article has given. I'm not for deleting references of the mentioned possibility the sequel trilogy, I'm for deleting this article in general with the references placed elsewhere in a more succinct manner. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more inclined to believe that if there weren't articles actually written primarily about the subject. A one-off interview question? I'll concur, it's not enough to base an article on. But with these multiple articles written about the subject? That changes things. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining where the rumors originated? If they didn't originate from Lucas then it doesn't matter. I don't care if TIME magazine went on a rumor trail and began talking about a potential for the franchise, that's irrelevant to the person that OWNS the franchise. Anything that occurs beyond Lucas has no bearing on the topic of another trilogy. 20th Century Fox could say something about them, but they don't own the films, Lucas does. If you summed up the article to just what Lucas has stated, that makes it maybe a paragraph's worth of info. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you here, but only partially. If 20th Century Fox says something about them, that is worth reporting. If multiple reliable sources report on rumors of their production, that is worth reporting. But this article isn't reporting on rumors of production (or about any "films" at all, in the sense that we think about them.) It's reporting on a past idea for the films - a path that was not taken. It's not rumors, it's speculation. The synthesis here is that there is some "unfilmed trilogy" out there that's waiting to be produced, which, regardless of whether it's true or not, is still OR synthesis. In fact, anything other than simply stating "there once was the idea to have nine movies" is speculation. The problem with the article is that everything worth salvaging from it can be whittled down to two or three sourced sentences in the Star Wars article. - Chardish 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we kind of agree on the same thing, but for different reasons. If 20th Century mentions the films, it may be ok to mention that briefly in a passage, but in the end they have no say so because they just distribute the films, and Lucas owns all the rights. Without him, there are no films, and no accurate speculation for any other films. I totally agree about what is worth salvaging in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation. >Radiant< 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trevor GH5 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources referenced in the body, rumor mill. Adding a link section and calling it "references" isn't the same. Milto LOL pia 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references do exist. For example, you can find the Time articles at the magazine's online archive. Lack of sources is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to add sources. We're discussing the topic's potential, not the current state of the article.

That said, I'd like to emphasize, in case it has been lost in the shuffle, that I've found two reasonably long third-party articles that describe the history of the "sequel trilogy rumor" as a cultural meme (to use Craig Butz's phrase). The development of the rumor over time has been the primary subject of at least two articles, and likely a few more if we look through some sci-fi publications. Zagalejo 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the TIMES sources again, because I haven't seen them load once. All 3 come up with an error. They are all dead links. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do these work? [11], [12], [13]. (I'm not sure how the present article is using the middle link, but the two quotes cited in the article are real.) Zagalejo 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those all work, but they do nothing but substantiate the belief that he was going to make 10 films at the time of the original trilogy. Cut to 30 years later, he says he won't make any more. Anything that happens in between is irrelevant, because he never took steps to make the rest (minus the prequel trilogy). This is information for the Star Wars page, not its own article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Isn't a crystal ball. It sites it's sources. ^---SilentRAGE! 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read this entire page and see what the article is actually supposed to be representing. But to be clear, you can be crystal balling and still cite sources. If you sources say "we'd like to make these films", instead of "we are going to start making these films on April 5, 2008", then it's still crystal balling. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - perhaps if some more original research is inserted, I'll change to delete. But for the moment, I'm a weak keeper-K@ngi e ^meep! 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs some work, but I think it just about warrants a place. KingStrato 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead says it all. We don't include articles about rumors of things that may or may not happen. We document real life events. And taking several random quotes and putting them together and speculating on their meaning is not what is meant by meaningful referenced research. This could all be boiled down and merged into the main Star Wars article by saying, "There has been some fan speculation on a posible trilogy following the six film series" with a reference to one news article about said speculation. This does not belong here; try the Wookiepedia fork. —M (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 May 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. — Scientizzle 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dagenais[edit]

Fails WP:Bio. Looks to be advertising for his softball site to me. Creator removed prod by another editor so I brought it here. Fopkins | Talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable trainer. the_undertow ^talk 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for indepedant sources. Alexa reference is a joke.--Dacium 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced. --Phoenix (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperShadow[edit]

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO as a person, WP:WEB as a website. Entire page is original research and extremely negative. Chardish 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless one can provide verifiable references (none of which I can find). All that OR... the_undertow ^talk 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD discussions here and here. TheRealFennShysa 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - - Consensus can change, and surviving one AfD does not grant immunity from future AfDs. Besides, two years is an eternity in wikitime, and I'd like to think that our standards have improved since 2005, when Wikipedia was just beginning to attract national attention. - Chardish 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:WEB and WP:N and WP:V, as it is has no external indepedant significant sources that verify anything that is said nor do any of the external indepedant sources establish notibility in anyway. Can't justify that he is internet phenomenon with no proof at all. Majority (if not everything) is taken from primary source. NPOV problems also.--Dacium 04:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dacium. Having Internet notoriety doesn't grant one notability. JuJube 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. If he refuses to release info about himself, how do we make an article? Also, a Comment; TheRealFennShysa has failed WP:COI here (article history) This vote has been withdrawn ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dacium. Sr13 (T|C) 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails virtually every applicable guideline/policy. Being hated doesn't make you notable. --RaiderAspect 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wookieepedia already was a good article, but this is fancruft. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteViolates WP:BIOand WP:WEBShindo9 Hikaru 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this person is non-notable outside Star Wars fans (and they already have their own wiki for such things). -- Mithent 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hatred[edit]

Non notable independent wrestler, No evidence of multiple independent non trival reliable sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone please provided sources, otherwise it completely fails everything that WP:BIO is about.--Dacium 04:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sr13 (T|C) 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violate numerous policies, such as WP:BIO ,and WP:N (.Shindo9 Hikaru 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has been on The Wrestling Channel TWC Fight! Which is being on TV! Govvy 23:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merely being on TV does not make someone notable, notability guidelines can be found at WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cook[edit]

Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. I did also check into him allegedly playing for the Steelers but could find no record of a Charlie (or Charles) Cook playing for them, so I'm assuming it's kayfabe. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If kept, please deal with image problems immediately. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per he was never a Steeler, according to their official roster. That leaves us with a non notable wrestler. the_undertow ^talk 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sr13 (T|C) 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to The Wrestling Gospel According to Mike Mooneyham, Ric Flair states,

"I flew to Atlanta. I had a couple matches in some small towns. My first territory was Florida, and J.J. Dillon was the booker. It was in Melbourne, Fla., against Charlie Cook (ex-pro footballer with the Pittsburgh Steelers). I had Charlie all the way around the territory."

Regardless of his status as a professional football player (especially being under the assumption that he competed professionally under his ring name), this is hardly an obscure independent wrestler. Cook was a longtime mainstay in Florida Championship Wrestling and other National Wrestling Alliance regional territories winning several major titles throughout the southeast during the 1970s and 80s. Among his most notable feuds include Ric Flair, Dory Funk, Jr., Barry Windham and Abdullah the Butcher, defeating the latter for the WWC Carribean title in 1982. The majority of these points have been either cited directly, in terms of his championship titles, or provided by external links. In addition, he also listed in Pro Wrestling Illustrated's PWI Years as # 475 of the top 500 wrestlers of all time. MadMax 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you can provide a single non-wrestling source that he was an NFL player then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to this he was a footballer that tried out for the Steelers, but may not have made it to first grade.

You and Geto got into a program when you first came into All-South with Charlie Cook and Ray Candy. What do you recall about those two guys?

I remember that both of them were very good guys. Actually, I don’t even know if Charlie’s still alive.

Yeah, last I heard I believe he is living in Florida. I could be wrong on that, but I know he’s still alive.

The thing I remember most about him was that he was real athletic.

Yeah, he was a football player.

I believe at one time or another he had a tryout with the Steelers, which I liked being from the area. (Laughs) And I always got along with Ray. We ran into each other all the time over the years. He and I even worked together over in Japan. Every time I saw Ray he had a smile on his face. They were both really nice guys. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the link I provided above to the team roster, as I believe this to be a reliable source that shows he was not a Steeler. the_undertow ^talk 07:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although an article by the Post and Courier supports the claim that he was a former NFL player, his football career is not the sole claim for his nobility (flyers from Championship Wrestling from Florida Archives clearly show his headling many of their events during the late 1970s). The main points of his wrestling career, as stated previously, are already cited by independent and reliable sources. Again, you're basing your assumpion that Charlie Cook competed professionally using his ringname prior to becoming a professional wrestler (although admittedly I myself am unaware of his real name). MadMax 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't view the entire article, but it has the name Mike Mooneyham in it, who is the person making the claim that can't be verified by any NFL sources. Also a name on a flyer is not a non-trivial source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is the reason the CWF Archive appears as an external link and not directly referenced. I merely provided the link to illustrate a point that he headline numerous event in the promotion during the 1970s. Aside from being mentioned prominantly in several interviews (such as his feud with Ric Flair as already shown above) as well as being mentioned prominantly in two autobiographies, the cited sources include wrestling-titles.com which confirm he has held several notable championship titles in the National Wrestling Alliance and the World Wrestling Council, both notable promotions. Also, unlike the PWI 500, the PWI Years ranks wrestlers of all time which includes retired and deceased wrestlers. Regardless of your opinions, awards and other honors by Pro Wrestling Illustrated are considered notable. Weither or not he competed professionally for the Steelers does not subtract from his notability as a professional wrestler (otherwise the article would be about a football player and not a professional wrestler). MadMax 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notable" to wrestling fans possibly, unfortunately as I've explained to you on repeated AfDs Wikipedia uses notability guidelines for people which can be found at WP:BIO, so you would be better served using those. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, yet another good catch by One Night In Hackney. RFerreira 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurevich system pedagogie (Circus)[edit]

A mere list of Soviet acrobatic acts. WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not just random lists. Nardman1 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOT Elfin341 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Chardish 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those icons are annoying. :) Nardman1 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I see no problem. A little different than usual, but there's nothing wrong with a little change. Sr13 (T|C) 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT definitely applies here. --Nehrams2020 03:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Wikipedia is not--Dacium 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Sr13 (T|C) 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, esp. WP:NOT. Bearian 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOT. —dima /talk/ 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I refer you to the page on Circus Skills, and its history. The Gurevich system, created in the 1970's was the first major attempt at classifying circus skills, and was the basis for the curricula of the Russian Circus School. Comparing and contrasting this system with other pedagogies for teaching circus in invaluable to those learning and teaching circus arts. Contrary to what Nardman1 stated, this methos of organizing skills is a look into the heart of the Soviet Circus. --SimplyCircus 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on the value of this system, and for the only article ever published comparing the major classification systems for circus techniques, read The Classification of Circus Techniques by Hovey Burgess. It was published in The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 18, No. 1, Popular Entertainments (Mar., 1974), pp. 65-70. Its available via JSTOR. --SimplyCircus 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous Names and Initials[edit]

Original research, unverifiable. No sources. Chick Bowen 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't say it's unverifiable, or at least, not in concept. It is, however lacking sources. But even if that were rectified, I think that'd be covering over the real problem with the article, which is that it's going into a bit of trivial detail in listing each and every puzzle included in the books. There might be some way to cover it appropriately, but I've not seen it yet. FrozenPurpleCube 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Geocities; we don't host personal fan pages. (Not that it isn't an interesting subject, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.) --Quuxplusone 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The names and initial useage is not notable part of the works and thus does not deserve an article as per WP:FICT. The problem with this is it would only ever be sourced from primary works, which makes it all original research without a secondary reliable source.--Dacium 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very interesting, but unencyclopedic. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just extrapolation from a work of fiction. Without secondary sources it's original research. Jay32183 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very interesting, but violation of WP:OR. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG, what an ORrible mess! Ohconfucius 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I'm sure it would fit very well on a Lemony Snicket fansite or such, but it's not right for Wikipedia. -- Mithent 13:46, 3 May 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. Sr13 (T|C) 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson (Countdown)[edit]

Barely notable game show winner. This was nominated for deletion in January but it was kept, even though it was 3:2 for deleting - I'd say that's no consensus, leaning towards delete. One of the "keep" arguments claimed "it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles". I think it is unreasonable to have a Wikipedia article just for winning a series of a gameshow, especially when there have been 55 people who have done it. I have also nominated another game show winner at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Fell (2nd nomination). Saikokira 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the biography appears notable solely being the 56th winner of a gameshow. If this article stays, there is little reason for preventing the other prior 55 winners and the sequential winners after him. Fails notability. --Nehrams2020 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even notable enough to be mentioned on the game shows page under notable contestants. Fails WP:BIO as there are no external sources about him indepedant of the countdown site.--Dacium 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to be the sole keep here, unless any other UK editors are online, but he isn't just "a game show champion" - he's one of the two participants in the highest scoring game ever of the over 8000 games to date in one of the most successful & longest running British TV programmes of all time. A bit of a pain to source, both because it's such a common name it's getting a lot of false-positives, and that a lot of sources are specialist Countdown & Scrabble publications which probably won't satisfy the Non Trivial Police — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Whilst being the 56th winner is not necessarily all that notable, I agree, but I'm with Iridescenti here. Being tied for the top score in the history of Countdown probably qualifies as at least marginally notable. Now just need someone to source it! Having said all the above, there's precious little biographical material, and one/two sentences if you take out all but the assertion to notability. Ohconfucius 06:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, he was a participant in the highest scoring Countdown game ever. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 12:37, 8 May 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. Sr 13 09:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fell (2nd nomination)[edit]

Game show winner whose claim to notability is just that, being a champion of a game show. This was previously nominated for deletion in December, one of the "keep" arguments then stated "it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years) should have their own articles." I think it is unreasonable to have a Wikipedia article just for winning a series of a gameshow, especially when there have been 55 people who have done it. I have also nominated another game show winner at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Wilson (Countdown) (2nd nomination). Saikokira 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game-show contestants are only article subjects if they're notable for something else, a la Ken Jennings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ben Wilson, needs indepedant external coverage to assert notibility. Considering all the game shows and all the winners, no way they can be notable. I have played on a kids game show years ago, im totally not notable.--Dacium 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Can I draw your attention to Ian Bayley, David Edwards, Darryl Francis, Ian Gillies, Stewart Holden, Mark Labbett, Sarah Lang, Ian Lygo, Graham Nash, Mark Nyman, Clive Spate, Ingram Wilcox, Chris Wills and Ian Woodley, all of whose notability are questionable. Andymarczak 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on Fell or the others, but Mark Nyman should be kept for reasons that are obvious if you read the page. He is to Countdown what Ken Jennings is to Jeopardy. JulesH 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per rems on Ben Wilson above - Fell was one of the others in the record-breaking tournament — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomShindo9 Hikaru 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Whilst being the 48th winner is not necessarily all that notable, I agree, but I'm with Iridescenti here. I believe he's a slightly stroger keep than Wilson, his chains of centuries is notable in the history of Countdown probably qualifies as at least marginally notable. Again, just need someone to source it! At least there's a little biographical material... Ohconfucius 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Julian Fell broke several records (twice) on a very popular and notable UK gameshow. He got considerable press attention for this at the time. I have cleaned up the article and added two refs. Two to national print newspapers articles (anyone with Lexis or similar can verify them) and also to an article at bbc.co.uk. I've removed some of the excess detail and kept it to the references. I would argue that he is by far one of the most notable winners of the show, and should not merely be seen as 1 of 55. I should declare a COI- the subject of the article is known to me. WjBscribe 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --Core desat 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1988[edit]

I'm struggling to find some sort of verification that this MuchMusic countdown show is in any way an official music chart in Canada. The main Countdown article offers nothing, at it is entirely original research. If these number-ones are not derived by record sales or radio airplay, how are all of these lists notable? Couldn't the same be said for, example, a list of number-one videos on TRL? - eo 01:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1989, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1990, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1991, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1992, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1993, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1994, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1995, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1996, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1997, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1998, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 1999, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2000, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2001, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2002, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2003, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2004, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2005, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2006, MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2007. Mystache 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would it be possible for all these be made to one entry? It would make the process much easier. Mystache 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do that. If someone knows how, that'd be great. - eo 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it. Mystache 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that! - eo 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because these kinds of articles make me cry. Oh, and because they're indiscriminate information that's merely listing various song lists. It's not that much more encyclopedic than zip codes or phone directories. FrozenPurpleCube 03:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The L-word. JuJube 04:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we have this thing for the Billboard Hot 100, then why is this being AFD'd? ^cont ygugsa295 _talk 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Because the Billboard Hot 100 (and various major Billboard charts), as well as other charts that represent a country (UK Singles Chart, Australia's ARIA Charts, etc.) are official, i.e. these are charts based upon radio airplay and record/digital sales. There is some validity behind them, aside from their impact on popular culture (and I don't feel those lists are indiscriminate). Who is ever going to do a search to find out what video was #1 on MuchMusic's countdown in August 1991? And who even makes up those charts? The execs at MuchMusic? - eo 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft. Oh, and that's a lot of articles. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, the national charts seem to have lost all relevance in their own right. See this article or this week's chart. There aren't even enough physical singles sales to compile a top 20 anymore. –Unint 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banish the lot as being a catalogue. Ohconfucius 07:05, 3 May 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; closing early since consensus is clear. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Moment[edit]

An amusing hoax (I guess...). `'mikka 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody's private joke, apparently. Possibly a stealth attack page on someone named Monica, but who knows? Unencyclopedic in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite an elaborate hoax. Searching for the phrase on Google turns up information relating to the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, but that's it. With no sources, this should definitely be deleted. --Nehrams2020 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are obvious 'monica moments' to do with monica lewinsky, but it is at best clear WP:NEO violation.
Delete thinly-veiled attack page. JuJube 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Someone named Monica is known to her friends as being forgetful, so her friends refer to each other's forgetfulness as "having a Monica Moment". Croxley 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Most people under 40 probably associate this phrase with moments of obsessive cleanliness per the character on Friends. This isn't funny enough for BJAODN, alas. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly gentle attack page. Note that it's the sole contribution of a single purpose account. BTLizard 09:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —dima /talk/ 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; hoax written all over it. Sr13 (T|C) 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- mildy amusing- but a hoax all the same. Thunderwing 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An entertaining hoax for a change but still a hoax. Seed 2.0 20:22, 2 May 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. — Scientizzle 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Myers[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is now an ECW superstar. This should stay. Why is this up for deletion but his partners page is not. If one stays so should the other.68.161.137.141 13:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Superstar" is a bit strong but he is a visible performer for the world's biggest company. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The world's biggest company"? Errr.... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry. For anyone who didn't realise that I was referring to a wrestling company as part of this AFD on a wrestler who is an employee of a wrestling company and the subject of a wrestling-related article, I meant to say world's biggest wrestling company. I apologise wholeheartedly for any confusion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So by that argument, anyone working for McDonald's is notable enough for an article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Active performer on ECW. It does need some work but that shouldn't be hard to do. 60.226.158.198 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a big win over the New Breed this past Tuesday on ECW just to add to that. Rick Doodle 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, they're now a regular part of the ECW brand. --CWSensation 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on ECW with a big win recently MPJ-DK 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As very often One Night in Hackney doesn't do any research, he just loves to search for stuff to delete! :/ unfortunately a wrestling star who wins in the WWE is normally on the roster for a few months and will get noticed. Having just won makes it very noticeable and will no doubt have a good push that will increase world wide notability. Govvy 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did research and there is no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources. In fact not one of the people saying keep has produced a single source to verify anything in the article, so I'd suggest they might want to do it now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that hard to find some bits [14], [15], [16]. It's not major, but it shows notability, and again, winning in WWE gets you a run. So you shouldn't be prodding this, but sticking it on your watch list. Govvy 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should put all the other articles I've just found on there as well? Like The Major Brothers and The Majors Brothers and Matt Cardona. I definitely think one article could be a good idea, but four is pushing it somewhat. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with those article ONIH. For now there is no reason for them to have seperate articles (the same reason both of The Highlanders share an article). TJ Spyke 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no problem withdrawing the nomination if the merge is going ahead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ye four is a bit much, but I still prefer if we had separate wrestler articles, because we might be able to find some independent stuff. Govvy 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails to provide anything in the way of reliable sources. As far as I know, the biggest company is Wal-Mart, but working there doesn't make you notable by association. RFerreira 07:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I think he meant is that wrestlers in WWE should be considered automatically notable the same way anybody competing in the NBA/NFL/NHL/etc. are considered automatically notable. I have merged the two tag team articles into Major Brothers, and for now that is where the individual two should be merged as well. There isn't really enough to justify giving them individual articles yet since they have had only 1 match on TV so far (this week). TJ Spyke 06:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Wrestling Fan[edit]

Does not seem to meet notability, all refs in the article are self referential, no outside perspective of notability. Ruhrfisch 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete podcast article with no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources? How is the official site not a reliable source? I hope you delete every podcast that uses its homepage as a reference then.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JalenJade (talk • contribs)
- The sources have to be independant of the subject. TJ Spyke 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable podcast, lots of podcasts are distributed on iTunes. TJ Spyke 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete official websites are never reliable sources. JuJube 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Secondary sources are lacking. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the rating on the Digg page not prove notability as this has been voted in so to speak? Gigolo
Delete Non-notable in general and when applying the guidelines the podcasting project is using. Leaves just a tiny bit of a VSCA after-taste (or is that my OJ? ;). Seed 2.0 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable in the slightest. RFerreira 07:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip de Vellis[edit]

Besides having created that infamous anti-Clinton video on YouTube, de Vellis is in no way notable according to WP:BIO. Not much can be said in this article aside from the creation of the YouTube video. Crashintome4196 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created a popular YouTube video, then quit his job. And that's apparently about all there is, notability-wise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His biography is non-notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and WP:N failure.--Dacium 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTubecruft. JuJube 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the video was not notable enough for its own article, and based on that alone he is not really notable himself. He gets mentioned in two articles as the producer of the ad. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussions by JuJube and Dhartung. Bearian 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO and everything else as well. RFerreira 07:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Phoenix (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stage compiler[edit]

The term "stage compiler" seems to have been made up by [17]; it gets no relevant Google hits. I don't have any experience with Prolog; maybe someone can shed some light on that aspect. However, it sounds like the writer meant either "multi-pass compiler" or "bytecode compiler". Quuxplusone 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Nothing in Google Books either (except references to "two-stage compiler" or "three-stage compiler"). I would suggest a merge but I don't think it's clear that either of the two articles Quuxplusone lists are more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in any of my available references on compiler design. JulesH 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this compiler can't be verified by multiple perspectives on the internet. Then I can also say that it is not notable, and shouldn't be here.--Kylohk 22:49, 5 May 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 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sadler[edit]

This article appears to be legitimate, but a search for a few days turns up no reliable, independent significant sources about the man and his trip to North Korea. I have vaguely heard of a man that fits this description, however, as searching yields nothing, not even a confirmation of an urban rumor, I don't know if this article is for real. The topic is sufficiently current and of the stuff web blogs are made, that I think something should show up on the Internet with simply searches, as there is nothing, I don't know if this article is for real or not. I suspect not. If it is, he's not currently notable enough to keep this particular article about him. KP Botany 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed your AFD for you. --Quuxplusone 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator now claims to be Paul Sadler, thus delete per WP:COI violation. Makes numerous unbelieable claims, is totally unsourced and not verifiable.--Dacium 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:RS. COI isn't enough on its own to delete an article, and it isn't even needed as a deadweight for this one. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Sounds a lot like a WP:HOAX --RaiderAspect 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried finding sources and information for this article. I found people called Paul Sadler, but none were even close to what this article is about. I suspect it's a hoax. Acalamari 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgot to post my delete. Quuxplusone, thanks for the fix. I swear I thought I did everything. KP Botany 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:V Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of inclusion. WikiFishy 03:13, 5 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ports in Greece[edit]

1. Satisfies WP:CSD A 3: Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages.

2a. WP:NOT #2: Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.

2b. There is already Category: Ports and harbours of Greece which contains most of the articles in this list. Cowbert 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Tag the list appropriately for improvement, but don't delete as per Wikipedia:List_guidelines. It seems difficult for me to even see how it could supposedly satisfy speedy deletion criteria. As for #2, it is not a mere collection of links because it can be used for content development (#3 in Wikipedia:List_guideline). As for point 2b - categories cannot be used for content development in the same ways that lists can. --R e m i 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories are fundamentally different, and categories do not supersede lists. Lists 1) contain essential redlinks, which are how the project grows (an article without redlinks is like a branch, snipped below the lowest viable bud) -- categories cannot contain redlinks; 2) lists can be annotated with other useful information, whereas a category can only ever contain a bare list of article titles. While this list is not yet annotated, it can still be improved that way. Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was just speedy closed by G1ggy. I can't see why that was the right thing to do, and so I am reopening. If I have made a horrible mistake, please message me. J Milburn 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Reasons for this can be found on my RfA, under Lanky's oppose vote. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs to be clarified whether this is (a) a list of current passerger terminals; (b) a list of current freight terminals; (c) a list of any town which has ever served as a port or (d) a list of coastal/river towns with some facilities to moor light craft & narrowboats; any of the four could serve as a definition of "port" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists of these kinds are useful in ways categories are not: (a) sourcing - probably little here is controversial so granted less of an issue; and (b) inclusion of red links for expansion and inclusiveness; many lists have lots of red links and we just don't toss them out and say "categorize these"... Carlossuarez46 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category - this kind of list is much better as a category, unless the objective is to idnetify articles that are needed. Peterkingiron 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category already exists (Category: Ports and harbours of Greece) Cowbert 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've personally never seen an encyclopedia with no lists in it, and am certainly in favor of inclusion as opposed to exclusion. This is not a list of random places. They are specific real places that a wiki user might realistically want information on. Suppose you are reading the article on Greece, Greek Maritime Industry (part of the Greece article), or Greek shipping. A list of ports could be of interest to you; particularly if you didn't know the proper spelling of the port name. Wikification to this list works well, because it doesn't clutter up either of these articles with information you might not be looking for, yet you can step right to it from a link or straight to it from the search window if you are specifically looking for ports. Plus, with its own page, content can be added to this article which can give more specific information on physical attributes of the ports, the distribution of the ports around the coastline of Greece, what certain ports are mainly used for, historical connections of ports, and so on. The possibilities for expansion of this article are quite broad, but I would hope that the first new edit would be one that included a bit of information as a lead in. More information is better than not enough. The subject of maritime industry and shipping is certainly complemented by knowledge of the ports where they occur. More information on the ports might lead one to a better understanding of Greece's strong ties to the sea. Further, I can't find any reason to disagree with any of the other keeper's suggestions. I'd say Remi0o hit it right on the head as the first keeper with solid points against the complaints. Much more concise than my opinion. I just don't think the exclusionist idea of 'this fits these criteria; axe it,' can ever lead to comprehensive content. Aspenocean 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Definitely encyclopedic. --Phoenix (talk) 23:29, 5 May 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: G12, as the entire article (or at least a substantive portion of the content) was copy-pasted content from the Pomperaug High School website's Athletics and Organizations pages. No versions of the article would leave a page that is not CSD G10 (attack calling the school "lame") or A1 (contextless stub). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomperaug Regional High School[edit]

Notability. Unencyclopedic. (See WP:NOT #2). I'm actually an alumni (class of '99) and even I can't salvage this article. Cowbert 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete as blatant advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Firefighter Story[edit]

I believe it fails WP:WEB, I am willing to be told I am wrong on this though. It appears as if this article has been created by the author, and judging from the history, seems to be an advertising/linkfarm attempt. --Zaf^(t) 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Advert, with quotes like "a must read" and "an entertaining yet educational story" this clearly only exists to promote the book. Tagged as such. Croxley 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11: "Authors have agreed to partner with Quality Parks as a means to promote and refine their conservation writing in exchange for a charitable donation upon the book's publication"... what? Promote? Looks like spam to me. Nothing to cleanup, since there's no evidence of notability otherwise. The copyright somethingorother probably violates the GFDL in some way. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set on Fire (Delete). Just an add. Delete per nom. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeromax Honduras[edit]

This does not appear to be a real airline, and a Google search does not reveal any information about this non-existent airline. AlexStef 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best based on WP:CRYSTAL since it is unsourced--Dacium 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - this needs some proof of its supposed planning. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the Google test: [18]. Bearian 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non existent airline and no sign of it even being proposed. Article is untrue at any rate, since Honduras already has a perfectly good national airline — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is it a joke? Cute. --Phoenix (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Key of Time[edit]

It looks like a good article at first, but careful reading shows something's off. The links are to freewebs pages, and the author is basically a fanfic writer. Prod removed by author of article. JuJube 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Published book does not make it notable. This is covered extensively at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)--Dacium 05:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good find JuJube...it does indeed look good at a glance. ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been published through a print-on-demand self-publisher. JavaTenor 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Acalamari 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Phoenix (talk) 23:30, 5 May 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: significantly rewritten to address problems. `'mikka 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in Talk:Ronald Collé the concern was expressed that the outcome would be rather no consensus. Without arguing, the article still stays. `'mikka 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Collé[edit]

OR that cannot be referenced. Tagged for months with no progress. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepedant non trivial sources so can't pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF--Dacium 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dacium ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No references for months --> fails WP:V and therefore all of our other guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no claim of notability, the "NIST profile" link is simply his NIST phonebook entry. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one link was the only thing I could find from Google about him. Sad, isn't it? At least we know he exists now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Too little sourcing to make a real article. Via Google scholar I was able to find some information about his publications ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]) but no indication that any of these pubs are of any significance. —David Eppstein 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that this third AfD has led to proper sourcing and expansion. —David Eppstein 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS has many results so notability isnt a problem, however RS is. However, the facts in the article are not outrageous, and can be sourced as I have done with one source. Also, the previous Afd was only just recently closed as keep. The Afd before that was also a keep. John Vandenberg 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a lack of sources is a much worse problem than perceived lack of notability. Not to mention there's a simple question to answer: Why bother creating an article if we're just mirroring or rewording a single source? --Wafulz 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because an article with one source is always only one edit away from being an article with two sources.
    In this case, two sets of Wikipedians have looked at the subject and concluded this subject is valuable and the articles content was not disputed. It now has two different RS, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that many more are available, and they will find their way onto the article in the years to come. Wikipedia is a work in progress. John Vandenberg 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 31 hits to published articles he's written. Journals relative to his field. Past that, he's passed two previous AfDs but each specified that there needed to be additional references. Nothing has been done to that article in months. The references are the same now as they were before the first AfD. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, it needed additional references. Luckily that is an easy problem to fix (as the people in the last two afd's concluded). John Vandenberg 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, if it's such an easy task then why has it not been done? The previous two AfDs were concluded in March 2006 and April 2007. It's been tagged since December. For whatever reason, many are fans of this article but have zero interest in making it acceptable. It doesn't meet the criteria to pass AfD yet there is a rally to keep it. I don't get it. Second, even if I had any interest in working on this article, I've looked... there's nothing to reference. All these statements in the article can't be backed up. Hence the fact that it fails WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BIO. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep
- part one, N: Notability for researchers is typically established by their publications. People become notable scientists by writing notable research papers. He has ninety published papers, far more than the average researcher which is one per year at the most. The few linked above are just ones from the biomedical index Pubmed, and he was a radiochemist. using Science Citation Index, The papers were published in such journals as (in process--server down tonight)

(hits mentioned by LL above just from GS. Look at his dates: most of his work will be pre 1999, & thats why he has no web page.

He was Associate editor of Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology probably the most important metrology journal

- part two: RS. The publication of the papers which is the basis of N already has extremely RS--the indexing entries for the journal articles. This is really sufficient for everything but the bio details, and the 3 key points have RS also:

The bylines of the papers cited by David E, together with the masthead from the J of Research NBS added by John V., give verification of his position

The doctorate is verified by DissAbs--(citation to be added.) I see a fact tag for the BS degree, which is pushing things a little for someone with a PhD

In AfD2, only one ed. wanted further refs., and it wasn't mentioned in AGK's closing. in AfD1. nobody even said anything about it in the discussion or the closing.

With respect to repeated noms, If one were really waiting for refs, I think that perhaps one would wait longer than a week after the immediately prev AfD. Closely repeated AfDs inevitably give the appearance of relying on repeating until by chance the deletes outnumber the keeps. Given normal variability, that is bound to happen sooner or later. DGG 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this article until a week ago. I failed an article nominated for GA based largely on lack of reliable sources. The main editor to that article mentioned that the this article exists with practically none, so I read it. It fails WP:BIO, WP:OR, and WP:V. It's passed 2 previous AfDs with multiple votes for keep but apparently not many are interested in fixing it. It has been tagged for MONTHS. I left a message on the talk page a few days ago warning that if improvements weren't made I would renominate AfD. And it's not like it was an impossible request. I've helped bring articles up to GA standards in less time.

If so many people want to keep this article, it shouldn't take long to collaborate to fix it. As it is now, it's a pimple on the face of Wikipedia, so to speak. It doesn't look good for an encyclopedic article.

Concerning my inaccurate comments of the previous AfDs noting the need for sources, I looked back over them and recalled that I was totally blown away that it wasn't mentioned in either one, which made me question if the keep voters had even bothered to read it before giving their opinions. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. --Buridan 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not the issue in question here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the distinction between Type A and Type B uncertainty is clearly notable, so are its authors. However, it bothers me that I could not find any source beside Wikipedia mirrors substantiating the assertion that Collè is in fact its co-author. Stammer 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A similar claim is made on Churchill Eisenhart (I've left a note on that talk page), and Google Scholar: Eisenhart Collé hints towards them being closely involved in the development of this subject. If we cant confirm this, the statement needs to be tagged and removed from both articles. John Vandenberg 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They published a couple of papers as joint authors, one of them with Ku, where they may have set forth the distinction. However, I did not find any source confirming that the Type A-Type B distinction originates there. Stammer 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although debatable, notability is not the issue here. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment: Is this how AfD works? If someone doesn't get an outcome they like, the article can be nominated again two weeks later? It seems to me that the most important reason to keep is to ensure that the debate just two weeks ago gets at least some sort of respect. --Myke Cuthbert 15:52, 9 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state license plates[edit]

(See also first nomination) This article is nothing but a gallery of images taken from [28]. Even if we had permission from the owner of that website to use those images (which, from looking at the image description page, the uploader may be saying that he owns the website), except for Washington DC, they are all derivative works of copyrighted license plate designs and thus cannot be used freely. As this article is nothing but a gallery of copyvio images, it should be deleted. BigDT 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for expansion, merge, or move - I've seen paper and glue encyclopedias (World Book) with just pictures of different breeds of dogs (with in the article on "dogs" actually) - perhaps 30-50 pictures over 3-5 pages. It does not seem to me to be unencyclopedic to have 50 different license plates on one page. It would be valuable and interesting information for someone who wanted an over view of what the different license plates look like. --Remi 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is NOT one of being encyclopedic. The question is one of copyright policy. Galleries of non-free images are not permitted. --BigDT 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copyright violation is a different problem than AFD. See WP:COPYVIO. FrozenPurpleCube 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but once the copyvio issue is settled, the article becomes largely worthless, and needs to be deleted anyway. Hence, the AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it were a copyright problem, it'd likely be deleted anyway, so non-issue. Since I don't know whether or not the copyright concern is valid, I'd suggest taking it for investigation rather than AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming that there are no copyright issues with the page (and a number of the images here seem to be official samples intended for distribution as exemplars; and all of these images, and a gallery of them, are surely fair use in any case), this information, like a page about flags of the world, is uniquely suited for presentation as a gallery. As the several states strive for ever uglier license plate designs, it will require frequent updates. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia copyright policy does not consider a gallery of copyrighted images to be a fair use of those images. "Fair use" galleries should be removed from articles on sight. --BigDT 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not fair use to use a gallery of unfree images. But in this case, the images are used to represent a specific purpose, and are not replaceable by free images. So I believe it is fair use in this instance. I also agree with the point User:Ihcoyc mentioned above, about them being sample images. I think these should be given the same treatment as unreplaceable promo images. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? What purpose are the images serving other than to simply exist as a gallery? If we were talking about an article about a controversial license plate and the article showed a photo of that plate or something, that would be fine. But this article is a gallery of non-free images that exists soley for the sake of being there. All of the images are going to be deleted, so I'm not sure what use the page is going to be after that. --BigDT 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that the article uses the format of a gallery is irrelevant. Showing an image of a state's license plate is like showing an image of a company's logo: A license plate is used to identify a state in the same way that a logo is used to identify a company. It just happens to be in the format of a gallery. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the article were expanded greatly to include verbiage about each license plate, a bit of backstory to its imagery (ie: Tennessee's plate showcases a valley meant to suggest the Smoky Mountains.[29]), then it could be acceptable under Fair Use. However, that is not the case here; it's just a gallery, and as such, fails FU. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I don't really see what the difference is (why explain the license plate and show it?), but I'm willing to compromise. If expanding this article will get you to back off, I'm willing to do it. — The Last User Name Ever (talk)
Keep I see no copyvio's or anything else bad, completely harmless page.Tellyaddict 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that these images are fair use, and I'm ok with that. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's apparently no way to legally include license plate images on this page if there's any sort of inkling that a plate design is copyrighted. I know; I've tried. Twice. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is part of the U.S. state insignia series. State insignia are both notable and interesting. As stated above, copyright has nothing to do with AFD, and I'm sure there are legal ways to present license plates from all U.S. states (Even in the worst case, all you need is one wikipedian from every state willing to photograph and upload his own license plate). Malc82 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus here is that considering copyright issues is outside the scope of AFD, I don't agree with that proposition, but I have no problem with a speedy close as this AFD is moot. --BigDT 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how this is any different from having a page full of state seals. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think/assume that most state seals are public domain because they have been around since pre-1923 or, in some cases, the state considers them to be PD. If all or substantially all of them are copyrighted, though, then we should not have an article of them.--BigDT 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Touche. But how do you know that the state doesn't consider license plates to be PD? — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The refutable presumption in the United States is that a creative work is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. In other words, we need evidence that the state has released copyright - we can't just assume that they might have. --BigDT 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly: That was my point: You can't assume that the state seals have been released either. But finish this first. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License plates are created by state governments and as such are in the public domain, so far as I can tell. Article is otherwise potentially useful to readers. DickClarkMises 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Materials released by US state governments are not in the public domain; 17 USC §105 allows only works by the federal government to be placed into the public domain. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Gallery of banknotes. User:RideABicycle/Signature 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew complains and nobody objected. John Vandenberg 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kupari[edit]

Kupari is a derogatory term for East Indians (ethnic group) Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for same community already exits:East Indians (ethnic group)
No references
Only edit of author: User:Rumaovijay, contribs:Special:Contributions/Rumaovijay
No article links to it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page of article:Talk:Kupari for preceding speedy-delete debate. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a city or town in India called Kupari. I do not know if it is the home of the Kupari ethnic community or not, but it would be worthwhile to have a good article on the city or town. Is there an article on the city or ethnic community in the Hindi Wikipedia? --Eastmain 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Eastmain 06:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the third time that I am informing Eastmain that Kupari town and Kupari community are different. The Town is on the East coast whereas the community referred to in this article resides on the West Coast of India. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but can't you rewrite the article so that Kupari references the city? --Charlene 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Better to delete this article rather than write the new article about the town here itself aafter blanking the present content, which leaves room for a revert. The article about the town shoud be titiled something like Kupari, Orissa. Anyway Kupari town doesn't even figure on Indian maps(at least the ones I have). So I really doubt it will meet notability criteria. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kupari google satellite map in case anyone else is interested. John Vandenberg 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - More data about the other Kupari. John Vandenberg 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to admit I am confused -- I do see the similarity between Kupari and East Indians (ethnic group) in region and religion, however their are differences between the articles as well, such as language. If they are actually the same ethic group, then that indicates that a merge is probably required. It is worth noting that we should WP:AGF wrt User:Rumaovijay; they may well have accidentally written about a term without realising it was derogatory. If it is a derogatory term, that should be covered in the East Indians (ethnic group) article, and Kupari perhaps should become a WP:DAB page for the town and the derogatory term. Anyway, to get the ball rolling, I have added sources that closely match the current content. Note that if its determined that it is a different ethic group, linking to it from other articles wont be a problem. I've more questions about this, but they can go on the talk page. John Vandenberg 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised to know that the name kupari is used by the community(based on the site provided by John Vandenberg:[30]. Till now all the conversations with members of the community and other locals was that kupari was used as an insult. Anyway from the community site it seems that is not always the case. I think that this AFD should be closed as merge .--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep OK fine I am changing my opinion. Better leave the article as it is.My nomination may not be on correct grounds. So how do we close this AFD? Can an admin please close this? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic agriculture and certification in india[edit]

Reads like an essay. Also original research and not attributed with reliable sources. Sr13 (T|C) 07:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedify or Transwiki - if it cannot be made appropriately encyclopedic, then transwiki to a more appropriate project. If someone spent their time to write something and release it under the GFDL, it does not seem appropriate or fair just to throw it away when there are other perfectly appropriate projects run by the Wikimedia foundation that something like this would fall within the scope.

Modify to delete if it is a copyright violation. --R e m i 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see this as necessary with Organic agriculture and Agriculture in India already around. Someguy1221 09:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agriculture in India covers this better, and this article it is currently unsourced. John Vandenberg 09:54, 3 May 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. Bucketsofg 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cities with the most highrise buildings[edit]

This is just an outdated version of http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/ma/ci/, which in itself is highly inaccurate. Nutmegger 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am listing this because it was not listed correctly by Nutmegger. --Bryson 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of legitimate articles in Category:Lists of cities, but there is no notable intersection between a city and the number of high rise buildings it has. Spellcast 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable intersection, directory, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per that very heavy hammer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe (talk • contribs)
Delete. Gosh, I wonder what definition of "highrise" they're using in this. Over ten stories? Over 20? Over 30? And who decided what the definition would be? --Charlene 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per Charlene... the article doesn't say what a highrise is, or where all these numbers came from, for that matter. No excuse for the lack of citation. I saw that the link to high-rise is that it's any building more than 75 feet tall, or, say 6-7 stories, but who knows? And if that's it, who cares? Shanghai has "666" highrises... mark of the beast? Mandsford 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above.--Targeman 01:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how high is a highrise? does the city include its legal limits or its metropolitan area, and why again is this encyclopedic? Carlossuarez46 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Rich List[edit]

This was deleted as an expired prod, then recreated. Basically, no context and pointless. JuJube 08:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator was recently blocked for recreating non-notable articles. JuJube 08:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence it's encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either spam or a copyvio - it's commercial publication and the article is a copy of material on the publication's website. andy 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Plus, as Guy said, no evidence that it's encyclopedic. Acalamari 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Source If this article is sourced I see no reason why it shouldn't be kept as a stub. Deletion should be a last resort for articles that contain only adverts, info about completely unnotable persons etc., not for everything that isn't in one's personal scope. Malc82 23:53, 2 May 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 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Orthodox Catholic Church[edit]

After reading this article, its history, and its talk page I am convinced it does not belong on here. The whole thing is unsourced and seems to be either original research or a copyright violation. A Google search for the name of the organization and its founder does not come up with any secondary reliable sources [31]. Perhaps someone more familiar with the subject would disagree with me. Theredhouse7 08:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling American Orthodox Catholic Church comes up with a fair number of hits, but for a variety of organisations. Googling AOCC-Propheta returns just this article and a mirror. BTLizard 09:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources of any kind, and there seem to be other denominations which have used the same name, thus making it difficult to find relevant sources. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 3 May 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 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Stuber[edit]

Non-notable researcher, not a full professor. No reliable sources given, none found via Google. The German National Library has some works by Fritz Stuber, but nothing about him. Fails WP:PROF. Prod contested by original author. Huon 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please note that this article looks like a translation of the de.wiki article about Mr. Stuber which appears to also be up for AfD. Seed 2.0 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Primarily a practicing architect & city planner, not an academic. The notability of architects is based more on their built works etc. than their publications, and I do not know how to evaluate that. To the extent that he is primarily a city planner rather than an architect, the published works are probably relevant, & I did find all the publications and added them, and his website. The website unfortunately does not list his architectural projects or further details than are in the article. I checked the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals and found nothing further. Princeton and Columbia, which have excellent architectural libraries, do not have his books, from which I conclude he is not known outside Europe. The de Wiki has now deleted the page (in general their standards are probably stricter than ours).DGG 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might fall under systematic bias against non-english article references. The only thing that points it might not be the case is the German afd, but who is to say that the two are not related. We need to be careful here.--Buridan 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no references except his personal website, whether english or non-english. If you can find some, please add them. Huon 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His article should not be listed in English if it's neither written in English nor does it cite English websites. WikiFishy 02:56, 5 May 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 regular delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starships![edit]

Apparently non-notable web game that fails the WP:WEB notability requirements, having only vague or trivial sources. --McGeddon 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources, and a vague bibliography with no reason stated for how the books relate to the subject. --Wafulz 11:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability --Radneto 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
SPEEDY DELETE and SALT. Negligable daily traffic. Alexa rank of this website is below 100,000 --Iaganatzi 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Iaganazi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why WP:SALT? Has this article been created and deleted before? --McGeddon 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this user's just new. Salting is reserved for repeated recreation of inappropriate material. --Wafulz 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not just new, he's a single purpose account, and strongly influenced this nomination too! Matt Brennen 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main article contributors knew this AfD was coming and have been trying to find sources for the article. Outside of unreliable sources such as blogs and message boards, none have appeared. DarkSaber2k 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article stands very well on it's own merits. The supposed reason for deletion is completely ridiculous. Here are three good secondary sources just as a quick example. [MMORPG Review], [MMORTS.com], and [Crimson reviews]. All are independent third party sources with editorial oversight. There are many many more discussed on the talk page. Furthermore, a quick look around the MMORPG articles will reveal that this article is among the MOST sourced, not the least. This article needs no defense, anyone taking a good look at it can see it's well sourced. Matt Brennen 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you on Talk:Starships!, those are user-submitted or personal web pages by writers with no professional relevance, and are therefore self-published sources, which should not be cited.

The existence of worse-sourced articles does not mean that your article should be kept - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:FISHING. --McGeddon 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not *my* article. I make no claim to it. Second the reasons you have used to disqualify eighteen or so sources are ridiculous. Take MMORPG-Review as an example above, you said it was a "self published amateur site", when in fact it has a lot of employees, and has been publishing neutral reviews since 2001. This is shown HERE. The same distortions occur for many of the other "disqualified" sources. Matt Brennen 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2003? I can only see ten reviews on the MMORPG-review site, though, and they're of a very low standard. Please try to read WP:RS at some point: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." --McGeddon 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have over 250 reviews archived, but at least you aren't saying that a giant in the industry isn't a "self published amateur site" anymore, now take a good look at the rest of the perfectly good sources you've "disqualified". Matt Brennen 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no link to these 250 reviews, and their "feature2.html" URL schema stops at "feature3". They're not mentioned anywhere in Google. It's a self-published amateur site. --McGeddon 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can say that about a review site that has been around for years and has ten employees, and has done hundreds of reviews says a lot about how you have been "disqualifying" these sites! Matt Brennen 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Administrators This nomination to delete seems to be some sort of retaliation for my comments on the recently deleted Gothador article, as the single purpose accounts from that article seem to be coming over here. I would like to see this article stay, but if it get's deleted then so-be-it. But since the main reason to delete is a claim that the article is inadequitely sourced, and since the response is that is has plenty of sourcing, I'm asking the administrators to do either a speedy keep or a speedy delete. There is no reason to drag this on for days and days arguing back and forth with single-purpose-accounts left over from the deleted Gothador article. Thank you. Matt Brennen 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally flagged the Starships article for notability concerns on the day of its creation, two weeks ago; my putting it forward for deletion is just a follow-up of this, and is unconnected to the Gothador article, which I've never had any connection with. Please try to assume good faith. --McGeddon 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about you obviously. I just want an administrator to look at the sources for themself and make a speedy judgment. The fact that you've been trying to kill the article since day one is irrelevant. Matt Brennen 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said the nomination for deletion was "some sort of retaliation" over Gothador, but it was me that nominated the article. If you've got some SPAs out for your blood for whatever reason, then I'm sure the administrator who judges this case will bear that in mind, but this isn't any sort of argument for making a "speedy judgment" now that you've given your opinion of it. --McGeddon 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not speedy judge it? You say it's not sourced, I say it is. This decision can be made by an administrator in ten minutes. Speedy delete or Speedy Keep. Let's get it overwith before we are bombarded by SPAs is all I'm saying. Matt Brennen 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, your talking a load of honk. I've acted in good faith over this but your behaviour has been apalling. Your accusing regular contributors of being single-purpose accounts from the Gothador afd 'getting revenge'. There are only two SPAs from Gothador, that being Iaganazi and Radneto, and I would be quite happy to advise the closing admin to disregard their voice. But I voted to delete that article, same as you, and McGeddon has been over this with you numerous times the last few days. This article is no better than Gothadors, and soliciting me on my talk page requesting I change my vote to keep because you voted to delete on the Gothador AfD is way out of line. I've been watching the article quietly for a couple of weeks and you have not once provided a satisfactory source, despite being told in quite explicit detail what a reliable source actually is. DarkSaber2k 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is a process with strictly defined criteria, and a speedy keep can only be invoked during an AfD if it meets particular set of circumstances. These aren't things to be demanded by editors just because they're feeling impatient. --McGeddon 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article does stand a hell of a good chance of being deleted under WP:SNOW conditions. DarkSaber2k 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This isn't a completely facetious made-up web game, or anything, and there's still a chance that another editor will suddenly provide appropriate sources for it. Brennen's inability to provide reliable sources could just be that he doesn't understand WP:RS and has chosen to defend weak self-published sources rather than looking for better ones; this doesn't mean that proper sources don't exist. --McGeddon 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked before the AfD was placed, and I found nada. But yeah, stranger things have happened I suppose. DarkSaber2k 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting under WP:SNOW is reserved for grossly inappropriate articles that cannot be deleted under the usual speedy criterias. This could have been speedied under A7 if it wasn't for the fact that a) MacGeddon is not 100% sure that a reliable source cannot be found and b) this has become controversial and A7 specifically says that controversial articles should not be speedied. Since there are !votes in both directions the AfD may not be speedy closed but must run for the entire 5 day period. The only thing you would get out of speedy closing this is a new round of arguing at deletion review after which this would be sent back to AfD for round 2 based on a stupid technicality like inappropriate speedy closing. And wouldn't that be waste of time?? MartinDK 07:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of all the vitriol, The article stands quite fine on it's own merits. There are three perfectly good sources mentioned above. Anybody can look at them. Jumping up and down ranting about how they are "self published" when they clearly are not, will not make them so. Anybody with two eyes can see that they are long-time, independent, third-party sources with editorial oversight. One need only look at them. The game also appears in several books about the industry, I could go on and on, but I don't need to. An admin need only click on the articles on the talk page. Matt Brennen 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of those three sources listed above, I just added two bogus articles. See if you can find them. Why not have a go yourself? And the other one works like this. Reassuringly accesible for anyone to write their own stuff isn't it? And THAT'S why they aren't reliable sources, as for the third one, it's more a personal judgement call, I would call it a dubious rather than unreliable source. DarkSaber2k 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dubious at all. An article gets submitted, and then an editor reads it and decides if it is worth posting. Much different from automatic inclusion. Your first attempts were all taken down, were they not? Have you not noticed that your submissions have yet to appear? They are in review!Matt Brennen 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually funny. I can see your bogus review on the crimson site getting taken down every time you put it up. This is only proving that it's a VERY GOOD source of neutral info. Matt Brennen 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assuming I have the literacy of a retarded cocker spaniel then. I just got e-mailed about it's acceptance. Anyone can write a respectable article if their mildly literate, it's easy to sound like you know what your talking about. I think maybe you assumed 'bogus' as in a complete crapcake of an article. No, I just whipped up a review of a game I never played, only heard of. DarkSaber2k 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well anybody can be deceptive I suppose. Still, it goes through a review process, and that's all thats needed. Now add this review site to the 20 or so others, some with internal reviewers (Like MMORPG-Review), some that take submissions, and add it also to the books, and to the dozens of fan sites, and it EASILY shows notability. Matt Brennen 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because user submitted review sites are non-reliable sources, accoridng those darned reliability guidelines you keep ignoring. The point is that they don't employ anyone, so there is no accoutability if an article like mine gets through. Someone can lose a job if a reporter writes an inaccurate article, but no-one cares if someone submitted a report about a game they never actually played on sites like that. And as for the 1 other source available, I personally hold it as dubious. It's my judgement, I wont change that. It will be up to the closing admin to decide if that's a valid call. It's certainly not enough to make me change my decision, for the reasons listed exhaustively above and on the article talk page. DarkSaber2k 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um all three of the review sites given above have ten or more employees, and a review process, that makes them reliable. Here's another site which I encourage the admin to examine, which was "discounted" because McGeddon said it was a "Blog", lol. http://www.free-games.com.au...I can go on and on with these. It is not a blog, it is a perfectly legit review site, with a submission process that takes several days of review.Matt Brennen 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can strike all of these sites, and STILL have more than enough sources to prove notability. Matt Brennen 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, USER REVIEW SITES ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. I can also go on and on. DarkSaber2k 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and again, USER REVIEW SITES take automatic submissions, these have a review process, and again, even taking those out of the picture there is still plenty of sourcing. This stupid back and forth is why I wanted a speedy judgment one way or the other, but I guess it doesn't meet the criteria. You say it's not sourced enough, I say it is. It's classic "he says" - she says", and it's demeaning. I really wish an administrator could get this over with one way or another. Matt Brennen 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said free-games.com.au was a "generic directory" (which runs entirely on reciprocal links with game descriptions written by the owners of the sites), and Wafulz said it had "blog style comments'. This is, if anything, a classic "he says, everybody else says". --McGeddon 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite any articles written by owners. They have a 14 day review process. But even so, it's hardly a blog. It's a review site. I'm not even claiming it as a source,thats for an admin to decide, I mentioned it to show how these sources are constantly being mis-labeled. You guys claim sites are blogs when they are not, you claim sites are self published when they are not, you personally called MMORPG-review a personal site when they have TEN EMPLOYEES! This artical is WELL sourced, and mislabeling the sources, and fudging facts, will not change that. Matt Brennen 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Nobody has claimed it to be a blog. The fact that free-games.com.au says that "you need to have a link from your site (the one you enter in the link field) to our site" suggests that most are probably written by the owners of the site, that's all. If anyone can submit a glowing review of their own site, then it isn't a "credible published material with a reliable publication process".

Sorry if my use of "personal" is confusing. A site can still be a self-published source even if its creator has a few friends helping out with reviews and hosting. The issue is whether the writers of MMORPG-review are "well-known, professional researcher[s]", and from the quality of their writing and the lack of references to them or their site, I don't think they are. --McGeddon 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be a heated argument here, but I fail to see how an online game site which has an alexa site traffic rating of over 6 million can be notable. I realize Alexa is not the end all notability check for many things, but certainly an online gaming site with a very low traffic rating is not notable. Fopkins | Talk 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG you did not just invoke Alexa..., Alexa uses a spyware toolbar to make these counts, are you kidding? Am I to understand that Alexa, of all places, is now a reliable source of info? And the sites above are NOT? Puh-leeez. This is laughable! If Alexa is a reliable source than EVERYTHING is! People boost their alexa hits with scrips all day long, c'mon. Matt Brennen 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, the Alexa toolbar is not spyware. People install Alexa, and operate it under their own free will and everything the Alexa toolbar does is well defined in their privacy policy. I also do not see how the fact that people boost Alexa hits helps out that the Starships! website's traffic rating is below 6 million. Sure, there are people which take advantage of the way Alexa ratings are taken, but for every one of these users there are countless others who browse the web (either knowing or not knowing what the toolbar is doing) who report accurate statistics. While every Alexa rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, the rating of a site with such a low rating which is based off of gameplay on that very site must be considered. Fopkins | Talk 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Every Alexa Rating has to be taken with a grain of salt. (has nothing to do with notability anyway)Matt Brennen 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - please do not edit my comments. I did not intend for that section of my comment to be bolded, and I do not appreciate that you did so for me. WP:Etiquette applies on AfD pages also. Fopkins | Talk 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't think you would take offense. I would hope that you would appreciate seeing how your own words "every Alexa rating has to be taken with a grain of salt" actually supports what I've been saying. I was hoping it would be clearer for you to read as well, but I guess not. I meant no offense, and it won't happen again. Matt Brennen 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been told that this debate does not fit any of the speedy criteria. But I really wish we could get an admin to intervene. If one looks at the opening statements of "No Reliable Sources" and then later comments (particularly about mmorpg-review.com) so-called "personal" websites turn out to be independent reviewers that have been around for YEARS with a staff of employees, isn't there SOME way to put a stop to this? Can't we just close the discussion? There is no cause to delete here. Matt Brennen 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that AfDs have to run their course, rather than stopping as soon as one of the editors has made their case - we should wait to see what other people think, both in favour of and against the deletion. If you feel that you've given your best sources, just lean back and wait for the admin to judge it in five days' time - given that the AfD was raised on the issue of notability, it will be entirely about these sources, so if you're right and other editors on this page have been maliciously or carelessly misinterpreting WP:RS, you've nothing to worry about. --McGeddon 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looking past the article's tone (which will need addressing should the article be kept), reliable third-party sources are not present. The existing link to mmorts.com is a pretty weak review. If any of the other 'dozens of review site' reviews prove to be from a good source then my opinion will be keep, of course (although stick a cleanup tag on there.) Marasmusine 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the reviews above, the mmorpg-review.com (although poorly written) I would say is okay for a source. If one more can be found to satisfy the 'multiple' aspect of WP:NOTE then I'll recommend a keep. Marasmusine 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still out on the reliability of this one- looks to me like some friends run an MMORPG site without any establised reputation. It's not a bad source, it's just not a good one. Just my two cents though. --Wafulz 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A group of friends? I think you need to learn some more about what it takes to run a site like that my friend... MartinDK 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm fine, I could register a domain and post some clipart and hastily-written reviews of my favourite web games in half an hour or so. In fact, the domain mmorpg-review.com appears to have been registered only five days ago, two days before Brennen quietly added it to his list of sources.
        This would explain why there are no references to mmorpg-review in Google; there are also no relevant Google results for any of the names of the site's contributors, or copies of its reviews anywhere else, so it seems unlikely that it was a popular, authoritative site that has just recently moved to a new domain. --McGeddon 08:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Duly noted McGeddon. But if that is indeed the case then someone is taking this WAY more seriously than they ought to. I mean come on.... Who is is going to pay for hosting, a domainname and spend time creating a "fake" review site just to keep an article? I have seen fake free blogs created but come on... I'm not saying you are wrong but if you aren't then someone seriously need a break from Wikipedia. MartinDK 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hosting is cheap. But we should assume good faith - it doesn't matter whether Brennen was connected with the site's creation, it just matters that it appears to have been created five days ago, erroneously claims to have existed since 2003, only has ten accessible articles, is very poorly written, and can hardly be cited as a reliable source when no other web pages or search engines link to or mention it. --McGeddon 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable article as stated above. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is non-notable???? Well let's delete 99% of Wikipedia then unless you have reliable sources showing that the article does not fail WP:WEB. This not a vote. If something has already been stated you don't need to repeat it let alone repeat it in a way that clearly indicates you didn't understand what was being said to begin with. MartinDK 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed, i'm starting to think its WP:WEB that is the wider problem here, its much stricter than WP:Music for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs).
Delete Needs sources. Violation of WP:N Shindo9 Hikaru 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep if, and only if, the two books cited have significant material on the game. DGG 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Notability isn't well sourced, appears to be just another ~~flash~~ game. I have a very, VERY slight suspicion ofconflict of interest, but I could be wrong. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Flash game? Did you even READ the article? Also where do you get your WP:COI suspicion from? Such claims are highly offensive unless you have any actual proof. Why do you think WP:VANITY is hardly ever used as an argument on AfD? A solid doze of civility would do this AfD good. MartinDK 06:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, a good dose of civility would do good, sir. Mind calming down and assuming good faith, please? Oh, yeah, re-read my !vote's comments IN THEIR ENTIRETY before jumping down my throat. In the meantime,I've looked again, and stricken "flash" from my comment, as you appear to be right, it's not a flash game. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak delete With a heavy heart I must say that WP:WEB is not and probably won't be satisfied. This applies to OGame as well despite the game having more users than World of Warcraft. The problem here is that this is a game that happens to run through a browser. Had the game been using a client that you download we wouldn't be having this AfD because WP:WEB wouldn't be relevant. Also not all sources are online, specifically gaming magazines that you can't just scan and upload. This isn't the place to debate the ridiculously wide scope of WP:WEB so like I said a very weak delete !vote from me. MartinDK 06:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full reviews or articles in respected gaming magazines are fine as sources - if anyone has any for Starships!, please cite them. --McGeddon 10:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Saying we should keep the article because no-one is likely to write about the subject is just warped thinking. Plenty of online games have been mentioned in reliable news source. Hattrick has been mentioned in football publications, Hollywood Stock Exchange has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Earth:2025 and Utopia have both won webby awards, Popomundo has been covered by Rolling Stone magazine, Dragonspires has been in Wired magazine etc etc. So claiming no-one is going to write about broswer games is bogus. And stating that the article should be kept BECAUSE of those lack of sources is equally bogus. DarkSaber2k 11:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can only repeat the arguments for other games in this category, which is that each needs to be judged on its own merits and that the WP community should recognise that external sourcing for articals of this nature is extremely difficult to produce. Its an interesting article on a notable game (relative to other games of its ilk and websites in general). They may still be notable within the overall picture of things, but are never likely to have BBC or other sources like that written about them Bjrobinson 09:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are judging this game on its own merits, and we still have not gotten multiple non-trivial sources. Game review magazines have search engines, and online reviews (if they exist) are easy to find. We've been at it for weeks with this article and still haven't found anything appropriate. If we can find existing sources for crushing by elephant, we should be able to find existing source for Starships.--Wafulz 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews look fine to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly my search for RS also fails, and I have found no evidence that the books in the Bibliography mention this web game (As far as I can tell, they mention starships in the context of Eve Online). I would like to request that if/when this article is removed, all references to it are not also deleted (indescriminately). In my opinion, useful entries are being purged from List of multiplayer browser games because they are not notable enough to withstand an Afd. John Vandenberg 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS means no WP:WEB means no article. If an interesting topic is very difficult to source ... we have no article on it until we have the sources. Sandstein 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RS is pretty clear about what does and doesn't count as reliable. Axem Titanium 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, websites provided are not reliable, can't find any better sources either. QuagmireDog 12:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhere above i said that N would depend on the printed books--seeing the amount of discussion I've looked more carefully at the sourcing, and I think it is quite reasonable to use published web-based reviews for web phenomena--even informally published ones. We look for sources where sources are to be found. We don't look for print where there is unlikely to be print, (or for ghits when the material is older than the web). We're an encyclopedia of the real world, past and present--I never thought there would come a time when WP would be getting a little old-fashined in its methods, but that was naive. it happens to everyone and everything. DGG 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the web-based reviews? No one is looking for print reviews, we're just looking for web-based reviews that pass WP:RS. Fopkins | Talk 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Obvious bad faith nom and lots of SPAs coming out of the woodwork. Jtrainor 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus. There's no way anything useful will emerge out of this AFD. Jtrainor 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that the consensus is pretty clear here. Have you read the AfD? Fopkins | Talk 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain the logic underlying your conclusion, especially because it's only been now four days since the opening of this AfD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 6 May 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. Simply put, the delete concerns are valid and have not been countered in the debate. I extend this offer to any of those arguing for a keep: I believe there is a chance this topic has some real encyclopedic merit but your way of arguing for it dodged the real concerns. I would be happy to help educate you about Wikipedia policies; maybe once that happens, an article can be written that could be kept. Mango juice^talk 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes[edit]

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

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

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

I renominate this article for delete as the previous AfD didn't address the core problem and secondarily as there is no improvement seen since 14 months:

No reliable, third party, sources. I.e. we are not in crap or not crap debate again, but asking the question whether there exist secondary sources. Whether this approach has gained a reception (positive and negative) by reliable sources, which is the necessary base of an encyclopedic article.

Lacking this reception, some stuff from this article may be mergable into V. K. Choudhry. Interestingly the biography hints at some reception (the awards) but gives not enough information to evaluate whether these can be considered independant and reliable sources. Pjacobi 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noi independent sources, looks like a one-man neologism, article fails WP:NPOV and there is no evidence of sources from which that can be remedied. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of sources. --RaiderAspect 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. Anything which is worth saving (and that doesn't look like much) could just as well be incorporated into V. K. Choudhry. Anville 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: IN THE NAME OF VEDIC ASTROLOGY: I don't know how much Owlen knows about Indian culture and epics. Those practicing VEDIC astrology without knowing and understanding and guiding others wrongly are, in fact, are not only ruining the lives of others but earning difficult deeds for themselves. It is sinful.

Ramayana an epic of Hindus and thousands of years more ancient than the times of Maharishi Parashara - the known propounder of Vedic Astrology,- clearly propounded that in Kaliyuga the people can have spiritual attainments and elevation of their souls without renouncing the world. Therefore, the classical principles of Vedic Astrology as given to us by Maharishi Parashara in Dwapara Yuga are not applicable verbatim to human beings in Kaliyuga. While status, wealth and married life were considered to be as obstructions in the way of spiritual attainments in Satyuga, Tretayuga and Dwapara Yuga, it is not so for the human beings in Kaliyuga. Therefore this is a very vital point for consideration for adopting the classical principles of Vedic Astrology with changes mutatis mutandis (wherever necessary). Based on our studies of both Ramayana and Vedic Astrology, we are fully confident that the application of Systems' Approach brings you very close to the predictive competence and accuracy. In Kaliyuga, the second and seventh houses ruling wealth, status and married life do not cause obstructions for spiritual attainments. Rather their satisfactory level provides the man mental peace, which is the first and foremost thing on the way to spiritual attainments and elevation of one's soul. The simplest way to spirituality and continuous enjoyment of physical and mental happiness as per Ramayana is to overcome the obstacles in its way and to practice facilitators mentioned, hereinafter. The obstacles are lust, anger, vanity, greed, attachment, selfishness, uncontrolled desires and gambling while the facilitators are adoption of the virtues of kindness, sincerity, honesty, generosity, benevolence and to serve humanity, at large. Controlling the obstructions and practicing the facilitators save us from worldly tensions and are known as divine conduct.

Whether this article is deleted or kept, it does not make difference to the author of Systems'Approach but it certainly robs the true seekers of astrological knowledge of a significant opportunity of delving deep into the divine knowledge. V K Choudhry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.128.64 (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: The article must be kept. System's astrology has successfully projected consistent approach to prediction. Just like GOD, astrology itself does not have direct proof, but its application is good enough a justification, in terms of impacts on human life and mundane events. System's astrology has evolved through a very consistent approach and scientific research; where each principle is tested without any exception on large data. With the time and large data driven precedence - Mr VK Choudhry has improvized / fine tuned his theories. He deserves the due credit for the same. The System's approach is quite widely and successfully used by large number of astrologers; There are dedicated study circles and discussion forums; where astrologers follow this with quite conviction. Prafullagang 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Prafullagang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The following is a list of sources for the awards given to Mr. V.K. Choudhry. These are all known entities in India. Ramayan 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Choudhry is well known in the field of Hindu Astrology through his many books and articles, was conferred the title of Jyotish Martund by the International Council of Astrological and Occult Studies, Hyderabad (India) in 1989.
- He was conferred the title of Jyotish Kovid by the Indian Council of Astrological Sciences (ICAS), Madras, in 1991. He has been a faculty member and Chapter Course Director (Astrology) with Indian Council of Astrological Sciences. ICAS is an apex organisation of astrologers in India which even helped in setting up of the American Council of Vedic Astrology.
- Mr. Choudhry was conferred the title of Jyotish Bhanu by Astro Sciences Research Organization, New Delhi, in 1992.
- Mr. Choudhry is the recipient of Pracharya Award (Professor of Astrology) conferred by Bharat Nirman in December, 1993, for his outstanding and excellent contributions in the field of astrology.
- In 1994, his name was listed in "Indo American Who's Who", in recognition of his contribution for predictive accuracy in Hindu Astrology.
- Sri Choudhry participated in the 10th International Seminar of Astrology and Occult Science from 11th to 13th June, 1995, at Hyderabad and delivered lectures on "Timing of Events" and "Vastu Shastra". Sri Choudhry was conferred the title of "Master of Astrology" in this Seminar by International Council of Astrological and Occult Studies.
- The Board of Directors of International Council of Alternative Medicines conferred the degree of Doctor of Alternative Medical Sciences on Sri Choudhry on 3rd February, 1996, at Bombay.
- The International Institute of Astrology & Occultism, New Delhi, conferred a Gold Medal and the honorary title of Jyotish Vachaspathi on Sri Choudhry in April, 1996, at New Delhi.
- International Foundation of Peace, Fraternity and Humanistics, Bombay, conferred the title of Dharam Yogi in 1995.
- International Council of Astrological Sciences, Bombay, conferred the title of Vastu Shastra Samrat in 1996, and Bhartiya Ved Jyotish Vigyan Sansthan, Modinagar (India), conferred the title of Sthapatya Ratna in 1996, on Sri Choudhry for his valuable contributions in the fields of Astrology and Vastu Shastra.
- Mr. Choudhry has participated in astrological conferences in London, Paris and U.S.A.

Comment: This is not an AfD for the article V.K. Choudhry. It is the AfD for the article Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes and the specific deletion reason is No reliable, third party, sources. Can you address this concern? --Pjacobi 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The listed sources represent a proof of the seriousness with which the Systems' Approach is taken by other practitioners of this knowledge in India. It has direct relevance to the subject at hand and the claims leveled by you that the subject matter lacks credibility due to lack of credible sources.Hasta Nakshatra 06:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be hint, that a well written article about "Systems' Approach" would be desirable, but still no secondary sources to write it. --Pjacobi 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pjacobi; no real improvement was made since the previous AfD. The article is still not NPOV and has no reliable third-party sources. I think this article is unsalvable, since the only users that (have or will) contribute to this article seem to be incapable of assuming a NPOV. --Tinctorius 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Non-reliability of sources and now NPOV are guises for the disdain of materialists with other conceptions of reality. Their attempt to kill off such articles should be seen for what it is, an effort to make the reality conform to their intellectual pre-disposition. There is nothing wrong with this article, it represents a reality that many people are beholden to.Hasta Nakshatra 06:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: note that Wikipedia is not a bible or holy book, but an encyclopedia. The subject of this article is clearly approached as being true, while that may be disputed by many, many people (including me). Encyclopediae are commonly not marking religions as truth, so this article does not support the NPOV-guideline, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Besides that, with reliable sources we don't mean information from just one source from the field (V. K. Choudhry), but also from (multiple) independent sources. --Tinctorius 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the very only website where you can find it with scientific logic of Acient Astrology. Even though there are a lot of Astrology website, most of them are still in the old ages. KHIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kms2001 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Kms2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Such a pity that the author of that vote will never realize the irony of his comment. If Wikipedia is the only place where we can find information on this subject then it DEFINATELY fails WP:V and WP:RS. --RaiderAspect 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE -- This AfD process is flawed. The AfD page is not accessible from the source article Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes.Hasta Nakshatra 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then try to correct it, like I just did. --Tinctorius 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, unless reliable sources are actually provided and WP:V is met. --Tikiwont 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the additions, but without proper citations it is difficult to assess their relevance.--Tikiwont 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta: Please don't "import" votes from the previous AfD [32] [33]. This is only confusing. And the discussion is linked at the very beginning, so everybody can easily access it. --Pjacobi 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ... or Keep/Move ... looks like relevant and notable info ... should be moved to horoscope interpertations and expanded (after a heavy copyedit).J. D. Redding 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm... given that's unsourced, it's kinda hard to see how we could move/keep it without breaching WP:RS --RaiderAspect 10:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to V.K. Choudhry. Without any independent references, it's difficult to see a stand-alone article on the topic. Merge a brief summary to the author's article, as it seems this topic is primarily what he's known for. Gimmetrow 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a number of legitimate reasons for preserving this article on the 'Systems Approach to Vedic Astrology', as this has come as an invaluable research-offshoot from the soil of Vedic Astrology, thanks to the revolutionary findings of Prof.V.K.Choudhry, who is without any question, one of the greatest living authorities on Vedic Astrology, now in our midst.I shall list the reasons one by one.(1).The objection by Raider Aspect[a User] is seen to be without ground.The Systems Approach is available to the entire world-wide community of Vedic Astrologers, as also readers interested in the latest developments of Vedic Astrology, through ten regularly updated books published in India;one book published in the English language in the US; two books published in Portuguese in Portugal. Further, an additional publication of four books in Portuguese and French are underway. Four years ago, after coming upon the truth of the Systems Approach to Vedic Astrology, as propounded by Prof.V.K.Choudhry, after a relentless search for 'the self-consistent truth of Vedic Astrology' within all the bastions of traditional Vedic Astrology, I learnt the entire discipline from this illustrious Vedic Astrologer and have since this intense period of learning, opened my Vedic Astrological work to the world, through my website:WWW.HinduWorldAstrology.net and have provided there for the benefit of interested readers, a number of marvellous illustrative examples of the power of the Systems Approach.My website has 240 pages and throws new light on the Systems Approach of Prof.V.K.Choudhry.Thus, in a number of ways the circle of the influence of the Systems Approach is widenning, all over the world.(2).Our Modern society has new kinds of sufferings, peculiar to our own modern civilization.The Systems Approach brings a profound alleviation of these sufferings, through both Preventive Remedial Measures as well as Remedial Measures, adopted in the wake of the blows of fate.These profound astrological solutions to life's baffling karmic problems can be found in all of the writings of Prof.Choudhry.

(3).I know that many Vedic Astrologers read and benefit from Prof.V.K.Choudhry's 'Systems Approach to Vedic Astrology', as set forth in ten of his works, mentioned above.Any revolutionary work, first meets with outright opposition in the first phase, in the second phase, it meets with an attitude of scepticism, in the third it meets with toleration and in the final and culminating phase, a 'Reversal of attitudes' occurs and the author or revolutionary figure goes down History as one of the great founding fathers.Perceptive readers of Vedic Astrological literature know that, the Systems Approach is inevitable passing through this process. (4)I have myself applied the Systems Approach to the hitherto not fully explored spiritual spheres of Dharma and Moksha.Thus, as a witness to the profound usefulness of Vedic Astrology's 'Systems Approach', and as one who has seen its unmatched clarity and its power to alleviate human sufferings, I have no hesitation whatsoever in pleading for the continuing presence of this material on this magnificent Enclopaedia.In my humble opinion; the Systems Approach-as a profound research offshoot of Vedic Astrology-deserves to go down in human history as one of the important landmarks in the revival and renaissance of Humanity's intellectual and spiritual heritage. For these reasons, I plead for the continuity of this article on the pages of this Enclopaedia.I have had a first-rate research-background in Theoretical Nuclear Physics and have done original research both in India as well as in Germany, between 1972 and 1982.USER:Dr.Sankara Bhagavadpada, Vedic Astrologer, who is an active practitioner of the Systems Approach and a disciple of the Founder of the Systems Approach, Prof.V.K.Choudhry.*

— Sankara Bhagavadpada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It is very, very simple. In order to be on Wikipedia, a topic must be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources. It doesn't matter if "Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes" is a Universal Panacea. There have been no reliable secondary sources presented - thus we are OBLIDGED to vote delete. --RaiderAspect 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The charge that Systems' Approach cannot be verified by any credible or independent sources doesn´t hold up when confronted with the facts: 1) SA theory has been published in many books, also by other authors, 2) the idea is used around the planet, 3) the author has been granted numerous awards for it and 4) users are coming forward to vouch for it. Ramayan 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question.Can you name one or two other books published by unrelated authors, and not published by Sagar Publications? In any event, self-published sources are acceptable in articles about themselves, and here it seems to directly relate to why the author is notable. Is there a reason the content can't be merged to the author's page (with some pruning)? Gimmetrow 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. The following books published by unrelated authors containing reference to SA texts reveal the notability:

1. Denis Laboure, 1999, "Astrologie Hindoue", Guy Tredaniel Editeur, Paris, France.

2. Richard Houck, 1997, "Hindu Astrology Lessons", Groundswell Press, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

3. Dr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, 2003, "Design Your Baby", Ethnic India Publications, New Delhi, India.

4. Komilla Sutton, 1999, "The Essentials of Vedic Astrology", The Wessex Astrologer Ltd., Bournemouth, England.

5. Translations of a number of books on SA astrology in Portugese by Mr. Jorge Angelino, including: V.K. Choudhry, 2005, "Astrologia Védica", Editora Pergaminho, Rua da Alegria, Alcabideche, Portugal.

Additionally, there have been numerous published articles dealing with SA astrology in e.g. USA, UK, France and India.

Seperate entry. The Systems' Approach is in itself of an original contribution to the field of vedic astrology that is of considerable interest to astrologers. It is considered by those practicing it to be a new more precise form of astrology, resulting in more accurate predictions. Hence, the approach itself warrants being covered seperately and should not be merged with the entry on the author. Ramayan 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concerns about notability and seperate entry have been addressed.Budfin 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we reading the same article? I still dont see any citations or references. --RaiderAspect 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please check the page again. It's all there. Budfin 16:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Maustrauser 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The norm is to list the knowledge used by many in the Encyclopedia. The article is popular through books published in India, Book published in US, and the books listed above besides referred to in number of magazines including the Magazine - The Mountain Astrologer in USA around August, 2003, and through a titled article published in the February, 2007, issue of the Express Star Teller Magazine, Chennai India.

Keep or Delete decision does not make any difference to the article but it certainly puts humanity and those following learning of astrology in systematic way to loss. (1)The so called rationalists and persons with scientific temper would be appreciated more when they behave like such persons by knowing about the subject they are discussing in the first place in stead of just assuming things like ignorant persons. (2) Wikipedia acts like a pole on which the sources of light like the article under discussion can be installed. (3) On health front the knowledge of celestial bodies helps in identifying the vulnerability of a person to fatal diseases for which one can take preventive care. The various systems of medicines only help in detecting and managing the diseases. (4) The light is light and it does not require any other source to confirm that it is light. It is true to the knowledge of astrology and those who study/use this knowledge know its utility.Siha 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Estonia (1990-1991)[edit]

This page is an attempt to legitimise the POV that no continuity exists between the current Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Estonia established in early XX century, and cites no sources. Digwuren 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a POV fork to me. --RaiderAspect 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Estonia. The fact that virtually the only page that links to it is the Bronze Soldier of Talinn (a page where many wikipedians appear intent on fighting WWIII) isn't exactly inspiring either. --RaiderAspect 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such country legally existed during that period. Alexia Death 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Estonian SSR says that the US and the UK "considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal" and "never recognized the existence of the Estonian SSR de jure." So Estonia did legally exist, at least according to the opinion of some. Anyway, I'm still deciding how to vote on this one. But the nominators statement that the article denies continuity between the two republics seems to be false. StAnselm 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian SSR existed, but it was never an independent country. It has its own article. This article contradicts History of Estonia. The country symbols were not used officially until independence was redeclared. There was no country like this during that period as this territory was Estonia SSR. Alexia Death 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised only just now what you were trying to say. the first Republic never ceased to exist legally all through the existence of Estonian SSR, but de facto no territory by the name of Republic of Estonia existed during that time. It wasnt a territory but a legal ghost of a country. Alexia Death 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the last year of Estonian SSR the NAME of the territory was at one point changed to Republic of Estonia as documented in the history of Estonia but the territory remained part of USSR. What is a new territory in the context of this series? The name? then this should be merged into the Republic of Estonia article following it(makes no sense), if by legal standing then into Estonian SSR(logical choice). Alexia Death 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete: I don't know the background to this (my knowledge of Estonian history is more-or-less non-existent) so I can't judge the accuracy of the content, but surely any legitimate content can be merged into the Estonia article. --RFBailey 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you no not know Estonian history, why do you vote? Anyway, if any merging is to be done, this should go to Estonian SSR. -- Petri Krohn 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to merging any sensible content to Estonian SSR as long as another oddity currently under dispute Estonian SSR (independent)‎ gets merged/deleted into the same as well Alexia Death 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this, like the other Estonian article up for AFD, should be referred to dispute resolution instead, as regardless of the content of this article, Estonia, and every other former Soviet republic, should have some documentation of its history during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Thus the question is not whether to cover it, but how and in what fashion. Once that issue has been discussed, then what to do about this page can hopefully be reached by consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is documented plenty in History of Estonia and the legistration changes belong in Estonian SSR. If a country or territory is considered to be a new one every time a law changes most countries would be reborn quite often.Alexia Death 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is proposing not documenting such history. Indeed, such documentation has already been done to a significant degree, as pointed out by Alexia Death.

However, this article is not about documenting the freedom process of Estonia, but about declaring a fictitious legal entity. This is blatant historical revisionism, already used for WP:POV pushing purposes on other article's discussion pages.

And did I mention the article cites no sources? It is because sources that would support this article as distinct from the real history article do not exist. Delete (after all, I made the formal request for deletion.) Digwuren 21:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You may have legitimate concerns. You may not. The problem is, the subject of this article is not a problem. If there's things in the article that aren't referenced, reference them. Untrue? Replace them with the truth. However, since this is clearly a content dispute, I don't see AFD as truly resolving the issues here. The processes outlined in WP:DR are likely to be more effective. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you understand why this was marked for AFD. Subject matter of the article never existed. There was no such state. Period. How can you make true statements about something that never existed?Alexia Death

Well, if that's your position, you're certainly welcome to argue it in DR. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see only one way that would allow this subject article to continue existing meaningfully, and it goes like this:

"Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) was a fictional short-lived country that belonged to the Soviet Alliance, which was fictional too. It was a wonderful land, being filled with fictional candy trees, fictional milk rivers and fictional porridge hills, and per executive order of the wise czar Lenin I, all toilets in the country were made of pure fictional gold."

Somehow, I doubt this is what you have in mind. Digwuren 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to you expect me to prove that a country does not exist if cites on this very page stating that Estonian SSR lasted until 1991 and two countryes cant exist on same territory at the same time are not proof enough? --Alexia Death 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! - When I first saw this article, and the related Estonian SSR (independent) article, I thought they were Estonian nationalist POV-pushing to delegitimize the Estonian SSR (Exactly the opposite of what the nominator claims.) I first considered suggesting a merge to ESSR, but seeing the high quality of this article I understood its logic. The deletion proposal is an effort to push a Estonian POV in the wake of the Estonian - Russian Bronze Soldier conflict. I vote SPEEDY KEEP as a bad faith proposal.

P.S. - Another indication of the BAD FAITH of this nomination is that the nominator placed it in Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts). -- Petri Krohn 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because this is the only category that fits, this article being about fictional alternate history. There is no category for world politics, nor geography. I considered 'places and transportation', but its relation to transportation, which this article does not touch, and the fictionality of the place mentioned, forced me to choose 'fiction' over that. I also considered 'indiscernible' and 'uncategorisable' and found neither to apply here. If there had been 'other', I would have used that one; alas, there isn't.

I resent your accusations of bad faith. Digwuren 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a legal fact that an independent country of this article never existed in the legal realm. How again exactly is stating a fact POV? Cutting legally one territory into bits serves no purpose other than pushing some other (bizzare) POV. Alexia Death 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1990 - 1991 was a transition period to restoration of Republic of Estonia in Estonia SSR. There were legally no Republic of Estonia at that time - at August 20, 1991 independence was re-established on the basis of historical continuity of statehood. Citations:
- The same trend was continued by the new Supreme Council, elected from the general population on 18 March 1990, which declared a period of transition to the restoration of the Republic of Estonia. The Supreme Council elections were won by the Popular Front, whose leader, Edgar Savisaar, became prime minister of the Estonian SSR. - MOFA : Estonia
- Thus, on August 20,1991, Estonia did not issue a declaration of independence but a decision on the re-establishment of independence on the basis of historical continuity of statehood. - The Restoration of Estonian independence

Myzz 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be more precise - At that time Republic of Estonia was still under occupation (After Hitler's Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Estonia was occupied by German armed forces from 1941 to 1944 when the Soviets again took over. ... The de jure continuity of the Republic of Estonia was recognized by Western powers, who refused to view occupied Estonia as being legally part of the Soviet Union - The Restoration of Estonian independence). -- Myzz 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA - The world factbook states following: ... Estonia attained independence in 1918. Forcibly incorporated into the USSR in 1940 - an action never recognized by the US - it regained its freedom in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. -- Myzz 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conditional keep provided the author supplies reliable sources for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'mikka 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an article about a historical period, I would not have marked it for deletion. It is an article claiming to be about "a short-lived country". No such country existed at that time.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as long as supported by the sources. This is a legitimate historical and political issue.Jackfirst 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look above. This is not about a political issue. It sais to be about a country. No such country existed.--Alexia Death 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Republic of Estonia that existed starting in 1990 did not end in 1991. Rather, it became internationally recognized as independent in that year. This article and Estonian SSR (independent) seem to be pushing a point of view, except that I can't figure out what that point of view is. --Metropolitan90 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with this view. The majority of Estonians (and the ones proposing deletion) however disagree. They see this as part of the illegal Soviet occupation (and thus "nonexistent") with no continuity with the post 1991 republic. If I was more handy with wiki-family trees I could draw pictures of all the different ways legal continuity between these republics can be seen to flow. When we have multiple interpretations, we should not try to squeeze everything in one POV article (as in Soviet occupation of Romania or Occupation of Baltic states), but instead split the subject into several articles, so that each separately can be covered in a NPOV manner, presenting all possible interpretations. If you start merging this material into something else, you end up supporting one POV. -- Petri Krohn 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating legally nonexistent countries is also pushing a POV. If this was handled as a hitoric period and not a pseudo country Id have no problem with it.--Alexia Death 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination, as explained by Petri Krohn.--Pan Gerwazy 10:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Petri Krohns attempts to push his POV using these articles in the Bronze Soldier talks made us discover that this article exists does not make the AFD request made in bad faith. The AFD request its an attempt to fix an error that has already mislead someone.--Alexia Death 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think that this article might be necessary because "Republic of Estonia" is ambiguous. In 1990-1991, one of the republics the Soviet Union existed under the name "the Republic of Estonia". At the same time, there legally existed the continuity of the Republic of

Estonia (this is the official legal construction recognized by most countries of the world). So we have to distinguish between them some way. The article under this title could serve to this purpose. So the content of the article should be slightly different. Indeed it wasn't a distinct country. Andres 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but Wikipedia practices for resolving such ambiguities are different. Digwuren 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you seem to have learnt so much in the three days you have been on Wikipedia, tell me: if the pope finally decides that there is no such thing as purgatory, do we delete the article on it? After all, your only argument seems to be that we now know (the Estonian parliamnet having stated so, and the EU acquiesces) that there was no such country? --Pan Gerwazy 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useful information should be added to History of Estonia (if the article here is not a mere duplication of data from History of Estonia) The article proposed for deletion serves no goals apart from advancing the personal history intepretations by the author(s) of this article.E.J. 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments by Myzz. Fictional POV pushing, totally unsourced, doesn't belong to encyclopedia. DLX 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Display:none exploit[edit]

no reference for 2 years. can't find a page from google about this exploit. i think that search engines are smart enough to ignore invisible elements. one more point is that if html isn't converted, why doesn't the user just post javascript? Fiveship 09:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no credible evidence that this is encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a vulnerability/attack. What's next? The img "exploit" that allows websites to display goatse to its visitors? :) --- RockMFR 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't an exploit per-se. It's a technique that was once widely used as part of some exploits and by SEO companies/link spammers (just like using text-indent et al. to have content rendered but not displayed). The fact that the article doesn't make this obvious is quite telling, in my humble opinion. Anyway, it's pretty much a non-issue and I feel the technique in itself isn't notable enough, not to mention that fact that the article is completely unsourced. Seed 2.0 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources, so the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. *** Crotalus *** 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not an 'exploit' but rather a method of keyword stuffing, and that page already mentions the use of CSS to hide keywords. -- Mithent 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, not verifiable, no content, no context and inaccurate (not an exploit). In what way was this article encyclopedia-worthy again? --Tinctorius 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, yet another good find. RFerreira 07:12, 5 May 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 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobots' Lightning Strike[edit]

Non-notable book (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laserbeak's Fury) -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for article to be more than a plot summary, or to establish notability. Jay32183 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'd like to merge all the Transformers novels into one simple article mentioning an overview of them all. user:mathewignash
- Would still require sources. Jay32183 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote on Laserbeak's Fury. JuJube 04:43, 3 May 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 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite of Doom[edit]

Non-notable book (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laserbeak's Fury) -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:~~Weak delete~~. It seems to be a rather obscure book ~~and hence looks like doesn't meet WP:BK~~ [which doesn't apply to comics -- oops, somehow I didn't see the not on that page]. From what I can tell, it does stand out in a couple of ways though: [34][35]. Two articles also mention this comic (ie. Sunstreaker and Jetfire). Is that enough to make it notable? If you ask me, probably not, as much as I'd like to see it kept. -- Seed 2.0 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'd like to see all the Transformers novels articles combined into one overview. suer:mathewignash
Delete per my vote on Laserbeak's Fury. JuJube 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a mix of patent nonsense and vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmanati[edit]

Appears to be a combination of advertising, sandpit practice and a lack of understanding of Wikipedia Sfgreenwood 11:06, 2 May 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 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SciGlass[edit]

Registered trade mark logo in the fiorst sentence is always a red flag, this appears to be a directory entry not an article, and there are no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an ad to me Lurker 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims it's 'used worldwide' but doesn't even bother giving a link to a corporate website. Unverified and almost certainly non-notable. -- Mithent 14:12, 3 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Neil Gaiman[edit]

Article is a review of what Gaiman has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the Neil Gaiman article. WhiteKongMan and I are head to head on the relevancy of these works. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan for other such lists that are being AfD'ed.) BillDeanCarter 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Strong Keep And I usually tend towards deletionism. This is useful information, and no clear policy has been cited. Lurker 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per clause 2 at WP:CSK. This is a bad faith nomination (a charge I do not make lightly) as a violation of WP:POINT. User:BillDeanCarter has been passionately defending several "List of works by ..." AfDs, and to quote his own words concerning this very article, "I just found List of works by Neil Gaiman and what a god damn joy! It's outrageous that this buffoonery wants to eliminate that kind of intrigue," and in alerting the editors on one AfD of this nomination said "I'm sadistic." It is possible to defend one's pet articles without deliberately disrupting the process. RGTraynor 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100% Keep This was nominated in bad faith. No idea why Nominator believes I would have supported this. Gaiman has written actual books, whereas Monahan (whose list I nominated for AfD) had written mostly newspaper articles. WhiteKongMan 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per norm. Rehevkor 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Valid topic fork from the biography page a notable fantasy author. — RJH (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- useful list and valid subject to be included Thunderwing 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the author's article. If that would result in the article's being too large, then Keep. Comparison to the Monahan list is not valid, as that is a collection of magazine bylines whereas this is a listing of comics, books, etc. of which Gaiman is a major (or the major) creative force. Otto4711 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the main article is already too long. Ridiculous nom, this might not be the place for a list of works but we have a list for every other major author, and Gaiman's about as major as living authors get — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Gaiman is an important writer with an extensive bibliography.
Keep Valid sub-topic from a notable fantasy author. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable writer, and the list is far too big to just shove into the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all lists of works are not identical; in comparison to the list for Monahan, this is a much longer list, and more detailed with respect to reprints, and other formats. This is the sort of list which justifies a separate article. DGG 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it really would be better if some secondary sources were added, and a brief description of each novel. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable writer. The Hippie 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This entry was split off from the main Neil Gaiman entry in accordance with the guidelines on such things. It would be helpful if someone nominating an entry for deletion would look into the history of it a bit before jumping in. (Emperor 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per everyone. JuJube 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. Cleo123 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer keep. Correct treatment of overspill from Main article Ohconfucius 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it fascinating that all the sugegstions made of bad-faith nominating neatly side-step the trenchant point raised by this nom, namely that either you block simple bibliographic lists, or you allow every book, article or back-of-a-napkin scribbling to be listed, in case anyone wants to know about them. No vote, just a growing sadness that Wiki is becoming the first refuge of the trivial and non-consequential -- Simon Cursitor 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The nominator's point might be more trenchant if he actually believed in it, and I'm confused at the implication that you overlooked the direct quotes given above from the Monahan AfD proving he doesn't. In any event, while I've !voted on the merits of AfD nominations that have been ill-considered or overhasty, I won't when there is clear and convincing proof of bad faith. This is one. RGTraynor 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technopathy[edit]

"Technopathy" is a neologism that does not seem to exist with a reliable source. Its existence as an article invites comic book readers and similar to contribute original research on what "technopathy" is or is not. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: when you remove "wiki", "Wikipedia", "blog", "forum" and "Heroes" (many of the hits seem to be Heroes fansites) from your search, Google hits for this term drop to only 700, and start revealing that there is already a real word called "technopathy" that refers to some form of bone disorder in animals. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as at least 3 years old; interesting. Bearian 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "interesting" isn't a valid keep. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, lacks real-world, reliable sources. Jay32183 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when the only source listed for an article is a back issue of X-Men you know it's in trouble. I've wasted five minutes of my life I could have spent sleeping or eating trying to find a single legitimate source for this: after a trawl through Google, there are hundreds of sources but without exception they appear to be wikis, blogs and fansites. "Interesting" is not a great 'keep' argument btw — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to be a popular term among role playing gamers, by the looks of the google hits. At a guess there's at least one RPG gamebook out there that defines the term which should be added to the list of sources. Article should also list the TV show and film it mentions as references also, which makes three independent uses of the term, which makes it borderline notable in my opinion. JulesH 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article appears to be almost entirely original research. I tried to find some reliable sources, but came up empty. Even if we did have an RPG sourcebook or something like that as a reliable source for a definition, there's already a short definition at List of comic book superpowers and a category of fictional characters with that power. I think that's more than sufficient coverage for this term.Chunky Rice 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, and many of the works of fiction referenced (such as the Matrix series) never actually use the term. *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a fully notable article within the Superhero genre. Find some more references, and this article will be fine. dposse 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the term is used in Sky High (2005 film) and is a well known term in the science fiction genre. It has been used in a variety of sources, which although not cited as proof in the page are there. Thus in my opinion, it's not a neologism. It may need citations added, but that doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. Jacobshaven3 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually what a neologism is. The word is used by a particular group but does not yet appear in dictionaries. Also, provide the sources now, don't just assume some are there. Jay32183 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, someone is actually saying a term being used in Sky High makes it notable?! JuJube 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. JuJube 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism that only has a little over 3,000 Google hits. The exact term seems to be slightly ill-defined, as befitting a neologism - with two other synonyms and a different interpretation used by Marvel. -- Mithent 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the only reference is an X-Men comic says it all, really. RFerreira 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. There is no policy-based reason to delete either article: a redirect would be just fine. I believe consensus here is that Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is the main article and that this should be merged there. Some think a rename is appropriate, but there isn't consensus (although it wasn't the topic of debate). There is a merge request underway, let it take its course. I think this debate has only established that the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article is the "main" article, which means that one of two results should be chosen: either (1) the articles should be merged there, or (2) the coverage of the unrest should remain in a separate article but have an appropriately short summary in the main article per WP:SUMMARY.

A reminder: because of the GFDL, it is not allowed to "merge and delete." Mango juice^talk 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Estonian unrest[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot have two different articles competing with the same updates. I've now pulled the emergency break. How can we solve this problem? What do you think? Camptown 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering about the reason for the creation of this page. From what I can see right now, it has created a situation where both pages have most of the same info but aren't updated at the same rate. If you trully want to make this page the centrepiece, you should move most of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article here, including all of the sections about the reason for this unrest. Esn 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this article should be deleted as soon as possible, and all updates take place at the main article: Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. --Camptown 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete - I believe this is a case of Recentism I agree if should be merged with the main article (and then this entry deleted). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete This article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article remain the sole and only article for that. Bondkaka 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's notable separately. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete now - if there will be further unrest, the article can be restarted, perhaps with a more appropriate name, though. DLX 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - No point in having to observe two articles for provocations and false statements. Also it is easyer to update one page. Suva 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like nightstallion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one article is good enough. We can rename the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn into Bronze Soldier Controversy, if necessary. 193.40.5.245 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conditionally Merge and redirect, provided that all aspects of the "unrests" can be covered on the "statue" article. - The unrests are too much related to symbolism, that it cannot be covered alone. If new unrests start, then we should reconsider. Aslo, we should closely follow the issue around the clamed "Army of Russian Resistance". If this is real, it merits its own article. -- Petri Krohn 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete and Rename to "Bronze Soldier Controversy" and redirect both current pages to it - as said, its pointless to update and revert vandalism on the same info on 2 different pages.--Haigejobu 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, Rename to 2007 Estonian riots and move relevant information out of Bronze Soldier which should be article purely on monument Borism 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel that renaming or creating an article on 2007 Estonian riots or Bronze Soldier Controversy is effectivly a keep. I believe the question should be does the current situation regarding the Statue warrant a seperate article? Or (as I suggested above) Is it a case of Recentism and should detauls of the current unrest/situation be included in the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the unrest details from the article about the monument. Bronze Soldier of Tallinn should be an article about a monument and piece of art, not about the unrest. This article should cover the unrests which might and if so, the monument does not play a role in them anymore. --213.155.224.232 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. With an article that's getting edited every few minutes, and with the stories of the statue and the controversy surrounding it linked in so many places, I feel that it is NOT currently possible to maintain a consistent line of separation between these two articles. And if we don't do that, what we get is a whole heap of duplicate information, and editors are tasked with the huge task of checking both pages to see if one of them has something that the other doesn't. I propose that for the next couple of weeks, at least, we keep everything about this story in one place. Once the dust has settled, then we can look at ways to logically break it up into separate articles. With the article changing so quickly, it is impossible to have a discussion about the best way to break it up. By the time we've finished discussing, the article and the situation will have changed and the discussion would be irrelevant. Esn 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For Estonians and Russians is this cause very important. I do not know why to delete it when so much people and even governments are talking about it. References also exist; many news sites are still bringing new informations about this. --Aktron (t|c) 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, besides 2007 isn't finished yet. Martintg 00:50, 10 May 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 House of Deréon. Content is preserved in the history behind the redirect if anyone wants it. Daniel Bryant & WjBscribe 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnéz Deréon[edit]

The article is about the grandmother of Beyonce Knowles. It's doubtful whether being the grandparent of a celebrity is enough to warrant an article. True, Beyonce's fashion-line, House of Deréon is named after Agnéz, but the relevant information is already found in that article. In addition, the article is little more than thinly disguised advertising for House of Deréon. Talking about her "passion for creating beauty", "accustomed to tailoring pieces that stood out", "Deréon used to make her style unique and her own". Needless to say, this kind of language is not suited for an encyclopedia. Finally, the article has been tagged for lack of sources for over two months already. I suggest it be deleted or redirected to House of Deréon MartinTremblay 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Deréon as this article is fluff about a non-notable person. See WP:HOLE. Bearian 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- -- Whpq 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Adambro 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna ormiston[edit]

seems like nonsense Mseliw 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nonsense article apparently created by the subject. I've speedied it. andy 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian well[edit]

Case for keeping "Cartesian well"

The issue arose when I came across the term when researching Rene Descartes (though it has nothing directly to do with his work), and I claimed that it was just an error for "Artesian well" - a bore hole in an Artesian basin (after the Artois region of France). I would be happy with deletion or re-direction if this was the only meaning.

Then I recalled a vague memory from undergraduate Quantum mechanics many years ago. I am still researching this. Please allow me time to consult experts to obtain an accurate definition, or allow time for other Wikipedians to expand on my vague definition.

The philosophical usage needs further research. I have found only joking references up to now, but I am told by a Wiktionarian that there seems to be a serious sense in which the term is used.

In the spirit of Wikipedia, could we not put a note that usage is still being researched, rather than rush to delete?

Thanks. Dbfirs 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Joke page or hoax. --EMS | Talk 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither, but I agree that it is not yet a Wikipedia article. I was hoping that someone could help. I was taught my Quantum mechanics by an American called Stan (I can't remember his last name, sorry) many years ago, and my memory is fading, but do you know any Quantum mechanics specialists who might help? Dbfirs 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been years since I did QM myself. As for the article: If it is not a joke or hoax, then I still would still call for a strong delete based on Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a WP:NOR violation due to this usage being a neologism. The best that you could ever hope to get out of me is a transwiki to Wiktionary, but neologisms do not belong there either. --EMS | Talk 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of non-artesian well hits but not a single one of them is using it in this context — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Often, one speaks of solving the Schrödinger Equation in a square well, which one describes using Cartesian coordinates, but I've never heard the term "Cartesian well" used to cover this situation. No doubt a few sources do so, but "square well" and "particle in a box" are vastly more common. Anville 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to particle in a box per Anville. JulesH 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Artesian well, because I think "Cartesian well" would be a misnomer for Artesian well much more often than it would be entered by someone researching the Schrodinger Equation. To the author, I would say that it's inefficient to create a Wikipedia article that doesn't meet our standards. Save it on your hard drive, not in the encyclopedia, and post it when and if you think it can withstand the inevitable AfD scrutiny. JamesMLane t c 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, rare neologism. An encyclopedia should document existing concepts not create new ones. --Pjacobi 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Hanukkah Harry. --Core desat 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanukah Harry[edit]

For the same reasons I nominated Hannukah Harry AND add to it that the author thinks he is being smart by creating two articles on the same subject but under different titles hoping that at least one will survive! Postcard Cathy 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article that says on its face that it is intended as evidence in a trademark dispute. DGG 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As highly POV. Possibly Speedy for attack based on the tone of the 'note'. DarkAudit 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same author cut and pasted this from the article Hanukkah Harry I put that up for AFD and the consensus, at this point, seems to be to delete Postcard Cathy 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an extensively-rewritten Hanukkah Harry. Alansohn 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive WP:OR, IZAK 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into (or replace) Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah_Harry on a page with many SNL characters. Probably also link and add a stub into Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches. Fellow WPP:J folks et alia, I agree that SNL may offend but that doesn't make this skit any less notable than other SNL stuff in en:WP. It's amazing how many SNL characters already have their own articles. Of course, redundant content/articles should be merged and NPOV corrected. But it looks like you've already gotten the editors to clean it up and reference it sufficiently for notability. HG 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said redirect, but someone already preempted this debate and did just that. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources indicate the SNL character is Hannakah Harry, not Chanukah Harry. Not notable as this name. --Shirahadasha 03:44, 4 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola Billboard, Kings Cross[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Esenihc 11:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sign is a notable landmark in Sydney Bandwagonman 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable landmark as shown by references and heritage listing. Rimmeraj 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references for notable heritage landmark. The article isn't worded promotionally for Coke either. Article could do with a few more incoming links, however. --Canley 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep Per keep comments. Article is worded correctly, factually cited, is not advertising a brand product or service, and is about a notable heritage land mark in it's area. There's no WP policy you could possibly cite that would justify a deletion of this article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:SNOW. JRG 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Did the nominator read the article and associated references first? Or just nominate based on the name of the article? -- Chuq (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prominent landmark, ~~area is heritage listed~~, article is well-sourced. Euryalus 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sign or the area actually listed in the Australian Heritage Register? I've tried searching the Australian Heritage database and I haven't found it. If it's listed, then I'd suggest keeping the article with no further argument. Otherwise, I think more of an argument for a local landmark would be in order. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Heritage Register only records buildings and structures whose heritage is significant on a national level. There are other registers in Australia that record heritage at a state, regional or local level as well. In other countries, many of the landmarks that have significance at a state or regional level would undoubtedly qualify for a WP article. This is a Sydney icon and the article is more than justified in staying. JRG 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was curious more than anything, since the article said it was heritage-listed. And I can agree that billboards are landmarks, like this Grain Belt Beer sign which greets travelers on Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota -- even though Grain Belt is no longer brewed in the city. Since there's really no place to merge this sign into another article, I'm voting keep on this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kings Cross, New South Wales. Lots of things in a big city are noticeable and get mentioned in the context of someother subject, but that does not mean that an article about them is appropriate. The references are not adequate to show that a the billboard is of enough notability to have a separate article, so it should be mentioned in the article about the neighborhood. . Ref 2 does not satisfy WP:A since it is just a tourism promotional site. The others which are accessible without paying several dollars, just make passing and trivial reference to the billboard and do not satisfy WP:N. If reference 1 ($2.50 to view) and ref 5 ($1.50 to view) contain nontrivial coverage, they would help to make the case. Perhaps someone with access to the fee articles could relate ioin the article discussion page what they say that proves notability. It would also help if the "heritage" status was documented better than in the passing reference in one of the references. This is not a vote. Arguments here where people assert that they know how notable something is from their personal knowledge cannot be counted towards proving the notability of the subject. Per WP:N notability is not subjective. Edison 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and sourced. Acalamari 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Very notable, locations are always notable in someway. Eaomatrix 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it's pretty notable, for a billboard. Lankiveil 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It is a well-known landmark in the area and there are plenty of sources for it. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable and listed landmark. Billboards can be notable and this one is. And I just noticed the nom's very first edit was this AfD [36]... unless it's a sock of course. --Oakshade 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of, if not the, most desirable billboards in Australia. Another RS to demonstrate notability: [37]. A comparable article is Mail Pouch Tobacco Barn. John Vandenberg 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I still believe this billboard is notable enough for inclusion as a landmark, it is not in fact listed as a heritage item at a Federal (Australian Heritage Register), State or local level (State and local listings at www.heritage.nsw.gov.au). The article appears to be incorrect on this point. Euryalus 05:13, 5 May 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. The fact that the article has changed heavily during the debate, especially with referencing, affirms this close. If anyone feels that this deserves another run at AfD in its' new state, please, go right ahead and nominate it again. However, a lot of this debate focused on the old version, and the 'no consensus' closure seems to be the right option given this and the change in the debate as the edits were made, below. Daniel Bryant 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah Harry[edit]

I am Jewish so don't consider this to be antisemitic. I have never heard of Hannukah Harry and I was a kid when the term was ALLEGEDLY coined. Without any sources, it appears to be an original essay. Unless the author or someone else can verify that Hannukah Harry is as legitimate a term/idea as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, it must be gone based on the fact it is an original essay. Postcard Cathy 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm jewish, have never heard of this and can't find any hits. Besides, everyone knows the Jewish santa is the Holiday Armadillo — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable SNL skit. Pete.Hurd 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, I'm not going to shed any tears if it gets deleted because there's pretty much nothing worth saving, but there are a few google hits [38]. Also, I know "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but using, Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches as a benchmark it's tough to see why this one is less notable than most of these. I think that, more than most SNL sketches, this character could actually have a decent article, given a complete re-write.Chunky Rice 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and unencyclopedic :"that all Jewish families have heard of" -- pure imagination, apparently invented one day after the Hanukkah bush that is an actual imitation tradition. DGG 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Recurring? I only remember one SNL appearance for this character. DarkAudit 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two, according to Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah Harry Pete.Hurd 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: !Votes cast as listed above were based on the original text of the article, before it was rewritten. See this link for diffs
Keep The existing article was completely rewritten. Details on the two SNL skits in which the character appears are provided, with sources. Additionally references to how the character has seeped into popular culture as a personification of Hanukkah to correspond to Santa are provided from some notable media sources. A Google News search finds several dozen articles that mention the character, including some meaty references. While I don't think the SNL appearances constitute notability, the media references demonstrate that the character is indeed becoming a part of our culture. Alansohn 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same author cut and pasted the original article under the title Chanukah Harry. I put that up for afd as well. Postcard Cathy 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page into a redirect. If this article is kept, it should probably stay as such. Also, Keep based on re-write.Chunky Rice 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now those are references! ;) I personally don't think a character with only two SNL appearances in the 80s warrants an article, but not so much to endorse for or against this vastly improved article. DarkAudit 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive WP:OR. IZAK 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate as to what part you think is original research? Chunky Rice 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to whom? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chunky Rice and Iridescenti: Thank you for asking. Ok, it's like this: Hanukkah, as you may well know, is a very important Jewish holiday celebrated by many Jews (as it has been for over two thousand years) so the adding of the word "Harry" which basically means a "nerd" or a "loser" is insulting to Judaism and the Jewish people, regardless if it makes for great entertainment. He's not a "Jewish Santa Klaus" at all (who are we kidding?), it's more like creating Christmas Buffoon, or Ramadan Donkey, which would not be very nice, to say the least. (See what happened in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as an example how these kind of things can go gravely wrong, when so-called popular culture clashes with religiuous sensibilities!) So would it be ok if negative depictions of Jews from Der Stürmer were thrown at us as part of some "popular culture" in another place and time? (Such as the recent Iranian "brainwave" International Holocaust Cartoon Competition -- some "Cartoon" some "Comptetition"!) This "Hanukkah Harry" seems to be a new incarnation of Fagin and Shylock in hip form. That's the offensive part. The opening line of this article is pure OR: "Hanukkah Harry...has seeped into popular culture as a Jewish counterpart to Santa Claus for the Hanukkah season." Oh yeah? That's news to a lot of people. Which "popular culture" is this exactly? And this piece of fanciful nonsense: "Building on these two SNL appearances, Hanukkah Harry has been referenced as a personification of Hanukkah to correspond to Santa Claus throughout the media" -- so now "Hanukkah Harry" is a "referenced personification" of a major Jewish holiday, created presto by some backroom scriptwriters? This is like saying that the Swedish Chef is now a "referenced personification" of Sweden, or that Speedy Gonzales is a "referenced personification" of Mexicans -- all of which is very laughable to any serious scholar. But at least the Swedish Chef and Speedy Gonzales don't have to skirt issues of religion and antisemitism which Harry Hanukkah borders on, albeit subtly. IZAK 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with you about the original research, since it's clear from the citations (and a quick google search) that the character has been used outside the context of the SNL sketch.

Second, as to whether or not it's offensive, I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. Being offensive is not, in of itself, grounds for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into (or replace) Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah_Harry on a page with many SNL characters. Probably also link and add a stub into Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches. Fellow WPP:J folks et alia, I agree that SNL may offend but that doesn't make this skit any less notable than other SNL stuff in en:WP. It's amazing how many SNL characters already have their own articles. Of course, redundant content/articles should be merged and NPOV corrected. But it looks like you've already gotten the editors to clean it up and reference it sufficiently for notability. HG 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is partly redundant with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chanukah_Harry. Please combine. HG 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really anymore. This page is nothing like it was when it was nominated. DarkAudit 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a popular culture topic, not a Judaism one, It's adequately sourced and notable as a popular culture topic, and therefore there is no policy reason not to keep it, whether WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Shirahadasha 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hanukkah Harry "exists" and is notable. --Eliyak T·C 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirrect to Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah_Harry. In general I don't like articles being created "from the bottom up" that is lots of small articles that are then (if they are found) referenced via ((main)) it creates a sloppy and haphazard treatment of the subject matter. Articles series should be made from the top down. When an article gets too big then branch of smaller part into sub-articles (again using a ((main))). Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live is an immature article and there is no need to branch off into sub-article especially when the information is not that large. Jon513 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems relatively sourced (better than most); if its only occurrence was on SNL, a redirect as per Jon513 would be in order, although the article seems to note that Harry shows up elsewhere, whether these elsewheres merely parrot the SNL Harry or embellish or legitimize him beyond his origins I cannot say but seems to stand to reason that if NPR has covered it, it's notable enough to stay. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: many of the comments seem to be about the state of the article prior to a large re-write, you would do well to consider them in this light. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete NN. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Generally, "Delete NN" votes are frowned upon. Is there any particular aspect of the rewritten article that fails notability? Can the article be further improved to address your concerns? Alansohn 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This cahracter does not apepar to ahve a general presnece in folk or popular cluture -- the acharacter appears to have appeared in two SNL skits and a few scattered references to them. That is not enough, IMO, for indipendant notability. particualrly becaue the article could be read to imply that this character has becoem a genuine folk character comparable to Santa Claus, which is simply not the case. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To judge by the article this is a character who appeared some years ago on a couple of SNL skits. No evidence that it has entered wider culture. In no way forms a part of Jewish culture or sub-culture. --Smerus 08:13, 8 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot chocolate effect[edit]

Not every topic covered in an academic journal is wiki worthy. Witness the IgNoble awards. They are set up specifically for studies that were done in all earnestness and only when the world at large sees the results does anyone realize it is ludicrus. This topic has little application to most people. Postcard Cathy 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason is given for the delete except that it has "little application to most people". That's certainly not a valid reason. And the comparison to the IgNoble awards is ludicrous. StAnselm 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not ludicrous at all, unlike the nominator's spelling of ludicrous. Nick mallory 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without making any comment on this article, it's highly inappropriate to make a personal remark like that. Spelling errors are not uncommon, and making fun of somebody for a simple mistake presents an uncivil attitude. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its one teacher's imaginative name for a simple but clever classroom experiment, published once as a note in the principal journal for physics teachers. A good example of why we request two sources. DGG 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an interesting effect that people of a scientific turn of mind commonly want explained. It crops up in science Q&A columns such as New Scientist blog, Society for Amateur Scientists, and physics demos e.g. [39]. Tearlach 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: if the sources Tearlach mentioned are added and the article is wikified, I think it's not really necessary to delete this article. --Tinctorius 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been trying and can't come up with one, but can anyone think of a more broad topic this might fall under? Or similar phenomena? It just seems to me this should be an example of something more general, could be wrong though. Someguy1221 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring South Park characters[edit]

All the characters have their own articles, so the list isn't necessary. -- Cyberspace 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're all listed in the templete below so this article is pretty unnecessary. Rehevkor 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally un-needed per User:Rehevkor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge Should be merged with List of minor characters on South Park. That all characters have their own (considerably more detailed) article is a really bad argument. Giving an overview and linking to more in-depth articles is the purpose of lists. Please note that this article is part of a series of South Park character lists. Malc82 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why keep? Because it's useful. - Super48 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid "it's useful" arguments. Everything is useful to somebody. Bulldog123 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeI agree, let's merge it with another article. Some of these characters played a significant role in a few episodes, and to delete thim would rob them of recognition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Rehevkor Bulldog123 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can some of the most controversial characters (Jesus, Saddam Hussein, Satan) from one of the most-discussed tv series ever not be notable? Malc82 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All recurring characters would have been listed in some template by now. The readers can just click on it to find the article of the character of their choice. So a list is not needed.--Kylohk 21:56, 7 May 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, with a strong suggestion for the parties involved here to utilize mediation rather than AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Tribunals[edit]

The name of Malta Tribunals is renamed to ->> "Inter-allied tribunal attempt"

This article is being nominated for deletion because it speculates on a set of trials that were to occur but in fact, never did. This sort of speculative and conjectural kinds of hypotheses clearly fall under Wikipedia's No Original Research guidelines where the formulations of theories on how something would have occurred even though it has not taken place. This is akin to creating an article on who the combatants are going to be and weapons are to be used in the World War III article or something even more far-fetched, such as the Disintegration of the United States or the Impeachment of President George W. Bush. The Malta Tribunals never took place and any information over here can more than easily be integrated into it's parent article, Malta exiles since it lacks in content. Creating an article on something that was about to happen doesn't but this fails to hold water.--MarshallBagramyan 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an analogous example is Treaty of Sèvres, a treaty that was never ratified. We have it, we also have many of its spawns, like Occupation of Izmir, Wilsonian Armenia, etc. (this one is also one) Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Sevres was actually produced and written down - it is an actual document and there is a great deal of history and ancillerary information surrounding such. Turksih prisoners were held on Malta - they were exchanged for British prisoners - that is about all we can factually say about what occured on Malta. And as there were no "International Tribunals" of any kind after WWI - we cannot make an article with that name claiming that there were. Its not just that there were no verdicts oir sentances - there were no judges, juries, prosecutors, charges filed or even an legal process started whatsoever - thus no such thing. SO no - it is not analogous to the Treaty of Sevres - an actual real thing. --THOTH 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

And the people were actually exiled to be later tried. A 'treaty' not ratified is not a treaty imo. We might even need to change its title, but we would keep it as it is how the 'treaty' is referred to as. Deniz^T_C 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you fallow THOTH; these people are illegally detained, illegally exiled. He rejects all the legal justifications brought forward. He is defending his point beyond the boundaries of logic. For THOTH Allies were acting on illegal terms as he rejects the idea there was an agreement among allies to bring these people in to justice. He even argues against an international text, Treaty of Sevres. He rejects the Article 230 of Treaty of Sevres which demands a from of "international justice". He says, "where is the text for actual trials held on Malta" (see [40]) No Malta in the text, So no resolution to bring the war criminals to justice. If you follow his logic that an international peace treaty can not be put forward to prove allied resolution (it is not a "plan" for him) to bring justice for war criminals. With his words "no such trials were ever planned or executed." He says there is no plan and execution so "the article should be deleted." It is really impossible to bring a better proof than a "peace treaty" for the existence of a plan. It is really hard to talk with a person, who does not seek the truth but fight for a cause. Note: article is not telling about a fictitious trial. It is telling about why there was not a trial, even though there was a resolution to have a trial. --OttomanReference 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IN fact both the Ottoman Authorities as well as the nationalists were absolutely furious when the British seized the first group of Turks from the Istanbul "prison" and took them to Mudros - later to be transfered to Malta. They saw this as an absolute breech of Ottoman sovereignty and a breech of a defacto agreement whereby the Ottomans would try these criminals under ottoman law and authority. As for the rest of your paragrapgh I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. And I am not advocating anything but sticking to the facts. I may talk about and do nothign but think about hitting you - but if I never actually do anything to find about about where you are - to get within arms reach of you - well you can't really say I have planned to hit you...and you certainly cannot say that I have hit you. Calling somethng that never occured "Malta Tribunals" is exactly that. And even if they ever contemplated trials of any kind it never got nearly far enough along to actually say they had planned anything and certainly there is no evidence that trials were "planned" to be held on Malta (if so please tell me where on Malta was the courtroom they were "planning" to use - etc? So malta cannot be considered as the location for any tribunals that did not exist - we can only talk about the British detaining people there. I mean would it be legitimate to start an article concernign the torture of Turkish prisoners on Malta. Do we have any evidence of such torture? Well no...did some British major somewhere sometime sugest he'd like to torture the bastards? Well maybe so...but one cannot then say it occured if this is all you have to go on. And maybe even if he was "planning" to torture some Turks (who were being held at Malta) - maybe he was going to transporrt them to Crete first. Anyway we really don't know - because again it never happened - so it is just all speculation. --THOTH 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: Article clearly states in the introduction paragraph that the trials never reach to prosecution stage. The importance of the article is based on the historical events which explains what happened and why it failed. These are significant information. The information in the article comes from respected journals and respected Armenian historians which their views (cited information) can not be a speculative analysis. The stated objection is based on the title without reading the content. The content explains (a) legal bases (uses "Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law" as a source) (b) the processes related to detantion (uses Vahakn N. Dadrian "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus" as the source). (c) the collection of evidence (uses Vahakn N. Dadrian as the source) (d) the reasons for the failure of prosecution (uses Minister Lord Curzon's citation regarding the failure). The credible sources (referee journals and books by historians) in the article clearly falsifies the No Original Research argument. Also MarshallBagramyan claims that the article Malta exiles lacks in content. However Malta exiles is a label which has been used to refer people who were detained in Malta. Malta exiles collect personal information, who, where and why they were detained. On the other hand the article Malta Tribunals has a different content which covers the legal and political consequences generated when the article 230 of Treaty of Sèvres demanded prosecution. -- OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dadrian's chapter and the various quotes refer to the concept of retributive Justice in the case of the Armenian Genocide. Numerous ideas for punishment of the Turks and of the Ottoman Empire are discussed. Also discussed is the specific failure to bring the detainees the British held on Malta to justice and the consternation of many that such persons were simply allowed to go free WITHOUT ANY KIND OF TRIAL. At no point in the chapter are the words "Malta Tribunal(s)" used - as in fact there were no tribunals held on Malta nor is there any evidence whatsoever that there were ever any plans to hold tribunals on Malta. Dadrian does reference that International Tribunals were contemplated and the chapter discusses the great many difficulties entailed to accomplish such and the fact that such never occured. Again - do we write an article on the "Guantanamo Tribunals" when such things have not occured? Prisoners were detained on Malta then released in a prisoner exchange and nothing more. The issue of prosecuting Ottoman perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide can and is discussed within the Armenian genocide article itself.--THOTH 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support of keeping: The article tries to bring the credible sources which are very important to wikipedians. The topic has been discussed many times but never formed a coherent wiki article. Even the MarshallBagramyan claims that the content of the article has been discussed in two instances First discussion thread and there is another discussion after user:FADIX develops an position article named The_Real_Malta_Tribunal. Before the article created there was a new discussion thread about the prisoners in Malta jails. As far as I can see the main objection of MarshallBagramyan is based on the Title, (however he corrects the title as The Real Malta Tribunals) which he claims that it is misinforming as the prosecution never happened. I believe the correct path is not "delete" the article but find a title that is not misinformation. Because the content is relevant and cited information. I advise this path to MarshallBagramyan which the discussion thread is already opened under the talk page with the Name of the article subsection. Also User THOTH claims that in his edit "trying to work Armenian Genocide denial without actually having to falsify" I believe THOTH's point can not be reached by deletion as the removal of the information presented in the article will be an action against the Genocide. The opposite of THOTH's proposal which is keeping all the information in the public domain is the correct way. Thanks OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename : For the reasons explained in the introduction section. OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were no such trials - pure and simple. The British detained a number of Turkish criminals - most of whom were previously held in Ottoman detention - but had been escaping at alarming rates - primariy for the purpose of ensuring that they would not get away and totally evade justice. There was a general interest (among the Entente powers) in trying many of these individuals for "crimes against humanity" - an entirely new concept that had never been tried before - but there was absolutly no action taken to initiate any kind of trials. Turkish deniers of the Armenian genocide attempt to twist the known facts of this episode to suggest that the fact that there were no trials that this proves their innocence. It is a ploy. And in fact there were trials held within the purview of ottoman Law (held at various places in Anatolia - and none at Malta) that resulted in convictions and sentencing yet these same people want to ignore or discount these very real events. This article is clearly a fork on the part of Armenian genocide deniers to make spurious non-historical claims. There were never any International or British concieved trials - nor even any pre-trial proceedings. In fact there was never any court established nor even any framework agreed upon for such a body. This article concerns something entirely ficticious. Do we produce an article about Albanians walking on the moon just because some Albanians once said that they would like to go there sometime? That is about all the relevance to reality that this article has. Any real issues regarding Turkish detainees at Malta, or any attempt from the Entente powers to prosecute and or punish Ottoman Turks because of war crimes or crimes against humanity that occured during WWI can and should be covered within the framework of WWI articles and/or the Armenain genocide article respectively. This should be clear to anyone examining the facts of this issue.--THOTH 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers the topic along the same ideas of THOTH says "There were no such trials - pure and simple." Simply: Article takes the topic from where THOTH left and states (1) it was demanded by Treaty of Sèvres (2) there were people detained (3) evidence collected SO lets see what historians say about the failed (or so called as you said/edited with this edit)" Malta Tribunals. The article does tell about how and why did not reach "prosecution" stage with collection of cited information. If this information was not important historians did not spend time and collect evidence or Lawyers try to understand the context of failed Malta Tribunals. That should clearly answer your question. Thanks --OttomanReference 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the title "The Real Malta Tribunal" was not by Fadix's choosing - he was replying back to user Torque who had titled it in that way, hence, the "Re:" as in reply. --MarshallBagramyan 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only shows that the terminology "Malta Tribunal" is an active terminology which has a meaning to both sides. The word has a shared understanding, which one sides (YOU) disagrees. I'm saying that disagree does not give the person right of "deletion." You and your friends did the same thing before. Remember, the titles really are a pointer to an event. have dictionaries or in our case "lead sections" to give the real meaning. Titles point something relevant which can have a extensive meaning, sometimes they include "irony", or "points to an event which did not happened but people wanted it to happen." We "Malta Tribunal" as a title is doing its job. Thanks OttomanReference 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my understanding of the term "Malta Tribunal" is that of a ficticious claim on the part of deniers of the Armenian Genocide. Perhaps I ought to develop an article titled: "The claims concerning the ficticious Malta Tribunals that never were" - such an article will contain more actual facts then and article devoted to hypothetical tribunals that never occured. I supose that Holocaust deniers would be justified in creating an article titled: "The Jewish de-licing program" describing in great detail the Nazi plans to free their Jewish poulation of lice - and oh BTW - any claim to the contrary - that such a program was entirely ficticious and a cover up could be explained away by the fact that people are familiar with such claims by Holocaust denials (as we are familiar with the term "Malta Tribunal") even though such a thing never occured... --THOTH 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please THOTH keep focus on the cited info; The content is not based on what THOTH understands about the failure of the process but it is based on what "historians" and/or "lawyers" (SOURCED) claims about the period and the events to the failure of prosecution. --OttomanReference 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see above. There were no such thing as "Malta Tribunals" - the only tribunals held for Ottoman war criminals and perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide are the Post War Ottoman Military Tribunals already discussed in the Armenian Genocide article. The "Malta Tribunals" are an entirely ficticious concept.--THOTH 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Malta exiles. The information contained in the article appears historically very relevant and should be kept. It is a fact however that the tribunals were never instituted. Moreover a websearch appears to indicate that Malta tribunals is a codeword used mainly by Turkish negationists. Stammer 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as currently written contains manipulation of quoted sources to have them refering to "Malta Tribunals" and other things that never existed. It is entirely a manipulated presentation aimed at denial of the Armenian genocide. The relevancy of this issue is entirely a subset of the concept of attempts to punish Ottoman Turkish criminals for the Armenian genocide. It cannot be dealt with in islation and neither is it right to make assertions about ficticious events.--THOTH 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed the fact that I suggested to merge the article. That's the exact opposite of of dealing with it in isolation. Please read what I write, if you are interested in a meaningful exchange. The article contains valuable information, mostly drawn from Vahakn Dadrian' work. I hope we agree that Dadrian is not a negationist. The various quotes, such "The allied powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and The Turkish Government undertakes to recognize such "Tribunal" ", from the treaty of Sèveres, Curzon's " the less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused" and the British Foreign Office memoranda give a vivid insight into Allied attitudes on the issue, at various levels. That kind of information should be preserved. Stammer 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my contention that the entire "Malta Tribunal" article is misleading and is based upon an improper manipulation of quotes and information. As such I think its value is quite minimal. IMO Dadrian's analysis is best presented (in proper context) within the Armenian Genocide article itself or perhaps in a directly related article specifically dealing with attempts to punish Turks and the Ottomans for crimes cimmited against the Ottoman Armenians. The whole peace process and plans for partioning of the Ottoman Empire are relevant to this issue (and would certainly be worthy of an article substrated to the Armenian Genocide article and/or an article concerning WWI and specifically attempts to punish those accused of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity) - however these are much larger issues and the issues directly pertaining to the Turks detained at Malta is only (a minor) part of the picture. It is false to claim that there was any real attempt by the British or anyone else toward actual trial of these individuals or that any real attempt was made to establish a legal case against them or that any attempt was actually made to set up courts or tribunals (in never got nearly this far) and furthmore any claim of innocence derived by their detainment and ultimate release in a prisoner exchange is entirely spurious and based upon numerous false assumptions and are a clear manipulation of the historical record. (perhaps something that in itslef could be presented in an article concerning Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide)--THOTH 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore would it be correct to Merge/redirect the contents of my ficticious article concerning Nazi Jewish de-licing program into an article concerning Jewish concentration camp issues if in fact the de-licing program never existed or was presented in clearly a faulty, spurious and manipulated manner (and as an attempt to conduct original research to counter gas chamber (execution)evidence? This is exactly how I see this suggestion to incorporate faulty and ficticious information into some other article.--THOTH 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOTH, good to see you here, please do not bring up Holocaust each and every time, it does not really help Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, as this article may be otherwise considered a fork. It is significant to note the British did not punish those responsible, but this suggests that this was due to lack of evidence, rather than desire for a prisoner exchange. In any case, we don't need an article about something that never happened. The Myotis 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is clearly encyclopaedic, your objection is to the name. Move if necessary. Hornplease 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this user has a history of writing unsourced materials and original research. Hetoum I 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack people and vote based on the creator of the article. The article has many sources almost all of them being Armenian or third party. Attacking people when you have this on a user page is quite weird I'd say: "Welcome to my userpage. Unfortunately, I have been blocked out of this account, so it is derelict. See my new username here: User: Hetoum I" I am happy that you have kept your promise to User:Nlu not to vandalize in your first five days here with this new username. Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for the article is Dadrian whose words have been selectivey presented to portray exactly the opposite of his researched views on this subject.--THOTH 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the preparations for the tribunals and the discussions of them happened. Without involving the turkish/Armention issues, the tribunals are important historically as the part of the background for later war crimes trials. Worth the detail of a separate article. DGG 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify just which "tribunals" you are refering to. I'm not aware of any "tribunals" held on malta - please provide details.--THOTH 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to International Tribunals (Malta 1920) or something like that if necessary. Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again which "Malta" or "International" tribunals are you refering to? Please provide details of such that occured on malta in 1920. If you cannot name the judges, prosecutors, dates of trials and so on and so forth - then there is no evidence of such trials. It is incorrect to refer to (and to give names for) trials or tribunals that never occured. This entire matter is a ficticious and highly misleading concept. To give credence to such fictions is equivilent to letting Holocaust deniers put up their own pages here denying gas chambers and such and claimign that just because such concepts have entered into the denialist lexicon they are "noteworthy" and legitimate - thus its OK to have an article claiming that such concepts are factual and valid when they entirely are not. This whole idea of "Malta Tribunals" is entirely false premisis. Neither Dadrian nor any other legitimate Historian or Armenian Genocide scholar ever refers to such. In the talk pages of the article I have posted exact quotes from Tanar Akcam's lates book which disprove claims that the British ever made any attempt to secure incriminating information from the Turks nor did they make anything other then a single inquiry to the US State Department to obtain any actual evidence - and this was done by the British Ambassador to the US - not by any sort of prosecution or investigative team. Neither was there any attempt to actually establish a court or tribunal of any kind - neither by the British nor by any other international body - thus we cannot legitimatly refer to "Malta" or "International" tribunals that neither existed nor were even contemplated beyond the most cursory manner. And there is no proof whatsover that anyone had any plans to hold any hearings on Malta itself. There is no valid option but to eliminate this article in its entirety. It is a work of manipulative fiction.--THOTH 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people were exiled to Malta, and stayed there for years, so why were they exiled, if not to be tried at these 'Malta Tribunals'? Deniz^T_C 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could speculate many things (as you are doing). Perhaps other Turks found these individuals to be so ugly they wished them out of their sght? But there is not one single historical reference to any tribunals held or even planned to be held on Malta during this time.--THOTH 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Your objection is on the title; If you reject the word "Malta" you do not need to delete the article which yourself brought some citations. Lets not use the location in the title, but say "Allied attempts of International Trials." You constantly negate to every proposal. Is there anything you can bring forward on title which this community can make you happy? Please propose something which can be a title, we are taking this seriously. This proposal you presented before is juvenile]. OttomanReference 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title is absolutly objectionable as any portrayal of fact - however it is not just the title but the entire presentation that is faulty and is based entirely on assumptions. If there were to be an article on "Allied attempts of International Trials" as you propose then the detainment of Turks on Malta would only be a minor part of it and would still have to be presented accuratly - which it is not. For the most part anything that really needs to be said about the Turkish detainees at Malta and their ultimate fate can be said within either a WWI article and/or the Armenian Genocide article itself. Even this issue of proposed?/theoretical trials for Turks responsible for the Armenian Genocide would be better as a subset of an overall presentation of the Allies desire to punsih the Ottoman Empire/Turkey/specific Turks responsible with potential trials (which were only a concept - a pipe dream at best) being only one of a number of options proposed/considered and all part of a very complex set of circumstances and manuverings of the time.--THOTH 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOTH says "entirely on assumptions" It is funny that you can bring citations (see) for all these assumptions. How can we trust to you when you add content to the article, but also claim it is "a pipe dream" and ask it to be deleted. --OttomanReference 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion content of first para's of Malta exiles should be copied/moved here, and Malta exiles should be the 'list article' for this 'main article' Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I respectfully invite the administrator that will close this discussion, as well as my fellow contributors, to weigh carefully whether the mention of a "Tribunal" in the Sèvres treaty and the detention of Turkish personalities in Malta warrant the conclusion that "Malta tribunals" have any historical reality. Such tribunals were in fact never instituted. As I wrote above, the fact that a "Tribunal" for Turkish crimes against Armenians is mentioned in Sèvres treaty, as well as the fact that Turkish personalities related to those events were detained in Malta, are historically significant and should be documented here, but one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct that appears to be supported mainly, if not exclusively, by Turkish negationists. Note that Vahakn Dadrian in his book, which is widely cited in the article, explicitly denies the existence of any Malta Tribunal. (see [41], and [42]).Stammer 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stammer says "conclusion that "Malta tribunals" happened" Is there anywhere in the article claims otherwise? How could you accuse article by claiming things that it does not say? Article says the same thing. It is not falsifying. The article only explains even though international prosecution demanded by the treaty why it did not happen? This story (collection of historical events) is a significant story lawyers and for Armenian historians. Why it is not a significant thing for wikipedia? Why cant we tell the reasons behind these failed tribunals? Why do Stammer want us to delete it?OttomanReference 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quotation above ("Stammer says ...") is invented. I am saying that "one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct" by having an article named after it and built around it. I am not going to repeat for the third time my other previous arguments , which you are apparently unwilling or unable to grasp. Stammer 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stammer says "one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct" Sorry I just get what you are saying. Next time I saw Vahakn N. Dadrian I will tell him personally that his studies on Armenian Genocide were falsified as he studied this pseudo-historical construct... At the end what is the meaning studying this pseudo-historical construct relation to "Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law." I guess these people who study this issue are "unable to grasp, too" Thanks --OttomanReference 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides mentioning numourous times that there were no Malta tribunals and that no International trials - Dadrian has spoken a number of times directly concering this issue and these thoughts have been documented. In one of the specific statements that Stammer has in fact linked titled "The Non-Existence of "Malta Tribunals" (but that obviously you and some others have failed to read) Dadrian states (my bolds) - the "so-called "Malta Tribunals" which in fact never existed and accordingly are nowhere in the respective literature cited. The British camp and affiliated domiciles at Malta were strictly a detention center where the Turkish suspects were being held for future prosecution on charges of crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, Ottoman citizens. The envisaged international trials on the new penal norm "crimes against humanity" never materialized, however—largely because of political expediency. The victorious Allies, lapsing into dissension and growing mutual rivalries, chose to strike separate deals with the ascendant Kemalist insurgents in Anatolia. One such deal concerned the recovery of some British subjects who were being held hostage by the Kemalists and who were to be released in exchange for the liberation of all Malta detainees. ...It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments. Everything was deferred for an eventual, anticipated international trial. To an incidental, single inquiry from London, Aukland Geddes, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921 responded saying that the U.S. archives at that time already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres"2 but that under existing conditions it was not possible to assign and charge specific culpabilities to the Turkish detainees at Malta as the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties." So I ask that you please refrain from invoking Dadrian here to make your case and I point out that you are incorrectly doing the exact some thing in the article itself which is based on entirely false premesis--THOTH 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments that hit to the heart of the matter. Tribunals never exsisted. The use of Dadrian to support the contention of tribunals is false and highly misleading and in fact is exactly the opposite of his position. Facts regarding the Treaty of Sevres should be introduced within the article on the Treaty of Sevres (which BTW could use a great deal of improving as it stands) and facts (not speculations) surounding Turkish criminals held by the british on Malta should be dealt with within WWI and/or Armenian genocide article and at best warrent a brief mention. If one would contyemplate an article having to do with prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity - the experience and failure to do such after WWI would deserve mention and again the fact that these Turks on Malta were never prosecuted even though nearly everyone was certain of their guilt is again worthy of a footnote. But at no point can the phrase "Malta Tribunals" be employed because there was never such a beast and the only way one can discuss "International Tribunals" is in the context of a lot of talk during and just prior to the end of WWI regarding such but basically absolutly no effort made whatsoever to institute such after the war. This fact and all of the reasons for such (presented factually not speculatively) could warrent a decent paragragh.--THOTH 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Must.^T ^C 15:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MarshallBagramyan and THOTH. - Fedayee 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — possible rename.
- The comments here, favoring deletion, seem mainly to be based on concerns over the content of the article, whether it is biased, or dishonest — not whether the topic itself merits coverage in the wikipedia. That is not what discussions on ((afd)) should be about. A perceived biased POV is not grounds for deletion.
- Wikipedia contributors who are concerned that this current version of this article is biased, or dishonest should be expressing their concern on the article's talk page — not trying to get the article deleted. If I was weighing earlier I would have argued for a speedy-keep due to a malformed nomination.
- I think the distortion of the ((afd)) process is sufficient for the closing admin to choose to ignore a delete, even if the preponderance of the comments appeared to favor deletion. I believe closing admins have the discretion to make that kind of judgement call, and I encourage them to consider using this authority.
- I urge other wikipedians to be on watch for nominations, or comments, that are in violation of the deletion policy. IMO, articles that are nominated for deletion where the nomination itself is in violation of policy should all be given a speedy keep. If the concern that prompted the nomination really does hold merit, let the nominator, or someone else who agrees with them, renominate the article with a nomination that does comply with policy.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swan - I see that you have participated in the article concerning detainees at Guantanamo. Considering their situation - would it be appropriate to craft an article concerning trials or tribunals held for these detainees and to trumpet their innocence on the basis of trials that were never held? I would think not. The situation with the detainees on Malta is no different. There cannot be a historical article concerning events that never occured. Can't you see that the title itself - as well as the content and claims concerning such are entirely bogus. Allowing this article is identicle to allowing articles by Holocaust deniers stand and remain as historical fact. Keeping this article is both a great diservice to truth as well as a form of hate crime in itself as it directly contributes to perpetuation of genocide as part of denial of the Armenin Genocide. This cannot be allowed.--THOTH 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOTH, please just once use another type of argument. The trials were 'initiated' (the 'suspects' were declared, most were detained, rest were to be tried in absentia) but could not be finished, current title reflects that good in my opinion. Deniz^T_C 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even give me a single reference to support such claims. Just who has said that there was a plan to try anyone in absentia? This is the first I have ever heard of such. Likewise every real reference shoots down any claim that any international trials were ever initiated. "Inter-allied tribunal attempt"? Are you kidding me? Is this how low Wikipedia has stooped to? Well as long as you are just making things up you might as well claim that the allies planned to hold hearings at a Turkish bath - I mean be creative and at least make it interesting. --THOTH 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem here is that, according to scholarly sources selectively cited in the article, the subject topic is non-existent. A careful reading of [43] , which I already referenced above, should be enough to clarify the issue. It's an excerpt from Dadrian's essay, "Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification". As for the new title, Darian states that "the Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments". There was no "Inter-allied tribunal attempt".Stammer 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, suppose the argument that the article was hopelessly biased, had no merit, beyond one based on bogus, distorted references was correct, then the nominator should be able to cite specific, civil, serious attempts to address this concern, on the talk page. The nominator should have referenced their serious, specific, civil attempts to address their concern, in their initial nomination. If the nominator failed to do so, and it appears the were unwilling or unable to do so, then this nomination was in breach of the wikipedia's policies, should have been thrown out, and the nomintor, or those who agreed with them should have drafted a new nomination for deletion which did conform with the wikipedia's policies.
- In general, the ((afd)) fora are not the appropriate place for content disputes. Geo Swan 11:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The call for deletion was made at my request as I did not know the proceedure so I asked that someone else do such for me. I have commented extensively on the talk page of the article to the effect that this subject is "hopelessly biased, had no merit, beyond one based on bogus, distorted references was (in) correct". And again I reiterate - how can Wikipedia have a suposedly historical article concerning something that never occured? How many times do i have to repeat this very obvious fact for people to understand. The desire for this article to be deleted is not the POV - the contention that the article concerning something factual and not just speculation and false manipulation is what is clearly POV and non-historical.--THOTH 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here is that the subject topic of this article is historically non-existent. Non-existence is not something that can be improved. For an explanation of the purpose of such pseudo-historical constructs, read Darian's essay. The guy knows with whom he's dealing. Stammer 13:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite long and has 26 references so far, and it was created one week ago. Deniz^T_C 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, per Myotis. The little valuable information that this article has can be easily integrated into Malta exiles. Vartanm 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Vartanm says : valuable information. Which part is valuable for you? --OttomanReference 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part where it says that instead of trials they were exchanged for British prisoners. Vartanm 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! What about the rest of the events? Don't you like that part? If you like the exchange part (end of the article); you might be also curious about the events that cause the exchange but not the prosecution. There is more than just an end to this. I was hoping you would give another chance to keep it so other people will read this failed process. Thanks. --OttomanReference 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I'm suggesting to merge the article with Malta exiles. This way if someone is interested in the subject, they can read the whole thing in one article, instead of jumping from one article to another. Vartanm 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Malta exiles was intended to give short personal info of these people as a list. Malta exiles is coherent in itself which do not have any changes (no edit wars etc) for a while. Also There are articles which already wikified and tells the story of these people whom were jailed for many reasons. The links intent to tell the list of exiles, but not the legal process. Such as the khilafet movement. However the current article is intended as an analysis of political and criminal perspectives. In 1921, there were less then 40 of these people left in the jails of Malta. It is not even the whole list in question of this article. These articles are separate in content. As (1) It will create an image that all the people listed in Malta exiles were treated the same, which is wrong. (2) The political and criminal perspective is which is analyzed and this can be linked to relevant issues such as "International genocide law" Don't you think keeping these two different content would be a better solution? Thanks. OttomanReference 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does it have to be said - there was absolutly no "legal process" regarding the Turks held by the British at Malta? To claim that there was such - as you do in the article itself - is called LYING! You reveal your whole attempt at misinformation in this response above. You are claiming that Turks held at Malta were somehow exonerated by some sort of legal process - that only exists in your head. You selectively quote from Dadrian to make it appear that he is claiming exactly the opposite as is well documented position. Again here is Dadrian's stated view on this matter - "It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments...the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties" So in claiming that there was some kind of legal process - trials or tribunals you are pushing an extreme POV that is not backed by any actual facts or true history. This article and the plethora of similar highly biased and untruthful articles exist only as a tapestry of genocide denial all of which I find to be most disgusting. This is why I have opposed this article and regardless of the outcome I am putting you on notice that your extreme POV actions in creating such a farce have motivated me to strongly consider dedicating myslef to weeding out each and every (Armenian Genocide denial) article of this type that has proliferated on Wikepedia. This is one of many absolute trash articles that deserve deletion. The more you lie here to save this thing the more likely it is that I will go on a crusade against such it and others like it.--THOTH 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOTH; Could you give the exact Dadrian's paragraph where he says, not just the single sentence,: "It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Please also full citation, ISBN number, page number, book or article name also full author name. Thanks. --OttomanReference 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote is from Dadrian - Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification already linked by (and quoted by) Stammer above in his May 7 comment - [44] and in several other places. Are you now trying to claim that this is not Dadrian's position and that he feels that there is legitimacy in referencing Malta or International tribunals which never took place? --THOTH 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is it on Amazon. Excerpts from the essay, including the one being discussed ([[45]), are available online from [46]. I already provided these links in one of my previous messages. It has also been posted at [47]. Stammer 10:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The position brought forward is integrated into the article with this edit Thanks. OttomanReference 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced position brought forward (again and again) states that the unsourced claim around which the article is built is false. There were no "Malta tribunals" and no "Inter-allied tribunal attempt", no matter how you try to rename it. Read above about pseudo-historical constructs. Stammer 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard the phrase can't make a silk purse from a sows (pigs) ear? Well this is what you are trying to do here. Let me ask you and the others interested here - would it make things right if in my theoretical article concerning the Nazi Jewish de-licing program mentioned above - if I added a line deep down in the article from a noted Holocaust scholar saying that the premis of the de-licing program is totally false - but otherwise kept the article intact speculating about such a program and otherwise presenting manipulated "facts" and observations that still left the false impression to the reader that such aprogram did in fact exist? Well, again this is what you are doing here. Let me give another example even more analagous to the subject matter. Consider the fate of Lee harvey Oswald who shot and killed President Kennedy. He certainly violated both US Federal as well as Texas State law against murder and the (US) Feds were certainly anticipating trying him for the murder...but alas...Jack Ruby beat them to the punch and killed Oswald before any actual trial could be initiated. So would it be appropriate for there to be an article in Wikipedia concerning the "Dallas Trials of Lee Harvey Oswald" or even concerning the "Federal effort to try Lee Harvey Oswald for the Murder of JFK" etc - I would think not - as there would be very little of substance to report...just as there is very little of actual substance in this little article of yours...manipulated quotes and pure speculation aside of course...I also should add that there was no actual established International law or process or proceedure at the time to in fact try Turkish war criminals...unlike today with the concept of genocide (which didn't exist at the time) and the Haugue court etc. Even the concept of "Crimes Against Humanity" was a new one that had only been mentioned in statements by various Allies - it had not been codefied in any way. Thus discussion of possible or even desired International trials was as I said earlier - a "pipe dream" - purely a theoretical concept. And if I haven't actually hit you - but only mentioned my desire to do so (but essentially did nothing more - made no real attempt that can be considered as preparing to do such) - one cannot develop an article describing my attempt(s) to hit you - such would be pure speculation --THOTH 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more time; "No one including the article does not claim there was an international prosecution". You need to move forward. The article explains WHY there was not one. It is using citations (along with) your arguments. Even the Armenia dedicated a page to it, and you want to get rid of this one. armenia foreignministry You guys are being unreasonable. All of your arguments are included in the article. This is not a war, and you need to stop seeing it that way. Thanks --OttomanReference 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated here numorous times - Dadrian in this section on that site as well as elsewhere specifically states - "the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties" - and the page is itself titled "The non-existance of Malta Tribunals" - thus you are portraying the fact that there are researched arguments refuting the existance of the very subject of your article as proof that such a thing is historical fact - when the truth is that Dadrian and that site are saying exactly the opposite of what you are claiming - this is the point. The page is dedicated to refuting the very claim you are trying to make - and you are asking that we be reasonable? I mean if someone were to write an article disproving the contention that Albanians had walked on the moon - does it support the creatin of an article on the Albanian moonwalk attempt that never occured? Remember the scholarly research and the real history are clear - there has never been any attempt by Albania/Albanians to walk on the moon. Ok, a group of Albanian garbage collectors discussed among themselves how cool it might be to actually walk on the moon...if they only had access to a spaceship and spacesuits and all of that sort of stuff necessary for such a thing to even be possible...but of course that is as far as it got...so would it be appropriate for an article in Wikipedia to be created concerning the "Albanian Moonwalk Attempts" describing all of the potential difficulties for accomplishing such a thing? I mean when will it end? Is this waste of time really necessary? Your trying to push an unsupportable POV - that the Albanians were failures in their "moonwalk attempt" and thus this proves the impossibility of walking on the moon...Earth to Ottoman Reference...perhaps I should pen an article for Wikipedia on "Ottoman Reference's failed attempt at deception in claiming that non-existant tribunals on Malta exonerates Turkish criminals responsible for the Armenian Genocide" - I could reference your quotes concerning how you never attempted to claim any such thing as proof that such a thing occured whether it did or not - doesn't matter - because by your logic the denial of something automatically makes it true!--THOTH 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective is represented in the article. What else can be done? If anything that is not represented in the article and if you can source them, you are always welcomed. This is not a war. Do not take it that way. Thanks --OttomanReference 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. My perspective and I think that supported by actual schoalrly analysis is that this article is a travesty of the truth and that no such article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. For instance lets say I felt that the Holocaust scholar who claims the Gas chambers were for executions and not delicing gets a mention in the article concerning "Nazi de-licing of Jewish camp internees" - yet the thrust of the overall article strongly suggests that the intention was for de-licing and that the Holocaust researcher's quotes were being used to support such a contention several other places in the article - would this mean that I should be satisfied with such an article? Would this mean that such an article is factual and deserves to be included in WIkipedia?--THOTH 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please THOTH keep focus on the cited info; The content is not based on what THOTH understands. Except your personal additions, all the information in the article is sourced. I see no objection for including all the missing cited info, if you are willing to bring them forward. However, if you delete this article, you will be deleting all the citations you brought. It seems your citations, which cover this topic, do not have any value to you. You brought an Armenian, a Turkish and an Armenian state web side into this article. When you remove this article; your cited information will also be removed. Isn't it better to have an article with the sourced info. Than not having any article at all!!--OttomanReference 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give you credit here - this argument of yours is rich. However much as you attribute to me the introduction of some of these citations (that absolutly contradict your claims) here in this talk page concerning deletion of this article - you likewise misatribute (at least the intentions) of sources for qoutes in the article itself. Some tactic of yours I must say. But no...apeal to my vanity all you want - it is irrelevant and its not about me at all nor is it about my feeling of accomplishment at having provided article content or sources etc - its about the truth - and this article is quite lacking in it.--THOTH 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay there is a great deal more scholarly research concerning the supposed Nazi delousing campaign - backed by all sorts of scientific analysis - for instance http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/5.html#5.2.2. - then their is of any specific analysis of your claimed actual efforts by the Allied powers to prosocute Turks held at Malta who were part of carrying out the Armenian genocide. Aside from a few oblique quotes that you misude what do you got? So why isn't there an article on this fascinating subject concerning how th Nazis dealt with their concentration camp lice problems...hardly recieves any mention at all - surely it is worthy of an article if this equally denying and twisting of the truth article of your is...--THOTH 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please THOTH "NO-ONE" owns articles in wikipedia. Your citations are included in this article. Is there any other way we can help you? I can not help you with WWII issues, it may be better if you seek help somewhere else for the WWII lice problems. Thanks. --OttomanReference 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, I don't think the topic merits an article of its own.--Mardavich 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD shall be removed. If some party is not satisfied with neutrality of this article, this article supposed to be prodded with a template "Neautrality of this article is disputed", not with an "AfD" - it borders on vandalism. Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Ormian holocaust etc, was always a controversial subject as much as in Europe as it is in America.

Just one reminder: Turkey as the only one country on this planet never recognized Poland's conquest (rozbiory) by its three bandit scavenging neighbor's - Austria, Russia and Germany - neither in 1773, nor 123 years after. greg park avenue 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I gather this is related to the Armenian Genocide? If so, AfD's probably not where you're going to get any sort of consensus. BTW, I added a cleanup tag, it would be nice if someone who is good in the English language cleans up this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who initially nominated this for an AFD, I am following this and have wholly refrained from intervening as it grows out of proportion at times; however, claiming that my action borders on vandalism is something I find reprehensible and offennsive. I cannot understand yours nor Geo Swan's reason for a keep. There was no Malta Tribunal in the first place; it is not even controversial, there is no notable scholar who mentions a Malta tribunal, this claim was brought forward by internet newsgroups or racist personal websites like tallarmeniantale.com.

It is not the first time Ottomanreference's articles were voted for AfD: he creates one FORK article after another that I have, quite frankly lost count of all of them. The Malta exiles has its own article, the material about the prisoners of Malta goes there. But this article is original research, how much of it is sourced does not change this fact at all. The article is patched with references, it is original research. The best evidence? Try finding a name, when the unencyclopedic value of the name was brought, its author changed it and it became "Inter-allied tribunal attempt", it is a fabricated title; check on google book, or anywhere to find anything with such an obscure name.

The article should be about something; what is this article about?The prisoners of Malta which were supposed to be put on trial? There should be an article about that, but there already is an article about that. It is called the Malta exiles. If there is any relevant materials in this article, it should be present on the Malta exiles. This article is a FORK, it was first supposed to be on a tribunal, which did not exist, and then when this was brought forth, the function of the article was changed to become a FORK of the Malta exiles.

So, before accusing me of vandalism, or criticizing and questioning my motives, ask for clarification on my reasoning. This article obviously satifies the grounds for being nominated for an AfD, and I don't see any rational reason to keep it. I can create an article called the Recciyp Erdogan killing of Hrant Dink and I will be sourcing it with a hundred or so notes, but we should not lose sight that the subject of the article is central, the article can be neutral, non neutral, accurate, inaccurate, just like the materials I could provide for such a phony article yet it willnot change that the subject which in and by itself is unencyclopedic.--MarshallBagramyan 05:18, 11 May 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. Mango juice^talk 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Tree Village[edit]

seems like spam to me. Postcard Cathy 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speculative, WP:Not#future. Bearian 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Bearian 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam -- that this is advertising before the event makes it a little more deleteable, but an article of this sort is advertising beyond the hope of rescue. There is nothing that could possibly be used for a real article --not even the location is given "its exact location is kept a secret to the general public. " --not even the proposed size "At this point, the Oak Tree Village consists of two tree-huts, neither of which is fully completed, and a large, permanent teepee." -- not even the sponsors " Everyone is encouraged to create or join a non-profit community". I don't often add a speedy tag, but if I had noticed this I would have. DGG 00:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with all above, though this is a real proposed community, so for this reason it should stay. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN posted at 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: other gated communities have been deleted as not wiki worthy in the past. Why is this different? Just curious. Postcard cathy who is just dropping by and hasn't signed in yet. 172.145.123.22 21:17, 4 May 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 & redirect. This is a minor biography of a person with a modest role on a major show...I'm going to split the difference between a straight keep & a deletion by moving the content into Judge Judy & redirecting. — Scientizzle 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Hawkins-Byrd[edit]

Delete: Plain and simple, not notable at all, only small known roll on television is the bailiff of judge judy, otherwise totally unknown.Rodrigue 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judge Judy. Nothing notable to see here. JuJube 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Co-star of the most popular show of its genre. Eminantly notable, and precedent exists for articles on far less well-known characters. Exploding Boy 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not Redirect. Sure, Petri Hawkins-Byrd may be nothing much in himself, but there are certain elements of this article that are inappropriate to the Judge Judy article - in the sense that it somewhat deviates from the actual focus - and certain categories do not apply to one or the other. Qwerty (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumkin[edit]

Delete Non notable person. Prod tag (unnecessarily) removed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Courtney Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klptyzm (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Bootz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klptyzm (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete notable enough to be on a national TV show, but still non-notable enough to be just a crappy stub. Jmlk17 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Proserpine 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (forgo to sign this)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. andy 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Pumpkin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detlete - The Flavor of Love girls don't need their own page unti they do something quite notable. Jtervin 23:41, 2 May 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. Some kind of merge-ish solution seems to be called for here. Someone, please, just be bold and follow one of these reasonable suggestions. Mango juice^talk 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SATS Security Services[edit]

The company is not notable on it's own, and given the nature of the company business it would not generate much notable news upon which the article can be expanded. As it is a subsidiary of SATS, would recommend a merge with SATS, or given limited info on the SATS page, a merge with Singapore Airlines Russavia 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This user has nominated at least five Singapore Airlines-related articles in what appears to be personal crusade against "SIA Fanboyism [48]". Stubs, being stubs, have room to grow, and are not non-notable for being under developed. It has been said numerous times that the lengthy Singapore Airlines article is not an appriopriat avenue to constantly add information which has been stripped from it.--Huaiwei 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article. --Russavia 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, your comment is very distasteful. --Vsion 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable auxiliary police force. --Vsion 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles compose a directory of Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, and nothing more. At best they can be listed in the the airline's article. Mangoe 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the overbloated article is not suitable, then surely it could be said that a page which will never grow pass stub stage would not be suitable either. Perhaps it would be better to create a new article such as Singapore Airlines subsidiaries and present the information in that article, whilst still keeping individual articles on the truly notable subsidiaries such as SilkAir. The articles which could be merged into the subsidiary article would be:
International Engine Component Overhaul
SATS Security Services
SIA Engineering Company
Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise
Singapore Airport Terminal Services
Singapore Flying College
Tradewinds Tours and Travel

It would clean up the Singapore Airlines category that is for sure, and make such deletion noms less likely. --Russavia 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Singapore Airlines Group. This information should not be moved into the Singapore Airlines article. This should provide a strong article on the Singapore Airlines Group, which appears to be a company. If one of the companies involved grows to the point that it should be split to an article, it should be. Right now an article on the group is probably more important then one on each of the subsidiaries and partnerships. Merges can always be done and when reasonable are preferred to nominating an article for deletion. Vegaswikian 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please provide evidence that "Singapore Airlines Group" actually exists as a company. Several companies in this list, in particular SATS Security Services (one of only three armed auxiliary police forces in Singapore), Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise (Asia's largest aircraft leasing company, IIRC. Oh and btw, it is now a subsidiary of the Bank of China!), and SIA Engineering Company are already notable companies, some of which regionally even, irrespective of whether their articles are developed or not. Singapore Airport Terminal Services and SIA Engineering Company are major companies having listings on the Singapore Exchange. Just what are the links between Tradewinds Tours and Travel and Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited for them to exist on the same page, other then having a common parent company, which is Singapore Airlines Limited, not Singapore Airlines Group?--Huaiwei 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whilst Singapore Airlines Group does not exist as a legal entity, as a group of companies under the Singapore Airlines banner it does exist [49] as evidenced by these links on the SIA website detailing Singapore Airlines Group activities, when discussing both the parent and subsidiary companies. As to why each of these subsidiaries should either be deleted, or merged to a single article, they are not notable enough to warrant articles which won't grow past stub stage. Sidenote: Seeing as SALE is no longer owned by SIA I am sure you won't have any objections to my removal of the Singapore Airlines category tags from that article, seeing as there is now no connection between the two entities. --Russavia 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "Singapore Airlines Group", as Russavia himself puts it, is a convenient term to refer to the parent company (the airline) and its non-core subsidiaries. This is unlike the setup of other companies such as AMR Corp. which is a holding company for American Airlines, the airline company. Vegaswikian appears to insist Singapore Airlines is setup in a similar manner. Having a second article which actually refers to the exact same company is ridiculous and unprecedented in wikipedia. Next, Russavia insists on claiming on "non-notability" of all SIA subsidiaries, while having nothing to demonstrate this besides a google search. I am left wondering if his knowledge is determined primarily by Google or by his personal research when dealing with aviation-related articles outside Russia.--Huaiwei 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment My own experience, including employment experience with Singapore Airlines, and via well known industry publications. Take for example, International Engine Component Overhaul, which has also been nom for deletion, just how notable can a company be when that company does nothing but repairs a few parts from complex machinery such as jet engines. Aside from being owned by Singapore Airlines these companies just aren't notable for an encyclopaedia. --Russavia 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Thank you. If so, please state relevant "well known industry publications" which state that all SIA subsidiaries are non-notable companies. Ultimately, it all still boils down to your personal assumptions. The overhauling of engines may not interest many, but is interest=encyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I have no industry publications which state that what you are making out that I said. Having said that, I have no industry publications which mention many of these subsidiaries in more than a passing fashion, as it is evident from even SIA publications, that these subsidiaries are first and foremost in existence in order to serve the parent company (that being Singapore Airlines), and to a lesser extent, Changi Airport, and if it were not for these connections, they would be 'nobodies' in the business world, as is already evident by the total lack of third party resources on these subsidiaries which are not 1) press releases, 2) puff pieces or 3) pieces which mention these subsidiaries merely in passing. Which begs the question, do you have any credible third-party resources which provides information on these companies which can be used in encyclopaedic content, or which can be used to expand on these stubs? --Russavia 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment To cut the fluff from the above statements, it just boils down inevitably to one thing...that you simply have no other means of claiming non-notability other than google search (and only google news search at that). Kindly quote us which regulation in wikipedia rules that a company which supports another company is automatically non-notable. I suppose just about all state companies in the world must be removed overnight for almost singularly supporting theor respective Government as well? Do you even bother to read up on each article, and find out how much market share or client base they have to stake your claims? Finally, are you using AfD as some kind of an mechanism to push for the expansion of articles?--Huaiwei 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment Russavia, please provide verification of claimed credential as per User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. --Vsion 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment As per User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification I am under no obligation to provide any such credentials, as I am not proclaiming to be an expert on this given area, but am rather giving personal experience as a comment. Stop being so pedantic. --Russavia 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Oh, and the same person claiming others are being "disrespectful" to him feels it within his rights to call others a Pedant. Now of course you arent required to support your credentials. The problem is the exact same essay says attempts by individuals to flaunt their personal credentials are frowned upon as well.--Huaiwei 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to SATS or Singapore Airlines. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP which is the relevant guideline. JoshuaZ 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please state relevant evidence showing that this article does not meet WP:CORP.--Huaiwei 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the way it works. If you assert that a notability guideline is met, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how(otherwise anyone arguing for deletion of anything would have to essentially prove a negative). A google search doesn't show any non-trivial independent reliable sources about the company. If you have such sources please present them. If you think it meets another criterion, please explain how it does so. JoshuaZ 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure. If we may simply refer back to our favourite google search, I sure hope none of the results[50] are "non-trivial independent reliable sources about the company".--Huaiwei 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first page doesn't seem to be and I don't have time to look at all the others. Please go through and find two that meet WP:RS and then get back to us. JoshuaZ 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure thanks. Will do so later.--Huaiwei 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Maxson[edit]

I can't find anything on the internet that proves that such a person even existed. If this person really did exist then it wouldn't matter to me that the article exists. Can it be proven? There is no news articles in Google News.--Jdavid2008 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on a LexisNexis search, which seems unlikely for a supposedly notorious murder. As such, leaning toward Delete as unverifiable/hoax, though it'd be of questionable notability even with verification. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Assuming this is not a hoax, the article is still about the victim of a non-notable crime. No showing that the the incident received the sort of attention needed to be notable is made in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it seems to fail the Google test -- see [51]. It is possibly a hoax name along the lines of "Mrs. Doubtfire", see [52] . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete this article is so obviously fake.--Killer Panda 23:24, 6 May 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. Merging, as always, remains an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited[edit]

The company is not notable on it's own, and given the nature of the company business it would not generate much notable news upon which the article can be expanded. Only 1 find in google news, and that is basically a press release. Russavia 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This user has nominated at least five Singapore Airlines-related articles in what appears to be personal crusade against "SIA Fanboyism [53]". Stubs, being stubs, have room to grow, and are not non-notable for being under developed. You found 1 result in Google news, but google search itself produces 1293[54]. Please do no establish notability using your own barometres.--Huaiwei 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)

Russavia. Just curious, do you often use the word "fetish" whenever you disagree with someone on Afd? It's kinda odd why you use such a word. --Vsion 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable company. I found 69 google news [55] including one from International Herald Tribune [56]. There are more than sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. --Vsion 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can a company which has 69 google news reports in the last 8 years truly be called 'notable' particularly when they are mainly press releases, and the true news articles which do mention the company do so only in passing? --Russavia 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this page listed properly at the Afd to complete the nomination? Same question for the other similar Afds. --Vsion 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles compose a directory of Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, and nothing more. At best they can be listed in the the airline's article. Mangoe 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the overbloated article is not suitable, then surely it could be said that a page which will never grow pass stub stage would not be suitable either. Perhaps it would be better to create a new article such as Singapore Airlines subsidiaries and present the information in that article, whilst still keeping individual articles on the truly notable subsidiaries such as SilkAir. The articles which could be merged into the subsidiary article would be:
International Engine Component Overhaul
SATS Security Services
SIA Engineering Company
Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise
Singapore Airport Terminal Services
Singapore Flying College
Tradewinds Tours and Travel

It would clean up the Singapore Airlines category that is for sure, and make such deletion noms less likely. --Russavia 19:49, 3 May 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 a7 delete. Punkmorten 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Helgesen[edit]

Is this guy notable at all? Postcard Cathy 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is no. Punkmorten 12:47, 2 May 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. Still absolutely no references have been provided. WP:V, as raised in this debate, is not being established. Daniel Bryant 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective medical conditions[edit]

While most of the points in this article are valid, it is a complete innovation to group them together in this fashion. It is also clinically shortsighted to include common symptoms such as headache without a qualification that these may be secondary to other conditions. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Sorry, Jfdwolff.) While the article right now isn't the greatest, I think it's an interesting way to group things like this together. As for headache, that's something that can easily be adjusted in the article to mention how there may be objective causes for the headache in some cases. Ksheka 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is mostly valid but there are at least two problems with this article. First, the title represents a relatively extreme POV and is somewhat pejorative (especially in the lumping of factitious illness into this category of conditions!)-- this guy is not a doctor most of would expect to be very successful at dealing with these patients. Second, the matter overlaps about 90% with somatoform disorder and somatization disorder, and the three articles should be combined with a better explanation of the multiple perspectives and POVs with which they can be legitimately considered-- basically the same challenge posed by a good chronic fatigue syndrome article. alteripse 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but this article needs work. Quite a few (if not most) medical diagnoses are initially based on subjective symptoms, and often the subjective symptoms lead to objective findings. Some conditions are diagnoses of exclusion after other causes are ruled out; this is a good article to aggregate diagnoses of exclusion for subjective conditions. Dlodge 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No relevant Ghits for the phrase "Subjective medical condition" so it's OR or a neologism. Certainly not notable. andy 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Lack of Google hits doesn't mean it's original research. More likely a neologism the author coined to describe the aggregation of the conditions into a Wikipedia page. Perhaps "Medical conditions without objective findings" is more appropriate. Dlodge 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obviously original research. Mangoe 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I don't see any original research here, just a lack of references. Everything I see here could be easily referenced if someone took the time to do it. However, grouping the conditions together is probably an innovation as Jfdwolff pointed out in the nomination. Dlodge 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references doesn't make it non-original. I'm seeing this sort of comment all over the place, but the fact is that real research papers are full of references. I'ts what they do with the references that makes the difference. This article is trying to synthesize certain ideas about the commonality of certain symptoms to propose a new notion in medicine. The citations it would need would citations about that idea, not about the various symptoms. Right now that seems totally lacking, and the tenuous coherence of the ideas suggests that they do not come from some outside source. Mangoe 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lack of Ghits - especially on Google Scholar - is compelling. There's no such thing as a notable academic idea that isn't referred to by anyone. It's how scholars keep their jobs. If no-one else refers to this topic then no-one else has ever heard of it! So it is about as non-notable as you can get. If this was the name of a person rather than the name of an idea there would be nothing to discuss. andy 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I do not really trust using ghits on GS as a test when one is searching on a particular phrase. The subject may be notable, and referred to many times, but the wording of the article title may be wrong. Not that I would keep this trivial attempt at diagnostic medicine.

Keep. This article should exist, but it needs to be clarified, expanded, and properly referenced. There are too many new "disorders" in medicine that lack an objective scientific basis. Don't even get me started on ADD/ADHD and "restless leg syndrome". MoodyGroove 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
It's worth noting that after spending a few minutes entering this article seven months ago the author hasn't done any further work on it and neither - apart from a bit of tidying and a lot of tagging - has anyone else despite its obvious faults. Could this because it's not worth bothering with, for the reasons Mangoe pointed out? andy 16:51, 3 May 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Derby[edit]

Article Is of no-note. If it was about Yorkshire Derbys then the page should include all yorkshire derbys including ones that exist outside of football including all of the rugby league ones (Leeds Vs Bradford, Wakefield Vs Castleford, Wakefield Vs Leeds, etc.....) as well as all of the football ones (Barnsley Vs either Sheffield etc..)

Also The rivalry mentioned is actually only considered a rivalry by Hull City supporters, Leeds fans do not consider this a rivalry.

Also this page is not linked to from any other page (click links above) Chappy84 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - if the page is better served by describing all the major rivalries within Yorkshire, then expand it (or tag it for expansion). This AfD is unnecessary. Qwghlm 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the information on the page is incorrect, therefore the article at the current point in time has no purpose. The article was created some 2 months ago and no-one has bothered to expand it with actual Yorkshire derbies, therefore the article isn't required. Chappy84 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the deletion process. It is not a judgement on the quality of the article as it currently stands but whether any version of the article, good or bad, should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Crappy and inaccurate articles should be nurtured, looked after, improved wherever possible, not deleted. Remember, most articles start out being crappy (e.g.) but with time are improved. Qwghlm 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit of work on the article now, it's still not very good but it doesn't suck as much as it did before. What do you think now? Qwghlm 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You named the Sheffield sides in the wrong order :) More seriously, why Yorkshire? Should we expect articles on (North) London derbies, or Black Country ones? The topic is better treated under a more general title, I think. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles already exist in Category:United Kingdom football derbies ChrisTheDude 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you hadn't shown me that. I don't want to start sweeping out this particular stable. Opinion changed below. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - I think the idea is too vague for an article to hang on it. 'Yorkshire Derby' seems to be a phrase that the press hangs on matches that happen to be between Yorkshire teams (but that wouldn't be used for a Sheffield Wednesday - Sheffield United match!). I doubt that it has much currency beyond that. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyway, if you asked someone to name the participants in a Yorkshire derby, I'm pretty confident nobody would think of Hull — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article has been created to specifically cover one derby between Hull City and Leeds United. However, this article, List of football (soccer) rivalries contains quite a comprehensive list of football rivalries in England, and covers derby matches. The England section seems pretty comprehensive in itself yet there is no mention of this derby. I could find no mention on google of this derby either? On that basis delete ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Hull and Leeds have only been in the same division for three years in the last century — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you see here and add the current season Leeds have been in the same league on a total of 19 out of the 88 years of Leeds United's history and 19 out of the 103 years of Hull City's history making it hardly notable. Chappy84 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Qwghlm's work to improve it, could still do with sourcing though ChrisTheDude 10:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:A and as indiscriminate information. It is unsourced and probably unsourceable; there are no parameters set. Where do we stop?

In football we could have:

Leeds v Huddersfield
Leeds v Bradford
Bradford v Huddersfield
Barnsley v Huddersfield
Doncaster v Barnsley
Barnsley v Sheffield Wednesday

and so on, and so on. There is no limit and it is essentially all pointless. Where there are recognised derbies, they already have articles and for a summary we have Local derbies in the United Kingdom with which this article overlaps. TerriersFan 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work and sourcing but could develop into a useful article.Dave101→talk→contributions • 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no such concept as 'Yorkshire Derby' and without criteria this is an indiscriminate collection of information. BlueValour 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh? That Yorkshire derbies exist isn't in doubt, the issue is only whether this article would be too indiscriminate if it listed them all — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 'Yorkshire Derby' seems to be a phrase that the press hangs on matches that happen to be between Yorkshire teams (but that wouldn't be used for a Sheffield Wednesday - Sheffield United match!). I think an article Derbis in England is enough - User:KRBN 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - there is some good history behind some of these matches, and it should be fleshed out. Da-rb 22:51, 9 May 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. We are not Wikinews. --Core desat 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Islamabad Geo News office[edit]

This is a news story not an encyclopedia article, no matter how notable. It's also NPOV and seems to be based entirely on Geo News items. Wikipedia does not publish news reports (WP:NOT#OR) - especially not other people's.

The incident is mentioned in context within the main GEO News article; it might also be suitable as material in other articles about Pakistani politics. andy 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also appears to be a copyvio, everything before the table of contents is copied (see here) with the rest looking suspicious. Do not transwiki to Wikinews due to copyright incompatibility. MER-C 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - I knew it was a copyvio but couldn't find the reference. Given the nature of the site it's taken from this also makes it a soapbox item. andy 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a news article -- Whpq 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources--Sefringle 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhibianIRC[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement, non-notable software. 2 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable. Only 5 Ghits for "PhibianIRC" - WP and the developer's site. andy 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notble, but it's not a speedy candidate. Hut 8.5 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-spam. JuJube 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glugot[edit]

Non-notable student community. Nekohakase 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable with no external coverage. Christopher Connor 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someguy1221 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student group at a single school. This really could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that the group only does things that are local campus related. At the same time, they didn't seem to have won any awards, which prevents them from getting sufficient notability to meet that criterion.--Kylohk 22:33, 6 May 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 Ashland, Massachusetts. Be bold and do the same when you see pages like these. RFerreira 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland Middle School[edit]

non notable Chris 13:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School not notable, but this is a little different from the usual middle school article--it's a personal essay by a student about life at the school. Good material for a blog. DGG 00:56, 3 May 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 Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 11:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Beam Mixing[edit]

Lots of problems. It's clearly original research. It reads like an essay and an advert. And if it's not OR, then it's taken from something. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basic Googling establishes that this is a legitimate topic and that the article text is not copied in toto from some online source. ~~I'm hesitant to delete it outright, but I agree in its present form it reads like a research journal paper.~~ Mangoe 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon changes, I think we should Keep. Mangoe 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — article has now been wikified, linked, and referenced (by yours truly). From the number of independent sources google comes up with, the topic is clearly not OR. The wikilinking should provide better context. Adressing the "advert" issue required little more than removing the peacock word "novel". — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Gee. Make me look bad. :) I withdraw the nomination. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This reads like a description on a legitimite industrial process and not a bunch of OR. I lack enough knowledge in this are to judge notability and whether the references provided establish it. So I call for this article to be kept per Swpb and a current lack of any good reason to delete it. --EMS | Talk 02:58, 3 May 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 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dxas[edit]

The subject of the article, a novel, fails WP:BK. "Daryl Bainbridge" + "Dxas" receives a total of three ghits, including this article and the author's website. The publisher, Pfefferling Publications, receives one ghit - this very article. Victoriagirl 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barnes and Noble lists the book's publisher as Xibris, which is a company that will publish your book for a fee.[57] CitiCat 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator and CC's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:POVFORK of History of Estonia). WjBscribe 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian SSR (independent)[edit]

Legally no such country has ever existed. Alexia Death 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the companion/rival article Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) has also been nominated for deletion. StAnselm 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently a companion; these two have been created by the same person, Läänemere lained. They are both equally meritless. Digwuren 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basicly what you are saying is that Estonian history of this period should not be covered in Wikipedia, because "legally the country did not exist". -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! Its not what Im sayng! Im saying that this historic period belongs to a country Estonian SSR and is not separable from that as a separate country. Please refine from distorting my words.--Alexia Death 10:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you think, why did you not simply suggest merging this article with ESSR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you saying this is a Hoax? Otherwise, if it was self-governing for two years I say Keep CitiCat 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I say its a hoax. Read the Estonian history article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2007

comment this seems like a complex content dispute that is not best handled at AFD, as certainly the history of Estonia should be documented, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not this article, or another one is adequately sourced, or the appropriate way to cover it is a question best suited for some form of Dispute resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody is suggesting not documenting history of Estonia. In fact, history of Estonia has been considerably documented in the aptly named article History of Estonia, as well as [[58]].

However, this article is not about documenting history of Estonia. It is about a fictional legal construct; about a state transforming into another state where such transformation never happened.

No state of "Estonian SSR (independent)" has ever been declared, nor recognised by any foreign power, nor international body. Digwuren 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can contest the accuracy of the information on the page if you want, but as I see it, the way to do that is to try WP:DR instead. AFD is not the solution to use. FrozenPurpleCube 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is using DR better in a case when article is contradicting facts? What's to dispute?`The intent of the person who created the category? No country in USSR was independent. No legal entity separable from Estonian SSR exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs)

Dispute resolution would be better because it'd demonstrate that you were working with other editors to resolve a problem as to content, plus it would give a better chance of getting the facts correct. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause for AFD is that the subject matter of the article artificial unsubstantiated construct unsupported by any evidence. It never existed. Giving information about a nonexistent entity belongs to fiction. Information in this article may belong to Estonian SSR but not to describe a state on its own. The only person resisting deletion has given no arguments, only actuations of POV pushing --Alexia Death 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd honestly say that nobody has really commented on deletion of this article in a truly convincing way. If you wish to make that kind of argument, I suggest doing so in the form of DR, where you can provide evidence as to your position. Right now, your arguments are based solely on your words, not actual sources yourself. Now as far as it goes, I expect this to be a difficult issue to research and discuss, so I'd suggest checking for a resolution through other means. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but please tell me what are my options in proving that a country does NOT and HAS not existed? Pointing you to History of Estonia was not enough... In its sister topics discussion, CIA factbook was cited(I see no point in coping it here since your active in that discussion too) clearly stating that Estonian SSR lasted until declaration of the reinstatement of independence on August 20th 1991, and as far as I know two countrys cant occupy the same territory at the same time. Do you need a picture of a world map at the time showing that no Estonian SSR (independent) suddenly appeared from somewhere? What is it that would satisfy you? --Alexia Death 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, proving this or disproving this isn't the issue. I'm merely trying to suggest that an option be sought through DR to resolve the issues here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state the issues? There has been no seriously considerable arguments against deletion. Here is not one shred of evidence that a country that should be called anything other than Estonian SSR existed during this period... whats there to solve?--Alexia Death 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the apparent disagreement existing between various editors? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to define the positions of other editors. I'm trying to stay neutral here, so I'll suggest leaving the statement of positions to those with one. But I will express the reason for my concern that this be settled through DR methods. You may not be aware, but discussions of matters of national interest tend to result in a fair bit of trouble on Wikipedia. Since I'd rather have Wikipedia improved by accurately covering the history of Estonia's independence in the wake of the USSR's dissolution, I'd rather an effort be made to resolve the issues through dialogue between editors. It's really not that hard. All you need to do is talk to the other users. FrozenPurpleCube 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment There was no country like this. The Estonia SSR was granted some economic and civil liberties under the charter of USSR, thats all. A change in legistration does not make it a new country. No state symbols or government form changes at all. There was Estonian SSR(that was not an independent country) until reinstatement of Republic of Estonia in 1991. Besides that, this article contadics History of Estonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2007

Speedy keep - When I first saw this article, I thought it was Estonian nationalist POV-pushing to delegitimize the Estonian SSR (Exactly the opposite of what the nominators of this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) claim.) I first considered suggesting a merge to ESSR, but after seeing the related Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) article I understood its logic. The deletion proposal is an effort to push a Estonian POV in the wake of the Estonian - Russian Bronze Soldier conflict, possibly bad faith.

How can stating a fact be POV is beyond me, but say what you may, Estonian SSR was never independent and a minor granting of liberties do not make it neither independent nor a new country. As to why no deletion tag earlier,I did not know about this article. Thanks for showing me, that such articles existed, so mistakes can be corrected. Alexia Death 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conditional keep provided the author supplies reliable sources for the described event. Whatever the article title might be, it is a valid approach to have a separate historical article for clearly defined historical period. `'mikka 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like for its sister, if it was about an historical period, id have no complaints about it. it is however about a "short lived country" placed between territories. It was never a country and certainly not independent.--Alexia Death 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article and its sources don't even establish that the Estonian SSR purported to become independent in 1988. It may have declared its laws to take precedence over those of the USSR, but it didn't withdraw from the USSR at that time. This article is pushing a point of view but I don't understand what it is. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This cannot be viewed outside the context of the Bronze Soldier. If anything must be done, arbitration is the answer. --Pan Gerwazy 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should claiming that instead of one historically accepted Estonian SSR two countries existed(Totally unsubstantiated BTW) have anything at all to do with the Bronze Soldier except that one person mislead by this article linked here in the talk pages? --Alexia Death 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a content dispute in the form of a WP:POVFORK. This is about the country and former SSR Estonia, yes? Whether it was (or claimed to be) briefly independent at a specific time, although I don't quite understand what the article is at all about, belongs in History of Estonia, not into its own stub. Sandstein 17:55, 9 May 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 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major employers of Cumberland Metro Area[edit]

WP:NOT a directory, no real content. It has to be assumed the prod is contested, so here we go. Delete as nominator. Femto 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly only part of a directory CitiCat 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, copyvio. Majorly (hot!) 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Institute of Management & Technology[edit]

Instituion with at most 105 students (see "courses" section of the website). Also COI, as it was created by an individual who put himself in the articleCitiCat 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete this school in India -- awaiting accreditation from the "All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)", whatever that is. The author has a possible COI. It is copied directly from their web page. [59]. Spam? Bearian 18:27, 2 May 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 Speedying. Unsourced, unneeded. --Golbez 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Recchi Blyth[edit]

IP user removed my prod, I doubt this article is needed on Wikipedia. Elle Bee 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Notability is not inherited. Gtg204y 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she does not seem to be notable herself. J Milburn 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - an obvious candidate for ((db-bio)). andy 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, vanity, unsourced, WP:HOLE. Bearian 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by yours truly. No assertion of notability. J Milburn 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Cardinals[edit]

Article has no meaningful content, no links to existing pages, and is of limited interest Jargent 15:21, 2 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neer Shah[edit]

I am not sure whether this is about one person, in which case they are probably just notable, or about several people, who just happen to have the same name. I am guessing it was either clumsily translated, or written by someone with a poor grasp of English. Delete, unless sources are found to prove that at least one person by this name is notable. J Milburn 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep, due to Utcursch's rewrite. J Milburn 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain Seems to at least be a real person with some apparently authentic film credits, per IMDB entry. I'm unsure of notability though: his one and only directing credit has just 8 votes, suggesting a pretty obscure film. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the film industry in Nepal could comment on whether he's a big name or not. I'm stumped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, unless it can be clean up. Its too confusing to be useful at present. John Vandenberg 09:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite. Nice work Utcursch. John Vandenberg 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've re-written the article with sources. Seems to be well-known person in Nepal. utcursch | talk 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice job! J Milburn 17:49, 7 May 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 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualiteam Software[edit]

I personally feel that this company is not notable enough for wikipedia, I spend a while researching them but little is available Thatguy69^talk 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy delete, fairly obvious spam for a non notable company, "specializing in e-business focused technology solutions." While the proprietors may not be native English speakers, this description is buzzwordy, overconfident ("business solution" is always overconfident) and unacceptably vague. There are no independent sources either cited or linked. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let's not forget the spammy articles for their products: X-Cart and LiteCommerce. The articles look like they were all written by Qualiteam marketing dept. Nothing notable about this company or its products. - BierHerr 21:21, 2 May 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 McDelete. --Core desat 07:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McScience[edit]

This is, in my opinion, a completely non-notable neologism. It's poorly written and does not merit inclusion. alphachimp 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One usage of an epithet does not an article make. Mangoe 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete. Total BS article. Also, I've never seen anyone put their signature on an article before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did speedy it, but the author came to my talk page to protest. I thought it would be more reasonable to run it through AfD first. alphachimp 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable. I have seen someone sign an article before, though. Acalamari 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion - just pointing out it passes the Google test at [60]. Bearian 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nelogism although it might be useful to add it to the dicdef of 'Mc-' as a pejorative prefix. Eddie.willers 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge and redirect to pseudoscience, which IMHO covers the topic in a better fashion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McDelete Not McNotable. McJuJube 04:52, 3 May 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, no one is objecting. WP:SNOW. soum (0_o) 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby girl names[edit]

Listcruft Quite441414 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic list, and an extremely bizarre one at that (Anne and Jane didn't make the list but Xiomara and Yarlona did?!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Mangoe 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally useless, indiscriminate list. And don't you hate it when people indent stuff so it ends up in boxes? It's very annoying. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. —dima /talk/ 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and how! Total namecruft. Eddie.willers 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, indiscriminate list Hut 8.5 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Daniel Case 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Crazysuit 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Maxa megalon 2000 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becket Chimney Corners YMCA[edit]

I removed PROD previously at request of article creator, since then no proof of notability has been added I believe this doesn't pass WP:ORG; delete Cornell Rockey 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are 2,617 YMCAs in the US alone - what's so special about this one that it should have its own entry in an encyclopedia? andy 18:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and as advert. DarkAudit 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. As Cornellrockey said on above, there are many YMCA in US. I also believe that this fails ORG. Daniel 5127 06:45, 3 May 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. For clarification, here's why I closed it like this:

Keep, claim to notability... — doesn't say that any more, and even so, I don't see a source. WP:V.

Keep. It is used by enwiki as a source... — this was basically withdrawn, as Y refuted it successfully and John noted as such.

Weak Keep, if it's frequently quoted by... — see the first one.

Keep — As John Vandenberg says, it is useful... — refuted, echoing the sentiments of WP:USEFUL.

Comment — I am strongly opposed to the use of "notability" as a justification of deletion of articles... — not up for debate here. That's an argument for WT:N, and at the moment, notability stands sufficiently in the community as a reason to delete an article.

Reply: secondary sources are not all available online in the third world... — indeed, that is correct. However, the article when I closed this debate had no independant source (the only link, pretending to be a reference as a footnote, pointed to "Daily India (official site)").

So, all in all, applying the foundation principle of Wikipedia and its' supplement when compared to the above refutals, the consensus here stands at delete. Daniel Bryant 10:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily India[edit]

NN newspaper, lack of multiple non-trivial sources about this paper. Prod was removed by creator, who is transfixed with Guantanamo. -- Y not? 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, claim to notability made on website of paper. "Frequently quoted in the Hindu and the Times of India", which are two of India's largest papers. Hornplease 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is used by enwiki as a source, so it is in our readers interest to inform them about the source. John Vandenberg 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's crazy. They syndicate UPI stories. So can anyone. -- Y not? 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my quick investigation, I now see what crazyness you mean. It syndicates from UPI, Asian News International and IANS, and has very little original content. I still think it is useful to have an article, as it is being used as the URL of citations. It's not listed in the Alexa top 100 for India, so I am finding myself without a leg to stand on here. John Vandenberg 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if it's frequently quoted by India's largest newspapers, which have a large potential readership, then it's likely to be notable. However, the article will need more improvements in its content. It's just too stubby.--Kylohk 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per WP:CORP. The only single reference goes to primary source. The article can pass the notability criteria when there is an independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary source. — Indon (reply) — 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that one cant be found for this newspaper? John Vandenberg 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me then the secondary sources, then I will change my vote. — Indon (reply) — 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer — I started this article. And I would like to suggest to the nominator that characterizing someone as being "transfixed" is an insulting phrase they should avoid using in future. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As John Vandenberg says, it is useful to have articles on the publications we use as references. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A classic example of WP:USEFUL. Read again WP:V and WP:RS please. Wiki articles cannot be used as sources. All wiki articles must have reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I am strongly opposed to the use of "notability" as a justification of deletion of articles. In my experience the judgement that material is not "notable" is highly vulnerable to hidden systemic bias. It is far better to rely on wp:npov, wp:nor and wp:rs, which are official policies, and less vulnerable to hidden systemic bias, than to rely on notability, which is not an official policy. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not? Have you read WP:CORP ? It's one of the official WP guidelines. — Indon (reply) — 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: secondary sources are not all available online in the third world. Please read WP:BIAS before commenting further. Hornplease 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being used by enwiki as a source is not good enough of a reason, as they syndicate UPI stories. If it's frequently quoted by India's largest newspapers, I'd like to see sources (other than it's own website). A quick search on The Hindu website doesn't tell me that it's frequently quoted by the newspaper.[61][62][63][64]. Same goes for The Times of India [65][66] [67][68](second query returns some ten results, but none are related to Daily India). As of now, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. If any secondary, reliable sources are provided for claims of notability, I'll change my vote. utcursch | talk 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate That I Love You[edit]

There are no sources at all for this article. Not only that, but the single has not been confirmed at all. The article's creator has made many crystal-ball articles in the past, and this one is also a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Acalamari 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. google title search. Appears to be real song to me? Delete, not notable song as of yet, may change in future based on chart positions / etc. Fopkins | Talk 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a real song; I never said it wasn't real. I said there's no confirmation about it being released as a single. I've found nothing that indicates that this will be released as a single, which is why I've said it's crystal-ballism. Plus, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every song an artist composes. Acalamari 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, misread your comment - should have done a little more research on the song before I voted. Most songs are still borderline on notability , but I agree with you in this case that this song does not deserve it's own article. However, I think you'll find that there are many, many songs on wikipedia which fall under the same category. Fopkins | Talk 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And maybe we'll get around to all those other non-notable songs at some point. Adrian M. H. 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I swear I was editing the song page to add the AfD tag and you beat me to it. This is pointless and this editor has a serious problem with creating articles like this over and over. - eo 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leifs Hus[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax, but I thought I'd bring it here instead of just prodding it to be sure, since any sources would probably be in a language I can't read. Googling the major terms in the article hasn't found anything that looks at all promising in any language, though, and all the contributions are from a limited number of editors who have edited almost nothing else. Pinball22 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. It failes the Google test: [69]. It is badly formatted, missing wiki-links; but with some red links. The only sourced is a MySpace type site:[70]. Bearian 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax. Google searches at www.google.se and www.google.no don't turn up anything seemingly connected to this. Eddie.willers 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax and nonsense. Dr bab 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete per above. The reference to kiwifruit calls it out as obvious nonsense - the fruit is native to China and would be unknown to a Norse religion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT. Punkmorten 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As a native Norwegian speaker, I can confirm that all the so-called sources are just garbage. Arsenikk 17:52, 5 May 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 of the debate was redirect to Folk metal. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle metal (3rd nomination)[edit]

This page provides not a single source, and seems to be basically describing Viking metal. It seems to be little more a commercialised acronym for Viking metal. The name seems to only be taken from the album of the same name, and made up simply to add to someone's "created articles" list. I request that unless sufficiant sources are provided for this genre's existence, it be either deleted or merged into another sub-genre, such as Viking metal or Folk metal.≈ The Haunted Angel 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: moved new nom & discussion to new nom page from previous AfD. There's also another more recent AfD. DMacks 20:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your help :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect. Given that the second AfD was closed redirect to Heavy metal music, why is the page we're discussing created some time well after that, and has no trace of that redirect or a page deletion? DMacks 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the redirect, but not to Heavy metal music. Instead, I'd say to Viking metal, as it's the closest genre to this one. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think The Haunted Angel is right in pointing out that the description of this genre seems to be virtually the same as the Viking Metal article. There are no reliable sources that explain the notability of the genre itself- only lyrics and bands. Unless reliable sources are provided, there is no reason to keep an article that has been redirected after a previous afd. Also a comment; interestingly, one user who voted keep in the first afd was later banned for sockpuppeting. Spellcast 13:23, 7 May 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. Closed early under WP:SNOW. Kafziel ^Talk 14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Future (Heroes)[edit]

This article seems to be a direct copy of Five Years Gone, but with alot of original research added. Not only that, but it violates WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLOT, ect. This article should be deleted and not merged, since the infomation in Five Years Gone and the Heroes character articles are way better written then what the person who created Alternate Future (Heroes) did. dposse 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only info we know came from the episode and should be kept in the episode as their is more then one Alt. Future according to whats happened so far. The Placebo Effect 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that specifically includes plot summaries. Kafziel ^Talk 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fancrufty nonsense. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems pointless and redundent.Harlock jds 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Info is relevant only to a single episode, and as pointed out by User:The Placebo Effect, there are multiple "alternate futures" by its very definition. --Pentasyllabic 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dposse. ThuranX 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Terribly written, original research, etc. I agree with Dposse. The Hippie 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - big fan of the show, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. -- Chuq (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Horrible and useless -- Lyverbe 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything stated before, specially, user Lyverbe.Vicco Lizcano 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}[reply]
Delete - Concur with the above. It's a duplicate of an existing article, it contains significant amounts of original research, and sets an awfully bad precedent. ZZ 14:47, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 10:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest TV Dramas[edit]

The article is not encyclopaedic - I have also searched for a reference for this article but have not been able to find one. The article is subject to judgement - and is someones opinion - therefore it should be deleted Groovychick3291 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to reasons stated above, as long as it's true that it doesn't reference a real program. However, I'd like to hear an opinion from someone on the Isles before I change to a full vote. r.y.right 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - programme is real, see [71] (from IMDb), [72] (from The Stage, which includes the rundown), [73] (from The Guardian). Not sure if any of those meet WP:RS, no opinion as to encyclopaedic value. Oddly, Channel 4 does not include this edition in their 100 Greatest microsite... -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good find on the link to the programme - that would increase its value - however it is still open to suggestion whether it is a speculative article - all these top 50 programmes are speculative - not sure it should be used on wikipedia? Groovychick3291 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; There's no doubt the programme was broadcast, but it doesn't seem that notable - just blogs and an IMDb entry. There's also the question of copyright, have Channel 4 given us permission to reproduce their list? This is a point I made in my afd for another Channel 4 list show at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's Greatest Actor. If Channel 4 have invested their money and resources in compiling this list I think they would be entitled to claim ownership of it. (And why is this listed in Category:BBC television documentaries?) Masaruemoto 04:40, 4 May 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. John254 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Life Bible Church (Nigeria)[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines r.y.right 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says it has branches worldwide. What are our notability guidelines for religious groups? Secretlondon 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because none of us have heard of it, does not mean it is not notable.Chickenboner 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the largest and most prominant churches in Lagos. The article could probably be expanded. I don't think that we have a guideline for churches, but it would meet WP:CORP, as I've seen newspaper articles about it (mainly focusing on the church's faith healing claims). Heather 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any major sources covering it if I do some quick research (except the Church itself) - amazon.com lists a book but has no information on it, so in terms of its spread or presence, I can't really tell. If someone wants to expand the article and has the sources to back it up, please feel free. r.y.right 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Nigerian newspapers; I don't know whether those would be appropriately major or not. As I said before, I don't know what the guideline for churches is. But here are a few articles about it: [74] [75] [76]; apparantly it was destroyed by a mob at one point: [77] [78]. For whatever it's worth, that's more press coverage than most of the high schools that we've kept articles about have had. Heather 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Daily Sun, Nigeria's top-selling newspaper, also has many articles about it. See Google. Tearlach 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, to put it into perspective, it claims to have 120,000 members, which makes it the third largest church in the world. The largest church in the US is Lakewood Church with 40,000 members. StAnselm 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is not a single building so much as a denomination, as far as I can tell; it says it has individual buildings in several countries, so the Lakewood Church thing is irrelevant. But it looks like people do genuinely know about it, so I'm okay with keeping it. ryright 20:49, 3 May 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 Corona, California.--Chaser - T 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corona County, California[edit]

Was an attempt at seceding (sp?) from Riverside County that never got up any muster. Only mention that the article links to is in a paper based out of Santa Barbara, California - which is over four hours' drive away from the closest point in Corona (its border with Yorba Linda) to Santa Barbara if you're driving. A google search turns up nothing significant related to this. Had a small flurry when it was created two years ago, but that's about it. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took a good look at the paper for Santa Barbara, it only mentions in brief Corona looking at its budget. The article has nothing to do with it. I'm calling WP:HOAX accordingly, this bogosity has existed for far too long. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper article linked to mentions this happened. You driving around the county talking to the wrong people ("I never heard this happened, so it must be false") constitutes original research. Nardman1 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a second look, and you're right, it is mentioned in passing at least, so I retract my comment above. Note, I'm in Seattle - there's no conceivable way I can do a man-on-the-street poll of Coronans. Problem is that, from what research on Google I've done, little more than that the city government talked about it has turned up. Be happy to change my mind, though, if something more than "we're seeing if it's feasible" comes up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Proposal to create Corona County, California, Corona County was apparently an idea that never materialized; there has never been a Corona County and may never be a Corona County. What there was was a proposal to create one. The article is misleading in stating that the "county" was the site of anything; for nothing ever has happened in Corona County, California; things may have happened in the areas proposed to be included in such a county, but alas the county is nothing but a failed proposal. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Corona, California. Someguy1221 08:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seems to be a bit late to withdraw, but given the options, I like this one better. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per below W.marsh 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenophile[edit]

21 results on google, all seem to be web forums, this is a hoax or a joke unless credible sources can be found. --W.marsh 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few Google hits that suggest that it may actually mean "aroused by voids or empty spaces", but this definition is obviously a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I've blocked the creator of this article (who removed without comment the PROD) for removing the AFD tag several times despite warnings. --W.marsh 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE Postcard Cathy 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just everyday nonsense. Excerpt: "Do not tell the kenophile that you suffer from toe fungus, flatulence, or excessive body odor as these conditions turn on most kenophiles." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 2 May 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.. — Scientizzle 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine)[edit]

Non-notable invention, no reliable, secondary source. Note image legend The only function model, made by the inventor himself. May be a case of self-promotion. --Pjacobi 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting idea, but no evidence it's ever been implemented outside the inventor's garage. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My favorite text: This engine from the sixties ... is widely unknown, because it has been suppressed by the SSD (STASI) and KGB. I'd cleaned it up a bit and asked the author/inventor for some assertion of notability but I doubt that any is possible. -Will Beback · † · 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author's talk page makes it clear that his inventions have not been as successful as he hoped (for whatever reason). There are some Ghits but no real evidence of notability. andy 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the second thought You are all right – but formally only. Under normal circumstances - without the suppression by the communists - the Wolfhart engine would be on the market (ask an expert) and common knowledge. Due to the Cold War we have no normal circumstances – and unusual circumstances demand unusual actions. Ergo – this article should stay in the same way as other articles about rotary engines where also only one model exist – and on the end – if the article stays a while – it becomes “notability”.

Even the German Wikipedia tolerate this article Kugelkolbenmotor and has a lot of hits. There is great interest on this invention – at least in Germany. It would be seen as a shame if the USA are unable to tolerate such article and a loss of important technical knowledge. At last the US-Wikipedia would show courage not to follow the orders of the KGB. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - we shouldn't be keeping a non-notable article just in case it later becomes notable. It's not notable right now because there are very few independent third party references to it. Maybe that will change, maybe not. andy 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest issues are a problem as well as notability. Wikipedia is not a way to promote inventions. Just as a quick note my connections with the KGB are not particularly strong. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Question There are other articles all your arguments are exactly right also for them. Why exist for instance the following articles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

I would like to know what the difference exist to my article? --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of bad article on Wikipedia (not to say these articles are bad) is not a reason to keep an article that does not meet standards. See WP:WAX. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and why is there a Category: Proposed engine designs? --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect and merge to HD DVD encryption key controversy. -- nae'blis 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD DVD Night[edit]

Does not meet notability requirement. Juansmith 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We ask people coming here from outside Wikipedia to please read Wikipedia:Keyspam - David Gerard 13:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - The subject matter for this article has come up in major news media outlets and the continuing nature of the development means that there will likely be more attention given to it over the next few days. --Darkstar949 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Quick summary of news outlets carring the story: Forbes, CNet, BBC, MSNBC.com, and FOX News. --Darkstar949 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a notable event for the internet community and it involved at least tens of thousands of people. But we might talk about moving the article to another title, though we don't know yet how the history will refer the event. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently front page on Slashdot and Drudge Report. Definitely becoming notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy. There's no need for a separate article just for Digg. Pizzachicken 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe move to a more suitable title. The subject IMO is certainly notable. ugen64 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. —tregoweth (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably rename). This is a notable news story. More links: New York Times Associated Press-The Cunctator 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the encyclopaedia. The newspaper is over there. Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedia articles, not news stories. Arguing that the article should be kept on the basis that it is a news story is counter to our fundamental policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh. I never knew what Wikipedia was. Thanks for the heads up. I do think the entry needs a new name, though. --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you did, which is why it was so disappointing to see you arguing so counter to fundamental policy. And the article with a reasonable name is HD DVD encryption key controversy. Uncle G 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. The article does not seem to have enough information to be a stand-alone article. Bballoakie 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that merging would be wrong, but the question isn't whether it has enough information as yet to be a stand-alone article, but whether the topic *could*. --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important issue that effected many people recently. Certainly notable for any user of a user generated content site, as it deals with the issues of user censorship, and is documenting an interesting & unique online event. I don’t think it should be merged with any HD DVD or Digg article, as I feel it deals more with issues of censorship online than any one site or HD DVD. -HalHal 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not merging with HDDVD or Digg, but with separate article (HD DVD encryption key controversy) detailing the controversy. This HD DVD night just duplicates much of the information there. Pizzachicken 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The HD DVD encryption key controversy article deals more with the legal aspects of disseminating the key. HD DVD Night is already linked to from there (and the Digg page) as the main article of the Digg section. I think the HD DVD encryption key controversy would become bloated with much more Digg specific information, furthermore the HD DVD Night article can cover issues such as the viability of trying to censor information online(seems to be counterproductive), and its effects in a user generated content environment, which are not necessarily relevant, or could not be covered in much detail in HD DVD encryption key controversy. -HalHal 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - HD DVD encryption key controversy would become bloated only if WP:RECENTISM occurs, which it won't. HD DVD Night is an example of recentism and that's what we're trying to avoid. Pizzachicken 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think people should avoid using words that are made up. --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is only an important issue to digg. yes, it effected 1000's of people. no, it's not notable. i've seen digg go down for maintenance lots of times. that effects 1000's of people, too, but you don't see new articles being made every time that happens. and yes, it got lots of press. so did barry bonds 714th home run and that article got nominated for deletion. this, at most, deserves mentioning on the digg.com article. having an entire wikipedia article on it is vanity, plain and simple. and diggcruft. Misterdiscreet 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think this is an important event of the internet. sure only 1000's had anything to do with it. but i think what happened sets a precident for the future of social networking sites, and that maybe this does have some greater signifigance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.49.129 (talk • contribs)
- Please make an argument that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is clearly being picked up by major news companies. Also, this AfD seems to be a bit premature, since this is a growing news story that will only become more significant in the coming days, as more news companies pick up the news bulletin. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. The newspaper, which deals in individual stories like this, is over there. The event as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned is the HD DVD encryption key controversy, which can break out sub-articles, summary style if, indeed, enough verifiable information becomes available to warrant doing so. But that hasn't actually happened yet. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a notable current event with multiple non-trivial sources. Salad Days 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Which source is the one that calls it "HD DVD Night"? There isn't a single source cited in the article that does. Uncle G 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right... it should probably just be merged into the HD DVD encryption key controversy article then. Salad Days 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything not already there into HD DVD encryption key controversy. Title is neologistic, and terms such as "civil disobedience" and the claim that the night "ended" as Digg decided to stop fighting the key's introduction are POV and OR. We don't need two articles on the same thing. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a straightforward example of civil disobedience. What's wrong with that? --The Cunctator 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant content is already on HD DVD encryption key controversy, and the title (and thus premise of the article) seems both parochial and unsourced. Tompagenet 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article and the controversy surrounding the key is an important topic. Xanucia 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment refactored to eliminate attempt to mis-use this very discussion as a soapbox to propagate something that the editor wishes to propagate. Uncle G 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant stuff and delete. Information on Digg and the main controversy article is sufficient- a standalone article is magnifying importance. Lots of Diggers have Wikipedia accounts apparently. --Wafulz 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a very large ethical issue... "Can we prevent Internet Riots when it happens". It is extremely vital and important that this issue is documented in its own article. Dooga ^Talk 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this isn't a news website. You can head over to Wikinews if you want to though. --Wafulz 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge This story has reached a number of widespread news outlets (like BBC news website) and so it's notable right this second. However, this isn't a major breaking news story, it will fade into media insignificance within hours, and is much more suitable in HD DVD encryption key controversy. Merge any extra info into the Digg.com topic in that article. In my opinion, talk of the significance of an "internet revolution" is subjective and media hype. Besides, should it become significant, "Internet revolts" can become its own article. Mentality 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, gorramit! (Or, failing that, Keep/Merge.) It's all over the Intertubes, guys - and I don't just mean blogs here, I mean stuff like the New York Times, CNet, and BetaNews. It's certainly more notable than, say, Series of tubes, especially as it's part of an ongoing copyright controversy, whereas "Series of tubes" is merely highlighting a particular Congresscritter's cluelessness. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (Modified 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC) --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- You're right, but HD DVD encryption key controversy and Digg#HD-DVD_DRM_Key_Controversy are already sufficient to cover this event. Fopkins | Talk 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant information to HD DVD encryption key controversy. No source refers to this incident as "HD-DVD night" except a non-notable blog, and any new information relating to about the event can be merged to HD DVD encryption key controversy. This topic also already has a dedicated section on the Digg page. Fopkins | Talk 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that the title for the article isn't the best, but may I suggest the Digg Riot name that has been being used by the media? There is a good chance that once all of the dust settles the article will be a bit too long to be included on the Digg page or just outside the relevance for the HD DVD encryption key controversy article.--Darkstar949 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - creating a new article can be considered if and when the article that this is merged with (assuming it's merged) gets to large. right now, however, it's premature Misterdiscreet 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I have been doing some work on expanding the article already and there are quite a few articles poping up on the internet that are talking about the events in the context of more than just HD DVD controversy including legal ramifications of user driven websites and consumer protest to DRM as a whole. Both of the these subjects would not fit in the HD DVD encryption key controversy article. --Darkstar949 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy as "HD-DVD Night" is a rather informal title. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into HD DVD encryption key controversy and Digg, as appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, change title, otherwise merge per above. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the better sourced HD DVD encryption key controversy, this one is lacking and overlaps with it. Idioma 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Whatever. This should (and is adequately) covered in HD DVD encryption key controversy. This extra article does absolutely nothing but dilute the information over two pages. I know the Digg fetishists want to scream censorship whilst getting back to their usual pattern of digging erroneous computer game news, but you've already got the original article to write about it. You don't need two. Oh, and the main article should flat out mention the now revoked key. - hahnch e n 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy as per many people above. If that article becomes too long we can consider at that time whether to spin this content out as a separate article. Hopefully by then a better name for the event will have emerged. Thryduulf 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the event has already been chronicled in the Digg and HD DVD controversy articles. Unlike some huge civil right protests, this will be largely forgotten by next week or so. If history does prove me wrong then some day the event will be given a name and a historical context. Right now, of all the sources mentioned, one of the least authoritative mentions the title "HD DVD Night" and gives it no attribution at all.[79]. Mitaphane _?|! 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new with HD DVD encryption key controversy and/or Digg. This isn't really very notable as an independent event (rather, it's important within those two areas) and "HD DVD Night" is indeed a rather cryptic title (it sounds like an evening when you get together to watch HD DVDs). Neither of those articles are very long, and this one under consideration isn't either; there shouldn't be a pre-emptive decision to spin it out. Just because something happened doesn't mean it automatically deserves its very own article. -- Mithent 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- this has made CNN.com/tech as the top headline in tech news. See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ I think this rebelion deserves an article Mineralè 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite the article where a "HD DVD Night" is the headline. The subject of the article (currently) on the page that you actually linked to is Digg, and you'll find a similar encyclopaedia discussion appropriately placed in Digg. Uncle G 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Articles can be renamed, as such the title of the article should not be a major point of debate. --Darkstar949 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps rename i was very tempted to vote merge with the controversy article, but I feel this has outgrown the HD DVD controversy as such. It's a civil riot against the DMCA and the effects of it on companies like digg. It surely was notable, it was without a doubt one of the biggest interweb events in years. Whereever you went on the internet, you'd ran into people talking about this. The BBC, CNN, Forbes and other large media companies even addressed it within hours (which is a first for such an event as far as I'm aware). The title might be wrong, so a rename would be with my support most likely. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or Merge As others stated this is an important issue regarding freedom of speech and the internet and this night will be probably remembered for quite some time. The information should most definently be kept but possibly merged into another article. If it is kept it should be renamed to a more fitting name describing the event. Ergzay 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am baffled that the only explanation you have to offer for this AfD nomination is that it Does not meet notability requirement. In accordinance with my inclusionist philosophy (disk space is expendable), I vote to keep. I surmise that this event may become worthy of mention when examining the history of Intellectual Property rights (i.e. Business Law college textbooks will likely mention it), but if not, then go ahead and re-nominate this for deletion in three months time. --Ted 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG MERGE This has to be a section of the HD DVD encryption key controversy. This is not a distinct, notable event, but rather part of an ongoing controversy around the key. It is too short to stand on its own, and the sources get repetive quickly. Keeping this page as it is rather than merging with HD DVD encryption key controversy makes for two mediocre article on more or less the same issue, whereas merging brings one very strong an informative article.--Cerejota 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge This is already duplicated in like 4 different articles. I don't see any references that actually say "HD DVD Night" as the title. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the reference, it is back now. HalHal 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. Never heard of the term HD DVD Night. — JeremyTalk 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the HD DVD encryption key controversy. When that article becomes full, its contributors can look again at setting up subarticles but that stage has not yet arrived. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Clearly passes notability requirements due to the number of secondary sources that have written on this event. GarryKosmos 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, this event is truly notable, and should not be deleted. Carlosguitar 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: Completely non-notable, no source refers to the event by the article's title. east.718 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; merge proposal to be discussed on talk. John Vandenberg 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What convinces me to vote keep on this article is the number of sources and links that deal not with the whole encryption key thing in general but with its effect on Digg as a website and as a community. It would be speculative and an inappropriate voting justification to say that this incident may be studied in the future vis a vis Internet community and social relationships, with the whole encryption key thing a minor detail, so I'm not going to base my vote on this specuation. I'm just saying is all. Maxa megalon 2000 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a page for that: Digg. Are we goign to continue adding pointless pages that belong in others?--Cerejota 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The events of the night appear to be more notable than most other events in the Digg world. Digg is a big enough subject to warrant multiple articles when it is the subject of controversies (in the same vein as Wikipedia and Slashdot having more than article). John Vandenberg 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename or Merge As numerous others have pointed out, this article clearly meets the criteria for notability. Whether it should remain an separate article or not remains to be seen. It seems to me that what happened at Digg is a watershed moment for online communities that involves issues that are not (and should not be) addressed in HD DVD encryption key controversy. That article primarily addresses the widespread distribution of the HD DVD encryption key (across the whole internet, not just Digg). What happened specifically at Digg, however, also has great bearing on the future of online communities in general, separate from the issue of DRM. I think that currently this article should stand on its own (although it needs editing and probably a name change), at least for now. If this all turns out to be a tempest in a teapot and has no lasting effects, then the relevant parts of the article should be merged as above, and the rest deleted. Morgan May 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above --Cerejota 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see why two articles are necessary here. It's certainly a notable event, but forms a part of a large controversy and as such, deserves a section of the article dicussing the controversy. Whilst some have proposed that this specific event may have long-term ramifications, that remains to be seen and of course editors reserve the right to restore this article should that happen. But it hasn't and no-one refers to this controversy by this name anyway. Newartriot 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HD DVD encryption key controversy. I think the term "HD DVD Night" is completely stupid, but it seems people are referring to it as such. JuJube 04:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirct to HD DVD encryption key controversy. This won't stand the test of time. Tyro 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge --58.179.236.168 06:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and welcome to the Encyclopedia of Internet Events. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 06:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into HD DVD encryption key controversy and Digg --Rodzilla (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Easily meets notability requirement - see front-page coverage on major Australian newspaper The Age [80]. Whether it should be merged or kept I have no opinion on. -Xiroth 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This should not be deleted. Fuutott 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy as above. On a side note, I agree with JuJube: the title "HD DVD Night" is stupid. Wikipedia should not be coining phrases. —Ben FrantzDale 11:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a lot of merge votes here, and I understand from a wikipedia management type of view. However if you look deeply at this issue, you will see that HDDVD encryption and digg were just tools in this event. As an event it stood out on it's own with a lot of people no longer caring about digg.com or the fact that apparently they could use the key to watch HDDVDs. The fact that this is described in many popular reliable sources as a "web revolt" clarifies this point of view even more. This was not just about digg or HD-DVD, it's notable as the largest Streisand effect-case on the internet so far. There are merits for this as a "social event" and as a "history of intellectual property" type of event. I just felt the need to further clarify my earlier Keep vote.--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR. Just because it's the largest you've seen doesn't mean it's the largest overall. Misterdiscreet 12:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick serach showed that even the media is starting to talk about the even in the context of the Streisand effect which would mean that the claim is not WP:OR --Darkstar949 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about this in the context is the Streisand effect is not what I was referring to - what I was referring to is the claim that it's the largest example of the Streisand effect, and that's not a claim the article you just cited makes. Find an article that does make that claim, from a reputable news source, and I'll happily retract my refutation of TheDJ's point. Misterdiscreet 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep for now. --SkyWalker 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge. Tragic romance 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant stuff into Digg and HD DVD encyrption key controversy Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HD DVD encryption key controversy. This was a tough one, but I definitely think it's a notable event. However, it's really just a part of the whole picture, so it should end up in that article. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in one form or another). Important net history and on many news sites. --x1987x^(talk) 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been featured by several major newspapers and websites. No good reason to delete has been stated. Another option is to merge into HD DVD encryption key controversy. --Jannex 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Clearly notable and well sourced. The question of whether or not to merge belongs on the talk page of the article.--agr 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is should very definitely be merged with HD DVD encryption key controversy and I would note that few of the keep !voters express any reason not to merge the two. The event itself is certainly notable, but doesn't deserve two articles that overlap so greatly. A discussion about merging the two can be found on the HD DVD encryption key controversy talk page for those interested. Will (aka Wimt) 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's the same stupid crap in a thousand places. Put them together and you have a decent article: HD DVD encryption key controversy. --Ali'i 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets nobility standards now that NY Times, CNet, Wired and tons of other source have weighted in on the issue. MrMacMan^Talk 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the issue of the HD DVD encryption key controversy, or of the "HD DVD Night"? --Ali'i 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Wired article is focused on the events of Digg, including legal opinions that they wont find safe harbour, and indicating the liability is to the tune of US$2.68 m or $US1.3 b if it is found that "Digg allowed the posts for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". i.e. the Digg is the new 2600, only this time the takedown notice preceeds the event by a month. John Vandenberg 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This may well be true that a lot of the coverage revolves around Digg. That does not mean that we cannot merge this with HD DVD encryption key controversy though. Considering how short this article at the moment is, there is no risk of the merger producing something excessively long. Furthermore, the Digg incident only makes sense in the context of the wider controversy so it makes sense to be a subsection of that article. Furthermore, as has been pointed out on the talk page, the name "HD DVD Night" seems to be a neologism and these should be avoided (see that there are no Google news reports calling it that). So basically, whilst I agree that this whole thing is notable and we should describe what happened at Digg, this would be much better incorporated into the other article so we would have one complete article rather than two short, incomplete and heavily overlapping ones. Will (aka Wimt) 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Actually this would go better with the Digg aritcle - consider the following: most of the action was foucsed on the Digg website, there may be major legal ramifications for Digg, and one of the major triggers was the censorship of posts by Digg administrators. As such the bulk of the article should be merged with Digg with the HD DVD encryption key controversy getting a minor section commenting on it. --Darkstar949 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed - such information about Digg and potential consequences would be better merged into the Digg article, with a link to HD DVD encryption key controversy for the context of the situation. I still see no need for this HD DVD Night article though. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an important point in history for DRM, Digg, HD-DVD, and censorship. Ihatecrayons 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable event in Internet history. Duﬀy1990 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wimt, above.--Planetary 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SeeZero oop I meant OhNine NoNoNo - it's like a credit card number. You would not like it if someone published your credit card number. This is Hollywood's credit card number. Everybody other than Wikipedia is publishing oop oop oop - almost slipped up there. Only you guys are good, decent, responsible considerate people. The rest of us are, well...not. 207.229.151.91 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge. It clearly now meets notability requirements, but the article about this exists - David Gerard 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or merge - easily notable and verifiable. --WikiSlasher 13:35, 4 May 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 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Illustrious Elite Modeling Troupe[edit]

When two of the three categories you put the article in are redlinked and the third is a general top-level cat where it wouldn't belong anyway, I think we can safely say the subject of your article is not notable. At least not outside Florida State, not that the article even bothers to try. Daniel Case 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I just graduated from Florida State, and Elite is a small, non notable student organization. This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:23, 3 May 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 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way of the Dee Dee[edit]

Content entirely covered in a more general page (Dexter's Laboratory) Supasheep 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable episode of a cartoon. Total dead-end page to boot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. JuJube 04:54, 3 May 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. — Scientizzle 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystof Kromilicki[edit]

Appears to be a hoax; searching for both the subject and the references gives 0 Ghits. Phony Saint 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches for his short story titles and for reference number one also come up empty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.98.212.146 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I looked up the book in Reference 4, Faces of Anonymity, on Amazon.com and searched inside the book to look at the index; Kromilicki is not mentioned in the book at all. Hoax Chubbles 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find references using Google Scholar or through an academic search. Hoax. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:10, 6 May 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 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore_PRC_Scholar[edit]

This article does not meet the notability guidelines in any way. Every country has foreign scholars, and Singapore itself has foreign scholars from a large number of countries. Mentioning things like facebook group and 'popular guardian' in an encyclopaedia entry is also inappropriate. Amadeoh 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No claim to notability, no references or sources.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by JzG (CSD A7: Unremarkable People, Groups, Companies and Web Content). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seizethemoment.[edit]

Band with a ridiculous name (yes, I've typed it correctly), and no apparent claim to N whatsoever. Release history consisting of a single self-released EP, and no evidence of any live performances whatsoever. The article at present consists of: (1) a lengthy quote from the band, (2) a list of band members, (3) a "discography" consisting of the same single twice and (4) a set of spammy links to myspace pages & "buy this music on Itunes". Possibly not spam as the author doesn't seem to actually know the names of the band members, but I don't believe this band was N, is N or ever will be N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the slashes in the name have confused the mediawiki software, so I've entered this AfD manually; blame me for any mistakes. The "3 slashes (///) represent that the band stands for a lot more than people think", but they also stand for breaking direct links - you'll have to follow the redirect above to get to the 'actual' page. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, ((///seizethemoment.)), and Scars Are Reminders (We Know The Killer) EP REISSUE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The band appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article doesn't assert the band's notability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator's removed the AfD template from the page (now restored) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonnotable band and salt as this band has already been speedied five times.[81]--FreeKresge 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would ask that the article be locked from recreation, to prevent any further abuses. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I put this article and Scars Are Reminders (We Know The Killer) EP REISSUE up for speedy delete. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable EP release and with no independent, verifiable sources. "The 3 slashes (///) in the beginning of the name are symbolic, in the way that they really don't mean any one thing." Oh yeah, that kind of symbolic.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 Femto 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alligator (drinking game)[edit]

Drinking game already described in Moose (drinking game), not notable enough for its own article.-- ugen64 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 3 May 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 Chastity Bono and redirect. Herostratus 15:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremony (band)[edit]

Seems like a nn band, possibly speedy candidate.-- ugen64 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Finally the database is unlocked again. Seems like an nn band to me; no sources, no charting singles, and way too big of an image to boot. I categorized this for you too, by the way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Someone needs to find sources and rewrite the article and clean it up, but with some work, i think it will be acceptable. dposse 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A member of the band, Chastity Bono, is notable herself. --Eastmain 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, the daughter of Sonny and Cher? Yeah, that's pretty notable. dposse 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect, without the Bono connection this is a no-brainer. A band with one poorly received album and no charting singles. It is worth adding (there is brief mention now) to the article on Chastity.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Chastity Bono sounds fine. I had to do a double-take - some friends of mine in the US also had a band called Ceremony. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:18, 11 May 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 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of warrior archetypes that can be used online[edit]

Prod was removed by the author without further improvement. I don't know what improvement can help. This is a fairly arbitrary list that comes off as original research by the author. Nothing new is gained by having this list, and someone has already tagged it for context because it is rather confusing just what this list is supposed to achieve. - BierHerr 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely original research. Even if there were reliable sources, it should probably be merged into Pirates versus Ninjas, which needs a lot of work, itself.Chunky Rice 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had originally placed the prod tag. Original research, no context and I can't imagine how this could ever become an encyclopedic article. I also advise against a merge to Pirates versus Ninjas: if any info is worth salvaging (and I doubt this very much) then it will eventually be added in Pirates versus Ninjas whereas forcing a merge will just downgrade the readability of the article. Pascal.Tesson 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating a merge. I was just saying that if this information is verifiable (which it doesn't appear to be), then it should go on that page.Chunky Rice 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not patent nonsense, but I will call it absolute nonsense. I mean. look at it. JuJube 04:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, if anyone needs the text to merge just ask Steve _(Stephen)^talk 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian presidential election, 2007[edit]

This page is about the early presidential elections that were called on by the Ukrainian parliament. The parliament's move is highly controversial, which is disputed and not recognized by the current president Viktor Yushchenko and his supporters. There is already information about the current political situation in Ukraine in April (including calling for presidential elections by parliament, his decree of dismissal of the parliament causing new parliamentary elections, parliament's disregard for president's decree) at the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article. It is not even certain that there will be any such election. No new information is presented at this article which does not already exist in the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article. —dima /talk/ 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletions. —dima /talk/ 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not separate the recommendations into groups under headings such as "keep", "merge", or "delete" while this discussion is going on. The administrator who closes this debate will review all recommendations and comments at the end to determine the consensus.

Delete. The parliament cannot pass acts after it has been dissolved. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the above, the parliament needs to impeach the President before they can talk about elections. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 into Ukrainian political crisis of 2007. In fact both elections are yet to be recognised by the supreme court and both are formed from the clash of powers between parliament and president. It is still unclear that either will go ahead as planned and thus it is suitable to recognise this with correct titling. --Kuban Cossack 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (together with Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007) to a new article, something like 2007 political crisis in Ukraine. The article is nonsensial. --Irpen 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 into Ukrainian political crisis of 2007. I agree with Kuban Cossack about this and believe it would be more proper and more informative to users if we keep the article but put it into a new page. --User:Alex40045
Comment: there's not much to merge, somebody already added the bit about presidential elections to that article already. As for redirecting, it can be done, but I'm more in favor of deleting the article completely. I think redirecting presidential elections to parliamentary elections is misleading. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the opposition already resigned from parliament, they will have no choice but to declare elections, regardless of Constitutional Court's decision. Therefore, the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article should NOT be moved. The elections are inevitable. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anybody wants a separate article on the crisis, it will have to be split off after the Constitutional Court decision, as I proposed on the article's talk page. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merging would involve no more than a sentence or two.--Riurik^(discuss) 19:57, 4 May 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. — Scientizzle 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gueroloco[edit]

MySpace musician; no claims of ever actually having recorded anything, no evidence of a nationwide tour of any nation, no evidence of meeting other criteria set forth at WP:MUSIC. Claims to have been on the cover of what describes itself as an online magazine; no substantiation of this claim provided. Article was originally speedied as A7; however, it does contain an assertion of notability, and, as such, was resuscitated at DRV, here, so here we are at AfD. To me, this looks like a non-notable act at best or a hoax at worst (note the "references" provided), thus my !vote here is delete. Heather 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notability claims are unsourced, the only source is a MySpace page, and he sings reggae-friggin-ton. Okay, the last one doesn't count. JuJube 04:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too many unsourced claims, violates WP:V as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, starts out with "according to his myspace", and that continues to be the only source, which is obviously unacceptable. --Phoenix (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one thing in the sources section that is actually a source, and that is the Myspace page. I'm seeing no evidence of anything. -Amarkov moo! 00:29, 6 May 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. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. The Wikipedia will have to soldier on without the star of "Big Tit Anal Whores 3". Herostratus 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Derek[edit]

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes point #3 of WP:PORNBIO: "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche." The subject appears to be prominent in the "MILF" genre (see: List of pornographic sub-genres). Dekkappai 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to IMDb, she has appeared in two milf movies and 11 movies altogether. Not quite prolific enough. Epbr123 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Number of films is irrelevant, and a quick Google search showed that she was quite prominent. Dekkappai 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google searches are irrelevent. Number of films is actually quite relevent when determining prolificness. Epbr123 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Counting Google hits is irrelevant in determining notability. Looking at pages brought up on a Google search is relevant. Or are sources disqualified if they are found through a Google search? The absurdity of your arguments in these mass-AfDs continues to be astounding. You constantly claim that a high number of films is not relevant in determining notability, and now when a subject has a low number of films, it suddenly is relevant. My search on the subject brought up many pages showing that she has a high profile and large following in the MILF genre. Her films are only one aspect of her output in that genre. She also has an online diary with many citations from other pages, photos, etc. Since the subject is outside my realm of interest, I don't plan to spend any more time researching her. My search on the subject was enough to prove to me that she's a celebrity, this is not a vanity page. Your time spent on the subject appears to be, as usual, to slap an AfD tag on the page, and put the burden of proof on those who are against censoring Wikipedia. An editor who actually cared about these subjects would put "unsourced" tags on the page, or, heaven forbid, actually try to source and improve the article himself. Instead, you waste our time. I'm done here. Dekkappai 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Um...still doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. --Epbr123 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, I've just noticed she's only 25. She's not even a proper MILF. Epbr123 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Does this additional reorganizing help out the genre niche?--Joelrees 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of satisfying WP:PORNBIO. Also, please note Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography. Heather 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. I had no idea Wikipedia even had a WP:PORNBIO! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the "Google test" could demonstrate notability for pornstars, half our articles would be on same. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me see if I'm getting this straight... Sources found through a Google search are now invalid?... Interesting... Do we next invalidate any information found in a book if an index was used in locating that information? (As long as that information is on a subject of which we disapprove, of course.) Meanwhile, the nominating editor spews out totally unsourced articles by the score. Yes, very interesting. Why not come out and admit it? "Wikipedia is censored, by mob rule." Dekkappai 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Epbr123 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the Delete votes were based on the supposition that a Google-hit count was used to determine notability. Nowhere above did anyone vote to keep based on number Google hits. Doing so would be counter to WP:PORNBIO. Instead Google was used as a research tool to check whether this subject had any kind of notability. Evidence of notability within a specific genre, which is considered proof of notability at WP:PORNBIO was found. Wikipedia does not yet ban the use of Google as a research tool, though this AfD discussion appears to be attempting to set that precedent. The nominating editor refers to other editors as "nutjobs," then cites civility. His application of WP:PORNBIO appears to be just as selective and self-contradictory. Dekkappai 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've found evidence of her notability, could you please tell us what it is, rather than resorting to personal attacks? Epbr123 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Wikipedia: 'Several of the models who have appeared in MILF Hunter have become famous as "MILF pornstars". One notable example is Vicky Vette... Other recognizable porn actresses featured on the site are... Danielle Derek' I shouldn't have let myself get sucked into looking at this page again. I don't care about the subject and apparently no one involved in editing the porn articles else does either. So there's your opportunity: Censor Wikipedia of articles on minor celebrities who don't have a currently actively-editing fan base. Anyone who wants sourced, unbiased information on this subject will have to content themselves with an article on some one-horse town in Kent. To hell with it-- censor away. Dekkappai 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to have to say this but I wouldn't call Wikipedia a reliable source. How dare you slag off Kent! Epbr123 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My !vote to delete was not "based on the supposition that a Google-hit count was used to determine notability". It was based on her not meeting WP:PORNBIO. Heather 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Heather 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joel —Joelrees
Comment Disavian, Joelrees & Dekkappai have voted 'Keep' because they believe her two MILF movies prove she "has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche." Epbr123 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I voted keep because of her numerous appearances in MILF websites, regardless of her age--Joelrees 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai, meets and exceeds WP:MILF. RFerreira 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP:MILF" states that "MILF has become a much-used descriptor on the Internet for pornography sites featuring women mostly between the ages of 35 and 50." Danielle Derek does not satisfy WP:MILF as she is only 25. Epbr123 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This a list of some of the pornstars who have appeared in more MILF movies & websites than Danielle Derek. Should each of these be given their own article as well? Shannon Kelly, Cheyenne Hunter, Jenner, Ginger Spice, Adrianna Nicole, Vanessa Videl, Jacy Andrews, Chelsea Zinn, Emma Starr, Elle Cee, Stephanie Wylde, Devon Lee, Lauren Kain, Demi Delia, Veronica Rayne, Harley Rains, Darryl Hanah, Annie Body, India Summer, Kayla Quinn, Wendy Divine, Michelle Lay, Davia Ardell, Lexi Carrington, Kayla Cam, Puma Swede, De'Bella, Rubee Tuesday, Kelly Leigh, Nicole Moore, Phyllisha Anne. Epbr123 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Salamandar[edit]

This page was nominated for deletion by User:PrincessOfHearts; however, that user didn't properly complete the AfD process so I'm helping out. Page is uncategorized, makes no claims to notability, and has formatting errors galore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just checked PrincessOfHearts' talk page, where she said that this page is a re-creation of previously deleted material. If someone can prove that this is true, then I'll change to a speedy delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, and good grief. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-band JuJube 04:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Phoenix (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bran.B[edit]

Contested speedy + assertions of importance or significance = procedural AfD. No opinion just yet... — Scientizzle 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On further review, while I shouldn't have speedied it, I see no reason to keep this article. Bran.B Dropsession gets 2 Google hits--just MySpace. Bran.B rap (35 unique hits) doesn't turn up any reliable sources that could be used to verify the claims within the article. Fails WP:MUSIC & WP:V. — Scientizzle 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local rapper. Improbcat 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there should be a corollary to Geroge's law stating that any biographical article where the subject's name is bolded every time it appears is probably not notable. We could call it JuJube's law ^_^ JuJube 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lost me with this: "Although not very commercially viable, Bran.B is widely considered to be the first rapper of any significance from the state of Rhode Island ...". Asserts its own non-notability, then tries to weasel out of it. Boldfacing the subject's name every time it appears (Wikipedia is not a gossip column) doesn't help either. Daniel Case 06:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links provided That were removed will not feature the name Bran.B, but rather his band Thrift Unit.— 71.215.23.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War Classic[edit]

I have to admit, when I first read this article, I believed it and even edited it myself. It's a great hoax and deserves to be kept somewhere in those "funny, but not useful for an encyclopedia" archives Wikipedia has. Its tone is encyclopedic, its layout and style are Wikipedia-ish, etc. But here's why I'm pretty sure it's a hoax: absolutely no signs of it on google, google books, or other Wikipedia articles (an event of this magnitude has to be mentioned somewhere); a look through the index of the main source for the article, the book by John Lewis Gaddis (go to [82] and click on "view inside"), shows that neither "baseball" nor "Cold War Classic" or even Zagreb are mentioned in the book. Brilliant hoax, but we have to delete. Carabinieri 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find any sources for this through Google Scholar or through my school's index of journals and publications. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN Hilarious. Dont' miss the "play-by-play." Some of my favorite lines:

strongly endorsed by...Richard Nixon because he believed that the West would easily win such a game, and Leonid Brezhnev because he was widely believed to be drunk at the time.

Additionally, Cincinnati Reds second baseman Joe Morgan was allowed to play for East Germany, giving the Soviet Bloc the only professional player in the game.

In the East, Husak was seen as a hero, and his inside-the-park grand slam was hailed as the "Most Clutch Moment in Czeckoslovakian History".

Some, citing the significant defensive and offensive contributions to the Soviet side by their second baseman, actually viewed the outcome as a victory for the West, since the Soviet Union showed that it was extremely dependent on Western imports (in this case, Joe Morgan).

ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA status DGG 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO Dekkappai 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I Think you voted on the wrong one, Dekkappai. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... I don't know... I see that same vote get thrown around from article to article till it eventually sticks on one... Dekkappai 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't get what's so funny about it, not even with the quotes cited by ObiterDicta... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we have some place for funny jokes. It can be moved there.
Not sure. We have Russian jokes and other similar articles. Perhaps we can make a new Category Cold war jokes and keep this article as one of those. But this looks like OR. Ignore all rules? Biophys 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN without a doubt. Mystache 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support creating Wikipedia:Article of the Year for the artice. Mystache 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the main encyclopedia as satire/hoax. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Greatest joke ever. Or at least that I've read today. Definite BJAODN potential. I was also taken in by the article until the above referenced "Leonid Brezhnev, because he was drunk" quotation. What sealed the deal for me was when I realized they meant the actual heads of state were playing baseball, as opposed to national athletes (which I somehow shamefully found somewhat plausible). Still, very well written and worthy of retention somewhere in the annals of awesome. hellenica 05:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong BJAODN. One of the best prolonged joke articles I've read in a long time. Daniel Case 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. I don't think we even need to check up on whether there was a baseball game between various Soviet bloc and NATO leaders.. -- Mithent 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up: This article has been copied to User:Hellenica/Amusement. 129.98.212.171 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN Very funny, while I was reading I was captivated and thought it was real, then I returned to reality. --Doc13mets 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious, but unfortunately this is not the place. So, Delete. FireSpike 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you guys aren't deleting this just because I forgot the accent marks on Kadar and Husak. I honestly don't have anything against Slovaks or Hungarians, it's just that I have a Western keyboard, so I apologize if I gave anyone that impression. --Falconezzar 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought this was an obvious hoax, as demonstrated by lack of support via google, google scholar, and other wikipedia entries, but then I realized that an event of this magnitude and international importance would of course be classified! Through the magic of historical revisionism , we are now able to understand the movements that led to successful detente and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. GOD BLESS WIKIPEDIA. -(Simulcra 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)) Incidentally, I vote to delete this page.[reply]
Delete, and say what you will about WP vs Brittanica, I'll bet their editorial review board never gets to laugh like this!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and add to Wiki-Hoax Hall of Fame.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OR is a 'pillar' policy. Daniel Bryant 09:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM 1130/snoopy calendar[edit]

I do not think that this particular piece of code is notable Hq3473 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or repository for code. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ObiterDicta, this is not an encyclopaedia article. -- Mithent 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Snoopy calendar is a famous piece of computing history. It's a little strange to actually have the code in the article, yes, but I think it's short enough that it's worth keeping. Pinball22 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically interesting. Not important, but neither are the sci-fi episode guides.... Tom 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified original research which makes a number of far-fetched and unprovable claims. Burntsauce 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the history of computing. If we lose this stuff, we lose a part of the past. Linuxrocks123 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails requirements for verifiability and appears to be giving undue weight to the subject to boot. RFerreira 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes you have to WP:IAR. This is part of computing history. Agree it's not well sourced but of course this was before email and ftp.--Work permit 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we should not "ignore all rules" in the face of original research which is most likely incorrect and untrue. If this is honestly a part of computing history as you claim, please dig up a couple reliable sources which reflect this and I will gladly change my position. RFerreira 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)ScorpioGuy 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)D—–°[reply]
Delete. As someone who actually worked on an 1130 I don't recall ever seeing a snoopy calendar. My opinion would be changed if some references were provided. I suspect that if there are references, they would not be 1130 specific so the article would need to be renamed. If the consensus is to not keep, then a transwiki to Wikisource should be strongly considered. Vegaswikian 05:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently a part of computing history. Has a reference in the form of the Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal article from 1983, which specifically refers not to a Snoopy calendar, but "a line-printer Snoopy calendar for the year 1969" (fourteen years later!) as proof of computer expertise. It is also mentioned in the Hacker Test, "a compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom, cunningly disguised as a test," which is not a great big reliable source but serves to show that the calendar has iconic status. Rename if appropriate, apparently not 1130-specific - the article seems to have been named such because the program can be run on a IBM 1130 emulator, by an editor who was new to Wikipedia conventions at the time, which is a formatting error, but not grounds for deletion. --Kizor 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm old enough to remember seeing Snoopy calendars, although the programming always seemed a bit tedious. Historical interest. andy 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ..The Snoopy Character and not the calendar was created by a classmate of mine who's name escapes me now, at Miami-Dade Junior College in 1966 on a IBM 1620 computer! It was used as a demo to show what a computer could do with a pen plotter. The plotter was not a device that could be use with computers in that day! It had to be RPQ(Request for Price Quote)to IBM to do the I/O hardwiring to make it work. We would have dignitaries from the Major Universities(i.e. Purdue, Columbia, etc.) come to Miami-Dade because we were one of the very first if not the first college to have a Computer Science curriculum(It was called EDP, Electronic Data Processing!). These Universities did not have a EDP degree program and they eventually copied Miami-Dade's program! In the computer lab where the college's computer was we had fun making Snoopy bigger and bigger to fool the person giving the demo! smile! Oh by the way! I did use Snoopy on a IBM 1130 on my job! We also did Business programming on the IBM 1130 in FORTRAN! COBOL was not invented yet! User:Dexhu 20:00 08 May 2007 (EDT)

Comment. Dude. --Kizor 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Snoopy calendar is part of computing folklore. It and other (more or less) savory pieces of ASCII art have graced the wall of many a computer room. If the information in the article is so unverifiable as to pose a problem, that's an argument for stubbifying the article, not deleting it. The topic itself is notable, albeit in the context of computer science. --Ssbohio 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every comment made thus far amounts to original research. It doesn't matter if you made a Snoopy printout at your job 30 years ago. What matters is that this article has no reliable sources which demonstrate its encyclopedic merits, and I'm afraid that even if it did it still would be a better fit at Wikisource, not here. RFerreira 08:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I realize that no appropriate reliable sources have been provided. But I think the original-research-type comments indicate that it probably is notable, just in need of more research to find the sources that prove it. Pinball22 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have the 1983 article, which was published in Datamation. I did some further digging and found coverage in The New Hacker's Dictionary, where Snoopy calendars are a proverbial hacker's (in the computer enthusiast sense) past-time. I can't provide a full literary citation right now seeing as how the local university has closed for the day, but I will be able to get access to their copy of the third edition later on. --Kizor 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing on that, we now have multiple, published, reliable references. The responses that you try to trivialize seek to debunk the nominator's understandable but false assumption that this is without significance. --Kizor 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historical interest or not, the full code does not belong into a Wikipedia article, and the rest is so short that it's probably better off in some other article. Sandstein 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not sourceforge. A better formatted article more encyclopedic in content and tone may be warrented though(without any code). Sidenote: Though in the 90s I was an engineer for awhile on one of the most used commercial fortran compilers and I never once heard of this. Russeasby 00:00, 10 May 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.