The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NOT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar with Cindy[edit]

Grammar with Cindy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well-intended but unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and is not designed to be used as a blog, public forum, or space for essays or tutorials. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Article has been tagged for speedy delte (under A7). Justin Eiler (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources, it's a personal essay or original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays and Wikipedia is not your blog. Contains Original research Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above reasons. --Concordia (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trzmygly[edit]

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

This is very probably a hoax. The only reference for it is fr:Trzmygly which is being considered for deletion. _R_ (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No Google hits at all. Looks like it's definitely a hoax.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much information on it at all, until the author of this article can produce a informative enough article on this village then it should not be on Wikipedia at all. --Jammy (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. News flash: the article in French Wikipedia just got deleted. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my prod nomination.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Burk[edit]

--KEEP--This article may have encyclopedic value considering the legal system, incarceration, punishment, and crime wave in America.

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

Subject only notable for being murdered. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - 66.214.9.247
  • Removed trolling comment by vandal. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep You hit the nail on the head. She is indeed notable for being murdered, so why put an AfD for it? There are over 1000 news articles on Lauren Burk, and the case has attracted immense attention. The media has already decided on the importance of this case, and it's not up to Wikipedian editors to say anything. EgraS (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being that this is Wikipedia and not a news site, it's absolutely up to the editors to decide whether or not she is notable enough to be included here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the editors who write, but it's the rest of the world who determines the notability of certain events. This case has attracted such immense news coverage that to not include it would be a travesty.EgraS (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one event has produced so much more attention that it far outstrips that requirement. EgraS (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. For some reason, Wikipedia is becoming a database of obituaries. See: Eve Carson 24.124.109.67 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's informative enough and very notable, I don't see a reason why it should be deleted other than the fact someone is being stubborn on what they don't think is worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. --Jammy (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EgraS.--Oldak Quill 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notable for only one event. If the event itself becomes sufficiently notable, create an article for it. --Zantolak (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I prefer that some significance beyond just grabbing headlines be demonstrated. This appearing to be a sad, all-too-common random robbery, it's just a burst of news that will soon dissipate. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, Keep "All-too-common" indeed, the usefulness of information of this kind is to prevent similar incidents. Within academia is the field of criminology and crime prevention, and more and/or different information is known of this case than that of Natalee Holloway or Eve Carson as of this posting. If it's found that a parking lot is inadequately lit or that college students away from home are an easy target like sailors in a strange port, then lets see where the information takes us. I would like to see a lot more info on this case than is submitted, but local authorities may be saving some of that for trial. Not all info is useful to all people.Sparree (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here we go again. More MWWS. Seems we have to have an article on every pretty murder victim. What's notable? WWGB (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all the above reasons. Also, this WP:POINTy article's creator and principle editor is an alleged sockpuppet of an editor whose interests include pretty white women killed by Black men. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malik, I never thought you were a conspiracy nut in league with Flash. I can also accuse you or anyone on the userpage of any offense and mention it every time you post anything. This topic is of significant interest in the American media and has thousands of news articles on it and is head and shoulder, root and limb above the rest of the murders. EgraS (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In the very first line (above), the person who proposed this deletion admits that the subject is notable. Notable for her death, yes --- but nonetheless notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Poor phrasing isn't the same as the nominator asserting notability. The only claim to notability is dying. That is far different than being notable for dying. Murders are very common, they alone do not make an individual notable. Resolute 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, come on. Let's all stop pretending that this is just like any other murder in the USA. There were how many hundreds (or thousands?) of murders in the USA in the past week/month/year? How come we all know this name? And we don't know the other hundred/thousand names? This murder is different, period. Whether or not it deserves to be is an entirely different issue. We at Wikipedia cannot dictate to ABC and CBS and NBC and Fox and (etc.) what they should be noting in their news broadcasts. Someone somewhere (God knows who) has decided that this is one of the notable murders from the hundreds and thousands that occurred. So be it. It's notable and we can cover it. Your head is in the sand if you can say with a straight face that this murder has received the same news coverage (read "notability") as any other run-of-the-mill murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Oh, come on yourself. The only reason many people here ever heard of Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote an article and most of us are trying to have it removed because the subject lacks sufficient notability. It's just NOT that different, period. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow! Like the previous post says, get your head out of the sand. And quick. Your comment is laughable. Go and re-read it. The only reason that millions of Americans have heard about Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote a Wikipedia article on it. That's your claim? That remark is so ignorant, it warrants no reply. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete because wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quale's comment TaintedZebra (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Deor (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Remember that the notability standards really don't include people notable just for one thing, for one event; and passing interest (as evidenced in the article) in the death of an otherwise typical college student surely isn't enough to guarantee notability. This isn't Natalie Holloway. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK. So please explain to all of us how and why Natalie Holloway is different. No one in the world ever heard of her until she was murdered. And she was a high school kid, to boot. So, how indeed is that different than this case? I'm real curious. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment There is a concurrent debate going on with very similar facts to the ones here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia direct from Google to look up Lauren Burk. If Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, it should keep this article. If it calls itself an academic encyclopedia, this is different. If you delete this, you should delete all porn stars, all politicians (except Presidents, Prime Ministers, and major Senators), delete Jimbo Wales (just a minor internet figure - half joking!), etc. You may say that other crap does not justify this article but this article is not crap and other articles set the standard. This article is also important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) — Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • WP:WAX. The existence of, and claims to notability of other articles has no relevance at all to this article. It has to stand on it's own merits. And I fail to see how a news story fits in with an "academic encyclopedia." Wikinews is the project you are looking for. Resolute 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every murder victim is notable enough for WP? I don't think so. Fail to see what this article is doing here. WikiNews, okay. Wikipedia, no. Rien Post (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhhhh. Who said every murder victim? Seems like those are your words, no? And that's painting with a pretty broad brush. And if that's what you are resting your argument on, that's evidence enough of the weakness of your argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Like an obit. Renee (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has sufficient notability per guidelines. SuMadre (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is sadly, but she is only one of many crime victims. --Paukrus (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crime blog. Per WP:ONEEVENT ,WP:NOT#NEWS , and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale of Sparree, and to the conspiracy theorist, if the shoe fits... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I considered the suggestion from Sparree that this information might be useful for analysis of crime patterns but am not convinced. Such analysis would require a more comprehensive list of crimes. Matchups (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that if we were to do such an analysis, it would be WP:OR, while if we were to cite someone else's analysis, we certainly would not title the article as "Lauren Burk". Resolute 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per everyone else. --Philip Laurence (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's very sad that this young lady has been murdered, but if being murdered is a criteria for notability, Wikipedia would be full of such notables. This is not an obit site. yorkie19 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, a non-argument ... grasping at straws. I don't hear anyone saying "being murdered is a criteria for notability". If that is your argument, where are you hearing that concept being advocated by "the other side" of the argument? Clearly, it's not her murder per se ... we can all agree that thousands are murdered. It's the impact / news / reception / coverage / reaction of the murder that makes it worthy of note. Why do people make such broad and sweeping claims (much like yours) that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand? Seriously? Who in the world ever said "every single murder, period, warrants an article"? Who said that? What a weak argument. It's not even an argument. Or, a position, for that matter. I will placate you, though. Yes, I agree with you. It is true that being murdered is not a criteria for notability. Got that out of the way. Happy now? Now, moving on productively, what does that have to do with this debate at hand? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge with Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Great girl, but not notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIOE. Being killed may be newsworthy, but does not have a historical impact. Notability is not temporary. Will she be notable in ten years? Probably not. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP because this is a subset of "college campus murders," which are a cultural phenomenon that has increased in number in recent years and is worthy of discussion/study/analysis. Mooveeguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't even murdered on a college campus. so that argument to keep is rather obtuse. WWGB (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, keep it as an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. How can anyone enter that debate without examples to reference? Mooveeguy (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe only reason I ever heard of Lauren Burk is someone had put it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just American and to me the only reason I do know about this poor human being is someone put in on Wikipedia. Wikinews fine not here. What are we trying to outdo facebook et al! If so the floodgates will open I have at least one possible that could be added, death by car used as weapon, student, young man,(damn! wrong gender) Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quale. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A one time story, this is not comparable to the Natalee Holloway case that dragged on and on and generated far more public interest. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tragic that a young woman like her had to be murdered, but it isn't noteworthy. Peter1968 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is a major story in the USA. Why have an easily accessible, user editable online encyclopedia and not include this? Might as well delete Natalee Holloway, Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq war as well if you delete Lauren Burk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.88.233 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — 75.143.88.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - per previous: it's quite news-worthy but not encyclopedic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Cxz111 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - None of the deleters probably live in the South. This is the most discussed news of the past month. Wikipedia is definitely not World Book, as one has to put in the context that there are 2 million articles, or 1 article per 120 or so people in the US or 1 in 5000 in the world. Lauren Burk's case is landmark in importance, and deserves a much longer article. This deletion discussion itself illutrates the importance of the case. Few of what I've seen comes close to this. I question if the deleters here are doing it because the murderer is black and they dont want to ever write anything or show anything that is percieved to be anti-black, but really, race should have nothing to do with this AfD. And there are some 2K articles on google about Lauren Burk. Tattarattat (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)— Tattarattat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as per "all too common" and MWWS. better placed in MWWS article in an "Examples" section, yes? JTGILLICK (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else's points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.210.153 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.207.210.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep or Rename well-covered media story, making it notable. Natalee Holloway herself is not notable, just her story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article Eve Carson‎ was moved to Murder of Eve Carson‎. These are similar media-driven stories. Moving Lauren Burk to Murder of Lauren Burk should similarly satisfy the complainants on this page. A user has written a proposed guideline on this kind of story at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) and is inviting comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not. Neither the unfortunate woman or her murder are notable. Changing the name of the article does not make anything any more notable. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a national media story. The argument, that the story is not notable, is false. Please visit that other page and weigh in to the argument there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your position on this matter. I'm just making the point that simply changing the name of the article would not satisfy this "complainant" (which is a change from being called a "deletist"). WWGB (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary complaint in both this and the Carson story is that the victim is not notable. Natalee Holloway herself is less notable than Carson and certainly no more notable than Burk. The notability is in the story. The story got national media coverage, and therefore is notable. So renaming the article is the right way to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt in on you two, but I feel that all three subject are equally unnotable. I do agree that the notability is in the story, and unfortunately Carson and Burk's stories are told too often to be notable. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Holloway story notable, then? People go missing every day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel her disappearance is notable because of the controversy surrounding it. But you could make a strong argument that a biographic page about her doesn't belong. You have to remember, back in 2005 when she went missing we didn't have ONEEVENT and BLP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've learned from watching the deletionists attack previously uploaded images by the thousand, what the rules were in the past do not matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be drawn into this debate, but I'd like to add my support to WWGB's comment. In my opinion, renaming the article doesn't make the subject more notable, and it wouldn't change my !vote. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Her life wasn't notable enough to deserve an article, same with Eve Carson, and just renaming the article to 'Death of...' still doesn't make them notable enough. Is every female American murder victim getting their own article now? I hadn't heard anything at all about these girls until I saw it on Wikipedia --KingOfExtreme (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does not have to do with whether you personally have heard about something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability fully depends on people hearing and knowing about the person/situation. I bet no-one in my country or any other country outside of America has heard about this girl's death because it is no different to all the other hundreds of people who die everyday, apart from a typical case of MWWS. Like I said before, does every American female murder victim deserve their own biography based solely on the fact that they are now dead? --KingOfExtreme (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you concerned that wikipedia is going to run out of space? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (To begin, please excuse the seeming facetiousness of the following suggestion) Wouldn't the proper venue for all these Life-Notable-Only-Because-Of-Notable-Death items do better on something like a subset of MySpace - one called DeadSpace, perhaps? Or a subeset of FaceBook called DeathBook.

Alternatively - a Wiki article on People Notable by Reason of Death Only? JTGILLICK (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The event (her death) is notable, period. Regardless of whether or not she herself is/was notable. It would take a fool not to realize that her story has been blasted all over the news. Like it or not, it has. And, that is what makes it notable. This murder has elicited a huge (national) public reaction. Her story / her death / her murder ... coupled in such proximity with the Eve Carson murder. To argue that this has not gathered national notability is ludicrous. How do people on this page argue that point with a straight face is beyond me. I am indifferent to the name/title of the article. But, certainly the event is notable --- independent of whether or not the individual (Burk) is notable. I'd also basically mimic all that Baseball Bugs has said. His arguments are clearly on point and valid. Everyone else is caught up in pushing some agenda -- and ignoring the plain fact that this is a notable event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How many times are you planning to vote Joseph? You voted previously on 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Getting worried you might lose? WWGB (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We can just "copy and paste" the Eve Carson debate. It is essentially the same exact debate. That ended in "no consensus" ... as these all do ... and as this will. And rightly so, as "no consensus" simply defaults to a KEEP. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not when you have voted more than once and a few "keeps" have been made by alleged socks or meatpuppets. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect This is basically what I said at the other AfD: I'm seeing a lot of WP:ONEEVENT delete arguments being made; however, Wikipedia is chock-full of people who are notable for only one event: Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, Sirhan Sirhan, Günter Parche, Gavrilo Princip, John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed. As with the other, I recommend redirecting to Murder of Lauren Burk. Is this girl notable? No, buther death has received significant coverage in the media, making it a notable event. faithless (^speak) 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have repeatedly stated, citing WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. BWH76 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per others, not notable. Media attention alone shouldn't determine notability, much of their criteria for attention is based on a thing called 'getting ratings'. Sansumaria (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (elaborating on what I said earlier) The continual reference to "NOT NEWS" is a bogus argument based on old-fashioned thinking. Wikipedia is fluid and dynamic, NOT PAPER. The media decide what's notable, not individual editors who personally think something is "not notable". As a member of the general public, I come to wikipedia for information. If I can't find it here, I might assume wikipedia is behind the curve. Worse, if I knew it was here and now is gone, I might assume wikipedia is being run by bozos. Either way, I might conclude that wikipedia is unreliable, and will turn elsewhere for information in the future. That conclusion should be of more concern to editors than anything else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Baseball Bugs has voted twice (see 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)). What's up indeed, Doc??? WWGB (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, yer right. Didn't realize I had. So solly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fishwrapper news. Will ^(talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you realize, Baseball Bugs, that every time you repeat the same arguments in increasingly combative tones, you seem more fanatical and your arguments become less effective? You've made your point. More than a few times. Give it a rest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am merely trying to get people to think about what they're saying, to think outside of their respective boxes that they seem to want to keep wikipedia in. I would like wikipedia to be all it can be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia does have articles on current events. Perhaps that policy is wrong, but if so we should change it, not ignore it just because we sympathise with the victim in this particular case. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been added by Faithlessthewonderboy that address the delete concerns. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Trail[edit]

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

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough unless it's a very famous artist or is fairly popular. --Jammy (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete T.I. is apparently pretty famous (several US Top 40 hits, according to Billboard), but this is still crystal ballery Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely a violation of WP:CRYSTAL TaintedZebra (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is not a crystal ball means. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." However the information in this article is based on verifiable information and we have articles on the artists earlier work. There does not appear to be a policy based reason to delete this. Catchpole (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Try not to focus too much on the whole "crystal ball" thing, although until the album's released, writing about as if it's a done deal does involve a good deal of that. The main point of the nomination is that there is not enough media coverage for this album to be notable. Until the album's released, unless there is significant coverage in 3rd party sources, notability is not established. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}
• Keep VERY notable artist, no reason to delete--Yankees10 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not inherited. Just because T.I. is notable doesn't mean anything he releases is. And in this case, he hasn't even released it yet. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredibly Strong Keep I've just added several sources. This is a forthcoming album by a multi-platinum selling Grammy-winning musician, and has been covered by Rolling Stone, MTV, BET, XXL and VH1. People seem to think that WP:CRYSTAL applies to all future events, which just isn't the case. The album is extensively sourced and certain to take place; therefore, there is not crystalballery afoot. faithless (^speak) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss of All Bosses[edit]

Boss of All Bosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and referenced from an unreliable source. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough information for it to be notable. Jammy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails on all counts noted TaintedZebra (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cool name. Delete per JohnCD. Majoreditor (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Talvik[edit]

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

Lacks any assertion of notability, and fewer assertions found with Uncle Google. I am also nominating the following related pages because as albums they are equally non-notable:

Street of Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google indicates plenty of independent online sources (e.g. allmusic profile). From a press page about her, she seems famous within Sweden, interviewed by several large papers and magazines (http://www.makakimusic.se/). --Oldak Quill 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sofia Talvik is an internationally radio played artist as this entry is about to say. Plus she is very talented and has also dueted with Bernard Butler. Keep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Oldak. Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks independent reliable sources. If there would be multiple independent sources referenced, I'd be happy to retract this opinion. BWH76 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional players[edit]

List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Should be covered by categories. Unusually hard to maintain. Punkmorten (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BanRay 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Clausura squads[edit]

Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Clausura squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Apertura squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Squad lists belong on the article of each club, not on a centralized list. Not a good idea. Punkmorten (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this information be merged into each club's article? Someone put a lot of effort into creating this list, so its seems a shame to delete it without moving the information into the "current squad" section of those articles. Jogurney (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete already covered, no need for separate articles BanRay 11:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catroots[edit]

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

This was apparently an unreleased game for the Nintendo 64 (although the article currently states differently). There are very few sources that document this game. It does not appear to be possible to make an article about this subject that satisfies WP:V. --- RockMFR 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Released or not, the game is verifiable because of it's existence on IGN, Gamespy, Gamestats and others. The article could use some improvement however. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not different sources. They are all owned by IGN. --- RockMFR 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm usually in favour of borderline keeps, but this one seems to be too obscure. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man bash[edit]

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

• I believe this article does not need to be deleted on the grounds that it obviously is about a regional slang term, and therefore very localised in its verifiability. It notes on the reliability page that 'The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.', and so using common sense people should be able to note that the term 'man bash' is reliable and cannot be backed-up by third party sources due to it's regional nature, I myself find this term an exciting insight into the human nature of dialect development.silentcivilian (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008
• Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all above reasons. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails just about everything. Not salvageable. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day--Boson (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to make any changes which will enable the page to stay up. Please see my input on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, is there nothing i can do/put on the page to make everything said above clear? Willing to moderate.

• Delete not an article and never will be. To the creator, I recommend your next page come backed with secondary sources. Sorry. JuJube (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- Primary sources are always best. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing useful here. Deb (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NEO Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Peet, you are new by your own admission. Please review all the rules for articles before creating another article in order to avoid situations like this. Use your own user space if you need any help to achieve this. TaintedZebra (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. (I hate to always say that, but pretty much everything has already been noted.) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy I would have speedy deleted this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok fair enough delete it i tried to but i dont know how to but do delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chunky Puffs[edit]

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

It's a breakfast cereal in a TV show. The entire content is: Chunky Puffs are a fictional cereal in the show "Ed, Edd n Eddy" on Cartoon Network. They are shown as a delicious food that most kids in the cul-de-sac want. No assertion of notability has been made. I tried to locate some reliable sources via Google, but there are none.

More than a year ago, it was proposed that this article be merged with the main TV show article. To be honest, I don't think it's notable enough to be included in the main article. In my opinion, it should just be deleted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. Agree with nom. that it's not even worth a merge. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the FC word. JuJube (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless information altogether. Jammy (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but a mention of the stuff in the Ed, Edd n Eddy article makes sense. -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....where would you put it? I looked at the article, and if we exclude sections such as "Characters" and "Reception", there is only one left-Overview. Even there, I don't think it would fit, it would probably just disturb the flow of the text. I think this is too trivial to be included in the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom TheProf | Talk 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ferry[edit]

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

A youth team player with no evidence of first team appearances for a professional team, and yet another PROD contested by an IP user. Fails per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN.

I am also nominating the following players for the same reasons described above:

• Stefano Celozzi
• Thomas Kraft

Angelo (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. None appear to have graduated to playing in a fully professional league and so fail WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - is it snowing? --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Non-notable. BWH76 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion rationale, that this is synthesis writing, combined with the lack of reliable independent sources, outweigh the only given keep rationale of other lists exist." The other comparisons/lists could just as easily be nominated for deletion if necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparision of desktop search software[edit]

Comparision of desktop search software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original proposed deletion was contested, however I feel that the original issues still pertain: "A personal essay in the guise of an article. Because only a limited number of software packages are covered, this ends up being just the author's own personal opinions - unless there is comprehensive coverage based on published sources, this is not suitable content for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps should be userfied?

In the author's words (from the article talk page): "It is impossible for a user to make a comprehensive review of dozens of tools... this is a wiki, give time (and that isn't 5 days) for other users to contribute as well. It's no one's personal opinion, this is information available at the author's website and mailing list. The external links are 3rd party information. They do not conform to your "references or sources" (according to your specification of references and sources) because there aren't any! Be pragmatic here. There are no published articles in ACM or IEEE or any other place!"

The author is admitting that there are no sources for this and it is unlikely that there will be any. The article is inherently unverifiable and cannot be rewritten from a neutral point of view because there are no external reliable sources to be found. Gwernol 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Everything about such an article is inherently POV: the evaluation criteria, which software to include and which software not to include, and, of course, the evaluation itself. By its very nature unfit for an encyclopedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you suggest other evaluation criterias? Can you find the type of information stated there about other desktop search software? I targeted technical aspects there. Did you prefere a table with a single row with "searches text"... now that wouldn't be very helpfull would it. There is still a lot to be done, for example, which file types and application data each crawler indexes... But I can't do that all by myself. The only thing here that is POV are the tools listed in the comparison, but please, don't let it deter you from adding the missing ones. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I cannot suggest other evaluation criteria, since by doing so I would be introducing a comparison that is just as non-neutral as the one that's already there. You stated on the talk page, There are no published articles in ACM or IEEE or any other place!, which is by itself a good reason why there should not be an article about this on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is the original publisher of such a synthesis, that would violate its policy, WP:SYN. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested by Gwernol on the talk page, I'll quote myself: "I support leaving this article here to be further improved and worked upon. Something like this will definitely come in handy once it gets a bit more elaborate and has a larger overview with perhaps closed sourced applications added as well." Perhaps give the article some time to be corrected and for sources to be "verified". From the look of his e-mails, seems like author is interested in improvement. I'm not a Wikipedia-smart person, so maybe there's a week/two week period before deleting articles anyway. Andrz (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There is a one week period while this discussion will continue. If proper published, independent sources can be located to support the article, then it will be kept. Remember the sources need to show not just that these particular products exist, but also contain these specific comparisons. Thanks, Gwernol 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please give me one or two examples of such sources. The information stated in each table was provided by the developers or their site and mailing list. The only two sources I could find with comparisons about these products are not considered valid to you. I reiterate that there aren't any wikipedia-style-reliable-sources... at least I couldn't find any, but if somebody does, please tell me. BTW, please take a look at Google Desktop, where are the "reliable" 3rd party sources there? Take a look at Microsoft Word as well, there are several "citation needed" and the references there are to microsoft itself or seem to be plain offtopic.... O_O Can't the article exist while being tagged as unsorced? Because there are others like that. IMO deleting this one would be unfair. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of such a source would be if a reliable, independent magazine - PCMagazine, or MacWorld or similar - published a comparison of desktop publishing software. They would have done the work of choosing which products to compare, which attribute to compare them by and how to rank them. The problem with the current article is you have made the choice on which attributes to compare and which products to include. Wikipedia only reports the results of previously published work, so unless there is such a source we don't publish. The Microsoft Word article has two published books to support it, so while it may not be perfect (as you say it has citation needed tags) it at least has some basis for inclusion. The Google Desktop article does need improvement, but there is no doubt that reliable sources exist - I can think of a number of published reviews of it. I appreciate that this is demoralizing when your first effort is rejected. Please don't take this personally, this is not a reflection on you or your work. Its just unfortunate that you choose to create an article that falls outside the bounds of what Wikipedia is. Don't let this discourage you. A good place to start is to work on an existing article - maybe you'd like to add some of the sources that would improve Microsoft Word or Google Desktop? Once you get the hang of how things work, then you can move on to create articles of your own from sources. I certainly appreciate the effort you put into this one, and I believe you have a lot to give Wikipedia. Good luck, Gwernol 12:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that this is a gray area for wikipedia. It's too technical and non-mainstream to appear in PCMagazine or MacWorld, but it's also too non-scientific to be published in a scientific journal. Although there are possibly other sites or magazines where this could appear... they would not be considered as "independent" or "reliable". Even though the irony is present on the so-called "reliable sources" when they present the product of a powerfull company. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like OR by synthesis to me. Resolute 06:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is no original research. I assembled the facts provided by the authors or their webpages and mailing lists. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Really... this is a huge demoter for contributing.... I'm assembling extremely technical information provided by the software authors, but people here want me to give them a reference of an article published in ACM or IIIE or Elsevier. Are people here really in favor or sharing information? And off course I would love to have information of every desktop search software, that would be great.... The problem is that such information isn't there and I'm not omniscient either... This type of information has to be stiched together from each tool. I believe Rome wasn't built in one day as well. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this any different than the hundreds of other "comparison of ..." lists on wikipedia? Are they all candidates for deletion? --20after4 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on if they are based on sourced comparisons or not. Which particular comparison lists were you thinking of? Gwernol 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does appear to have at least a few credible sources. Perhaps the scope needs to be changed to "Comparison of open source desktop search engines" since it lacks information on commercial alternatives. I think that would be a better solution as apposed to deleting the article completely. As an example of another comparison list that has fewer listed sources: Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks however, this google search pulled a really long list of them: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20after4 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of a comparison article with invalid references (i.e. in the wikipedian sense) is Comparison_of_container_formats. Another comparison article with almost no sources whatsoever is Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients. And none of these is marked for deletion. The irony of 2nd class articles (i.e. unsourced, to be deleted, etc) is that they are usually very valuable to some people, and the reason why they are unsourced is due to the scarcity of available information... which is what wikipedia tries to provide. I think the "unsourced" badge is a eye opener for everyone that consults wikipedia. The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It may not have been included before but the article now links to [6] which seems to be a very relevant source for information on this subject. --20after4 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Courvosier II-class[edit]

Raoul Courvosier II-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only word for this is cruft. It is so entirely in-universe that it does not even tell us which fictional universe it is set in. Suitable for a specialised Wiki about that particular universe, but not for Wikipedia, per WP:N and WP:WAF. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also including in this nomination the following similar articles:

Indefatigable-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Covington-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jason Alvarez-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Invictus-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reliant-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete, reluctantly, but support creation of sourced, real-world content about fictional universes. Given that these have no sourcing at all and minimal information, writing quality content about the subject matter would be no harder starting from scratch. These are apparently from the "Honorverse", according to "What links here". Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've Rewritten it extensively to remove in-universe style/content and wikify. Citations wouldn't hurt, but they're findable. Note that this only applies to the main article - I support Deletion for the others, they're pure cruft. Eithin (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all (at all costs, for HH fans) as craftcruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ot Spacecraft in the Honorverse 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At least it isn't full of 'we can assume' and '(Note: At this time, the SLN should be considered 2nd class. They don't have anywhere near the firepower represented by a pod-laying ship. This could be subject to change if the SLN woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee.)' nonsense as one of them is. I was about to go for Merge to Spacecraft in the Honorverse if they aren't already covered there. But I did a web search on Raoul Courvosier II and lo and behold, it's already covered in Wikipedia in Grayson Space Navy as are the Covington and Jason Alvarez classes, so by all means, Delete all. Indefatitable is in the Spacecraft in the Honorverse article, and Invictus and Reliant in the Royal Manticoran Navy article. There's no excuse for these separate articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the consideration of a question[edit]

Objection to the consideration of a question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following articles because they are essentially identical in terms of the issues concerning their existence. The first group was created withing the last five weeks by the the same editor:

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

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

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

Fix the time to which to adjourn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Call for the orders of the day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rescind, repeal, or annul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Incidental main motion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second group is older, created by other editors, but I don't believe any different, fundamentally:

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of the articles above might be appropriate for transwiking to Wiktionary, though I have doubts about others. None of the articles has any external links or sources other than Roberts Rules of Orders; none has more than a dozen or so edits, even the several that are years old. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. A particular type of objection in parliamentary procedure is definitely encyclopaedic. Plenty of online sources (e.g. http://www.bartleby.com/176/23.html), scholarly sources (e.g. those at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22), and book sources (e.g. those at http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22). --Oldak Quill 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some added comments regarding this type of article. Elements of parliamentary procedure deserve articles as any other technical concepts/mechanisms do. These topics are not limited to dictionary definitions and have scope for: history, variations, examples in-the-world, variables, significance, &c. --Oldak Quill 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. (ec with John Broughton) Although RONR is the primary (and only) source in some of the parliamentary procedure motions pages, that is more due to my own unfamiliarity with the other parliamentary authorities than any issue related to the subjects themselves. I'm sure those other manuals have their own take on it. Presumably, you are planning on nominating some other parley-pro articles for deletion as well, but in one sense the case for keeping this one may be even stronger than the others because it does cite The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. I would say that all parliamentary procedure motions are inherently notable. A merge of some of the minor ones into a larger article (e.g. the created and as-yet-uncreated requests and inquiries; which are parliamentary inquiry, point of information, request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, request to read papers, request for any other privilege) might be appropriate. But this one should probably have its own article. I have created stubs on many of the items at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Motions but they have plenty of room to grow; give 'em a chance. I was going to object to the consideration of this question, but debate had already begun. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all; no objection to similar items being merged, but this is valid content that should stay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all; as per Morven, above with similar items being merged.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - nomination apparently from (sincere, but obvious) ignorance - David Gerard (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all although it may just be better to have a list of some of the more obscure ones. Is there a list of motions someplace? --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See List of motions. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There also is a main article at Motion (democracy) that both Obuibo and I seem to have worked on at various times. In looking at that article and at some of the new articles that Obuibo has created, I think some work needs to be done on the original article to eliminate the duplication that has resulted. I will try to get to that tomorrow. The whole sections on Main motions and Motions that bring a question again before the assembly can probably be moved to the newer articles on those subjects. As I say in my "vote" below, there may be some merging to be done here; for example, I have looked at the article on incidental main motions, and see no reason why that should not be merged into the main motion article. The reasons for the distinction are pretty trivial anyway and, ironically, relate to the first article on this list (Objection to the consideration of a question -- I see that the distinction is discussed in that article, and I am the one who added that in a few weeks ago.) Neutron (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Admittedly, I have personal involvement here, as I created two of the articles in the last group of five nominated above, and expanded two of the others, and also did some work on the Objection etc. article. I had not seen most of the ones in the middle group (starting with Reconsider.) I also am the one who added material to some of the articles from The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and I also re-created that article, which had been a deleted stub. As for some of the recently created articles that I did not create, I have not looked at all of them. An argument might be made that some of them could be merged back into the article on the "types" of motions they belong to, such as subsidiary, privileged or incidental, but I think that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, I am not sure why we need an article on "Main motion" when that was adequately dealt with in the "Motion" article... but perhaps I should read the "Main motion" article before commenting! The point is, perhaps some "order" (pardon the pun?) must be brought to this topic, but wholesale deletion definitely is not the way. I also was recently invited to join a Wikiproject on this area, so perhaps that is a way to make things more systematic if there is a problem. Neutron (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've been trying to figure out how to proceed along these lines. Some motions, such as motions relating to nominations, might simply be a redirect to an article on the general subject; in this case, perhaps, nominations in parliamentary procedure. This larger article could include a variety of subtopics, such as nominations by the chair, from the floor, by a committee, by ballot, by mail, by petition, etc. Some older versions of these parliamentary authorities have passed into the public domain, and we might be able to obtain them online and do a copy and paste to get these articles started. That might be the most expedient way to proceed. I don't think parliamentary procedure has changed a lot since 1923. In the case of RONR, that would be the Fourth Edition (1915). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Certainly it is possible that some of these articles could be merged, but there are numerous sources for parliamentary procedure that could be cited and compared, plus specific notable organizations (like, say, the U.S. Senate) which have variations on the rules (for example, closing debate in standard Robert's Rules takes a two-thirds vote, whereas the U.S. Senate, relatively recently, lowered this to three-fifths, and the so-called "nuclear option" was effectively a reduction to fifty percent, through the device of a ruling by the presiding officer which -- no matter how much it ignores precedent and rules -- is then confirmed by a majority. It's clear to me that sufficient detail can be found to justify all the independent articles, but it will take time. Before that, merge and redirect is an ordinary editorial decision, and, in my opinion, AfD is used far too often to avoid simply editing.--Abd (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Per above, the topics are certainly notable, discussed in many reliable sources. Should be no problem having more than mere dictionary definition content. Structurally, it might be better to merge somehow, but an AfD is a bad way to decide on the structure of this, it's too complicated. Mangojuice^talk 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all per above. Our coverage of parliamentary law and procedure at the moment is extremely weak and these articles are an essential step toward strengthening it. Last week, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I noted that we had voted on an overly complicated motion and in retrospect I should have insisted on a division of the question. I was stunned when this came up as a redlink. Discussion of the various types of main, subsidiary, privileged, incidental, and restorative motions as defined in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Deschler, Sturgis, Keesey, and other parliamentary authorities in the United States as well as their counterparts in other parts of the world and their more august counterparts in legislative bodies and corporate settings is a legitimate, significant, and encyclopedic topic, even though procedural formalism in informal club settings is generally on the decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that comment, Brad. It touches on many of the issues that confront those of us who have been trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Division of the Question is a good example: Does it get its own article? Does it get an article together with Consideration by Paragraph? If so, what is the title? These two motions don't really "fit in" anywhere else. My instinct would be to suggest that each of them gets its own, very small article, but then of course it becomes vulnerable to those who look for small articles to delete. Then as I keep looking down the list of incidental motions, I see three in a row that deal with voting methods, and that is somewhat easier: We can have an article on Motions regarding voting methods, or something like that. As for your points about legislative bodies and parliamentary authorities outside the U.S., that raises a problem. Most of these articles on parliamentary procedure read as if parliamentary procedure pertains solely to non-legislative bodies in the U.S. There is, of course, a reason for that. I and a few others know about Robert's Rules, and I seem (for the moment) to be the authority on Sturgis. But I know very little about how the rules of Congress differ, to say nothing of the rules of the 50 state legislatures, and I know absolutely nothing about either legislative or non-legislative rules in any other countries. The Motion (democracy) article does have a bit of material that goes outside the bounds of Robert's/Sturgis, but I don't think any of the articles do. So where do we go from here? I think we need to move this discussion somewhere else, and the new WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure started by Obiubo seems as good a place as any. For now I think we are going to have to stick with the available resources, and build a good set of articles on Robert's/Sturgis, and hope that those knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure in Canada, U.K., Australia and elsewhere will decide to join in. That will raise other issues about one article vs. multiple article for each motion that different countries have in common, article names, etc. But those will be good problems to have. Neutron (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There is an enormous amount of published material available on every motion in RRO. All are clearly notable, although I agree that all need substantial expansion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Daniel Owen[edit]

Lee Daniel Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Was going to SD for failure to assert importance, but thought I'd let the community decide. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero Google hits (or news.google hits). Since it's a current subject (b. 1988), Google should reflect significance. --Oldak Quill 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no relevant Google results other than his band's Myspace page. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolebludger[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang dictionary. No real sources (exactly none of the listed references and external links mention the word). Another in the series of BS articles to sneak some dude's name on Wikipedia using various hoaxes[7]. Weregerbil (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is really no more than a dictionary definition. Wiktionary has already got it (as a two-word phrase, which is how it is generally used). JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not much more than a neologism. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are not Urban Dictionary. OR, cruft, non-notable phrase.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dicdef. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jobseeker's Allowance or similar. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a dictionary definition, and isn't even correct as this is a two word phrase. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jobseeker's Allowance or similar. Twenty Years 05:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, it's a real term, but still a dicdef. Suggest merging to Jobseeker's Allowance Newstart#Newstart_Allowance as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment there's no such thing as 'jobseeker's allowance' in Australia: it's called Newstart, and forms part of the Social Security (Australia) article at present. I'm not sure what's worth keeping here - prejudice against job seekers deserves better coverage than just the name which is most commonly used to abuse them. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But dolebludgers aren't actually seeking work. Many countries have this developing class of idlers - Sweden, UK, etc - and there's a need for a good article on it. General articles such as Laziness and Unemployment might be the best destination. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with Nick. Once again, even the phenomenon of shirking employment needs a better article, with reliable sources and a broad geographic outlook, rather than this one which is little more than a definition of a pejorative term. Using this title and content for an article on this subject would not be consistent with WP:NPOV. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: a merge to Newstart is not acceptable either as it links a pejorative term to an article, similar to the whole Miserable failure thing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It turns out that Wikipedia is actually a slang dictionary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude. I am proposing a change to WP:DICT so that we don't waste time. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wiktionary is the place for this (and Dude IMO). —Moondyne click! 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't merge, it's unnecessary. -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam[edit]

Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a joke article; the email bit is a good cover but all it is is an excuse to list out a somewhat incomplete list of the many, many names given to the penis. The attempt to use the email spam angle might have been more convincing if there had been any attempt to provide references etc. Ros0709 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Frag. Really, 'nuff said. Indiscriminate, not fit for an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Schlong. It's nice to have a formal process to discuss issues such as this. Weregerbil (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete particularly since it has a spam link attached for penis enhancement pills. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Compiling a reference for this type of thing could provide a useful resource for anyone interested in studying the origin and use of various slang terms. Seems like the potential educational use might warrant its existence. I mean, if there's a page about "films by gory death scene" then why not this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Also, the "spam link for penis enhancement pills" at the bottom is actually a link to a blog entry discussing these pills, not advertising them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs)

• In which case, it's not a reliable reference and violates WP:EL. Either way, it doesn't belong here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that, but "article Y" has an article and this is more notable than that" isn't a good reason to keep something Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No... just... no. There is no way at all to keep this reliably updated or referenced, and as said before, this is not encyclopedic content and a magnet for spam. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and Hersfold. It would be a magnet for vandals, too. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Circumcise. There's just no way that this is WP:V-able. Besides, I thought spam had completely turned to obfuscations like p3n!s by now. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a thesaurus for slang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic, filled with original research. Looks like it could be a spam magnet Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- there can't be much of this in WP:RS, surely? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This deserves the Bobbitt treatment - Delete - Unverifiable, unsourced original research. —Travis^talk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, then, quite clearly, delete per WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Chop it off per nom. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it fails WP:NOT#IINFO and, more importantly, WP:V. The majority of entries are unsourced. If someone wants the content for another site, or wants to userfy it, then provide them with the content. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kind of stupid to be honest, who would really search Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Oh and before anyone asks, I added to the article because it's something I remember off Casino Royale. Jammy (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This article needs to be E-X-P-A-N-D-E-D (ho ho, I'm kidding, Delete). --Canley (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• BJODN it. No? Can't do that anymore? Darn. Delete. Resolute 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow it off and if it gets kept, the title should be standardized to List of euphemisms for penis in email spam. (And what happened to BJODN?) Matchups (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJODN sadly got deleted itself (it does exist here, but its not the same. BJODN was transwikied to a new wiki that's here Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a big tip cut it loose. (delete) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. KnightLago (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, there are no sources, and per this previous AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep per ArbCom temporary injunction on merging/deleting/anything articles related to TV series characters. Once that has been lifted, feel free to bring it to AfD again if you wish. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]

List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of extremely minor characters from the Tokyo Mew Mew series. Most of those listed appear in only a single episode of the 52 episode anime series. This list is pretty much WP:PLOT and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable and potentially useful/of interest to readers. Merging characters into one article is one thing, wanting to wipe Wikipedia clean of any mention of characters is another. --Oldak Quill 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay! Before the currently-developing Mew Mew Wiki, those that are not that minor were placed there. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? "I like it" is not a valid keep reason. They are not notable. If there is a Mew Mew Wiki, transwiki it there where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Objecting to these being in their own articles is one thing, but I think the list can stay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We do not provide coverage for every last character to make a few second appearance in a series. They are not notable. Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiking out of Wikimedia Foundation projects is not a justification for deletion. Wikipedia is intended as a discrete work, not reliant on non-WF sites for content. --Oldak Quill 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per ArbCom. JuJube (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Han (disambiguation)[edit]

Shu Han (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod with no particular reason arguing for keeping the article. Prod reason was: "Unnecessary disambiguation because none of the three entries contain the exact string "Shu Han" and it is unlikely and unreasonable that anyone will use "Shu Han" to look for Han Dynasty, Cheng Han, Former Shu, etc." _dk (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be a dab page for things named Shu or Han, both of which have dab pages of their own. Unless there is another use of "Shu Han" (and there doesn't appear to be), this is is a rather pointless form of disambiguation. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically an intersection of Han (disambiguation) and Shu, both of which serve far more useful purposes. Delete per nom & prod. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and prod. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, prod, PC78, Hersfold, etc. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteA bit pointless and not very informative. Jammy (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whelan Bowl Solution[edit]

Whelan Bowl Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability - for a 'now popular idea', I can't find any other references to it, and it appears to be verging on WP:NOR. However, I'm no expert on NCAA football in any division, so will leave the decision up to other more informed minds :-) CultureDrone (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The ill-formed title doesn't really give much of a clue as to what the article is about; it's about the NCAA Division I-A national football championship. Another related article is Bowl Championship Series. This is about US college (gridiron) football. At any rate, if Mr. Whelan's proposal is noteworthy, it might be discussed on one of those pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Also note WP:SPA/WP:COI/promotional concerns as creator is Jdub943 (talk · contribs), suggesting creation by Justin Whelan himself. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a subsequent recreation as a redirect to Half-Life (series). seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazardous Environment Combat Unit[edit]

Hazardous Environment Combat Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We've been through this before... no assertion of notability, no tertiary/secondary sources or out of universe info on conception or reception... I had previously merged this after contested prod, but a user reverted my change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment which article did you merge it to? --Pixelface (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing to Gordon Freeman which has a "HEV Suit" section (which I suggest merging any new material (doesn't look like there is) into. --MASEM 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about a special forces unit that appears in four games, rather than the suit that Gordon Freeman wears. --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that David Fuchs redirected this article to Half-Life (series) after the prod was removed[8] and no content was merged anywhere. --Pixelface (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a ((mergefrom)) tag on Half-Life (series)[9] and David Fuchs removed the ((mergefrom)) tag on March 1 saying "merge complete"[10] but I see no merged content in the Half-Life (series) article. On Talk:Half-Life (series)#Races merge, I see a link to Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge which has some information, but no information on the Hazardous Environment Combat Unit (except a mention in the Black Ops section). I don't think a merge is necessarily a bad idea, it just doesn't look like it's happened yet. --Pixelface (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should clarify; I wanted to delete all of the races, but someone suggested that they go into the Half life series article. Since there was too much cruft in each and no one responded on the merge request, I shunted all the info into Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge so whoever could edit and transfer what they saw fit to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you may have missed this article when you were merging. --Pixelface (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enemy that appears in four notable videogames. All of those videogames have been reviewed so I'm sure information on conception and reception can be found. As a sidenote, if the content of the article was merged like the nominator says (it wasn't), the article should not be deleted but should remain as a redirect so the edit history gives proper attribution per the GFDL to everyone who contributed to the text. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mere game cruft; not notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:ITSCRUFT. --Pixelface (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment', I've added reception info to the article, citing GameSpot and IGN. More can be found at Game Rankings (HL, HL:OF) and Metacritic(HL). --Pixelface (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete still no significant coverage; mentions only in game reviews. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are videogame characters. This article doesn't "fail" WP:N. These characters have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Pixelface (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the sources Pixelface added do address notability... I'm not sure if they go to the best lengths to do so. They seem to be more about the game's AI engine then the fictional aspects of the soldiers themselves. If this article is kept, it needs major cleanup: the list of weapons at the end is not appropriate. --MASEM 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artificial intelligence of these characters is notable. And the resemblance of the weapons used by the characters to actual weapons is information that can be verified. --Pixelface (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AI being notable points more to the notability of the game engine and the AI it used than to anything specific about the characters. However, this is a caution; I'm not sure if this fails either way yet, it would be better to get something more specific to the characters. As for weapons, it is general practice for video game articles is that weapon lists from video games is considered indiscriminate info even if they can be verified against real world weapons; only if the weapon itself stands out from reviews or development info should it be included . It can be stated that the weapons carried by the HECU are similar to real-world firearms, but there's no point in listing them out. That the weapon list is currently included is not affecting the article's notability issues, but it is part of a cleanup that I think would make the overall article better. --MASEM 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete By the time "HECU weapons and equipment" is cut away (rightfully), we're left with details which belong in individual game articles and original research. The reception info is about gameplay on the whole, a few scraps relating to the marines' AI doesn't necessitate or sustain an article. Fails WP:N due to not being the subject of multiple in-depth sources. Had a quick look for sources but nothing promising turned up. Someoneanother 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then redirect article name to Half-Life series: unless someone can provide evidence of significant notability to this AFD discussion, the article should be deleted. The subject may well have a couple of sentences in reviews here and there, but this does not extend past AI behaviour, which is better contained as reception in the main game articles - especially considering the Opposing Force article is devoid of any of this information anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just a quick note, the subject has not actually appeared in four video games. Its appeared in one video game and its three expansion packs. That's a bit different than being spread over separate sequels. -- Sabre (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - or more of a request - append content to Talk:Half-Life (series)/merge and I'll look at generating a compact & referenced article for all Half-Life creatures, as it would probably be a better approach.Gazimoff (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Dominia[edit]

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

Entirely speculative article about a possible future film production. No evidence supplied and no assertion of notability. Ros0709 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF. Possibly even a hoax, as I can't find any sources for this project. PC78 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete db-empty. JuJube (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete In spades! GetDumb 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Preying Ground[edit]

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

Article for film with for which there is no evidence is even in production; no 3rd party refs; fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films) Ros0709 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

The Minister's Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. No independent sources (not verifiable). IMDb hasn't heard of this film, news.google has no results, and of 18 Google results, only one is related to this film (the production company website, which is linked-to by the article). --Oldak Quill 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF. The source even states that the film is in pre-production. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, not enough verifiability at this point, and WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above -- House of Scandal (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely fails WP:N GetDumb 07:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs[edit]

Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two are not spin-offs, only individual chapters from the manga series, two are video games, one is a sequel. All are already covered by Tokyo Mew Mew and do not need a separate NPOV, unsourced listing. Collectonian (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Move to Tokyo Mew Mew series. --Oldak Quill 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are already covered in Tokyo Mew Mew and they are not series. Only one is a "sequel" and its a two volume manga sequel to the original manga. Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since "series" in the name suggested is not capitalised, that title isn't a proper noun and doesn't suggest there is an officially-dubbed Series. There's precedent for grouping related media (movies, books) together under "X series" when there is common derivation, but no official grouping-term. See the lists at book series, movie series and video game series for examples (as a quick example: Foundation series is about some of Isaac Asimov's work that are related in a similar way.)--Oldak Quill 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does not apply to anime/manga articles. Per our MOS, unless they are vastly different (which these are not), we cover the original manga series and discuss its anime adaptation and video games in the same article. Theses are not a series. It is a single series, Tokyo Mew Mew, from which an anime adaptation was created and a short, two volume "sequel". Collectonian (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as everything in it is already covered in the main article. Comparing this series to the Foundation series is a bit of a stretch, I think. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nihonjoe. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knob Creek (bourbon)[edit]

Knob Creek (bourbon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

advertisement 842U (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article wasn't particularly adverty in the first place, but it had a few weasel statements and unreferenced quality-related comments. I tried cleaning it up a little and most of the content was OK. It needs references though, and a more thorough clean-up. --Oldak Quill 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just needs cleanup. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-known high end liquor brand by major distillery. Needs some independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've heard of it, and I'd presume it's notable, but really needs third-party sources. A merge wouldn't do any harm either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yee! (phrase)[edit]

Yee! (phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism WP:NEO and self promotion. Prod tag removed by author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - though last section of article almost seems to be edging towards a disambiguation page CultureDrone (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline WP:BOLLOCKS. WP:NAD is just the beginning of this article's problems - it also totally fails WP:V. Add to WP:DAFT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Interesting that I was able to use WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NAD next to one another...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NADS? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy or strong delete -Uses Urban Dictionary as a source lol:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yee haw! JuJube (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above, also because it contains the phrase "according to urban dictionary". *slaps forehead* --Closedmouth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF and WP:BOLLOCKS, uses Urban Dictionary (a dictionary for neologisms and slang terms) as it's only source. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Clear WP:BLP speedy. Three reasons: 1) WP:BLP "one event" - this is about an event not a person. There is no bio here outside of the event. 2) That the event relates to the subject in question is only "claimed" - he may be a wholey innocent victim, being associated with a fairly horrid action. 3) This is a recreation. Any recreation of a BLP deletion needs a consensus that it is justified before recreation. We don't discuss it whilst having the article. If people are keen on this, I suggest they try to write a sourced NPOV article on the event, but not a biography on a (perhaps innocent) otherwise nonentity.--Doc^g 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For context: here's a rule that I would have speedied on if I'd thought about it. While I don't think the article met anything in WP:CSD, I think it was clearly speedy-able under the ArbComm ruling, and if I'd had my wits about me I'd have done it myself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motari David[edit]

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

BLP minefield of individual notable for only one event (and possibly not even that). The article seems to exist here because David Motari has been salted after repeated re-creations; however, I don't see any basis on which to speedy this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This man is referenced, by name and picture, in several newspapers of record including The Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Australian, &c (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=David+Motari&btnG=Search+News). By having an article on him, we are not making available information that was not already public. Since there is no evidence that the mob are correct, we should frame the article with that in mind (strong referencing to very legitimate sources, make clear where allegations and contestable statements are from (e.g. "According to The Times...")). --Oldak Quill 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ONEEVENT focusses on having articles on subjects in newspaper articles about wider events, or articles relating to events where those events already have articles. The event that this man is famous for doesn't have a separate article (presumably David Motari will serve as an article for the event and the person). Since this event has been reported in newspapers of record across the world, and has been responded to by the Marines, it is significant and should have an article. --Oldak Quill 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creations of this article were temporarily protected for BLP concerns after the earliest articles established presented clear WP:BLP violation, and I can't help but wonder if the creation of an article in this space instead is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the protection policy. Anyone attempting to establish a page at David Motari on the date this article was created would have encountered the following notice: "WARNING: This page has been locked so that only some users can create it. If you are an administrator, it may be fully protected; please ensure that you are following the protection policy." However, there is a possibility that the creator was unaware and simply is unfamiliar with MOS guidelines on article naming. If lasting notability ensues from the publication of this video, it may gain sufficient notability to overcome WP:NEWS. Even if it does, however, an article on the event should not be named for the person per WP:ONEEVENT. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moonriddengirl. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers --JForget 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Champions League winning managers[edit]

List of UEFA Champions League winning managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already another list on this subject; List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, which is at FLC, so this article should be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose. NapHit (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  ARTYOM  17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information is already on another page List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers Brokenspirits (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main article. The title can still serve some useful purpose. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jammy (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - not only is it a very plausible search term, but then we can avoid duplicate recreation in the future. matt91486 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Matt. ---CWY2190^TC 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BanRay 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't see any consensus to go either way. Both sides make good, policy-based arguments, and cannot seem to come to an agreement. Thus, there is no consensus to change the status quo. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Christians[edit]

Historical persecution by Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration

Delete A POV fork of the "Persecution of X-religion" articles. The info presented here, i.e. persecution of other religions are present in the respective articles, or if not, should be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note A similar discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and anti-Christian persecution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's happened, it's documented; the alleged propensity of this particular religious group to persecute parts of itself and other groups is well covered by multiple works dealing with the subject; the article could and should be much improved, but that's an editing question. I'd suggest reworking it in a more general way, and perhaps dividing it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed my logic. No one saying it did not happen, it happened, it true fact. But this article is POV fork. The information of persecution of the other religions are documented in "Persecution of X-religion" articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this way numerous such articles can be created Persecution by X-religion. This Persecution by X-religion articles are clear content forking. The information should be in Persecution of X-religion articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have articles about persecution of members of organisations, why can't we have articles about persecution by an organisation or group? Why the bias toward the persecuted? If we are going to have articles based on "persecution", the most NPOV approach seems to me to be equal treatment of the persecutor and the persecuted. --Oldak Quill 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic that if persecution of articles are present, then why not persecution by. But the article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not content forking if information is being aggregated from several articles into a more-specifically focussed summary article. At first, particular sections might be similar to, or the same as, sections in other articles, but they will diverge as the article grows into itself. --Oldak Quill 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article couldn't be NPOV if it were written about current/modern persecution, since there is no cohesive group called "Christians". An article Historical persecution by Roman Catholicism would be valid, for example, since Roman Catholicism is a cohesive and centralised organisation. Since this article only deals with pre-modern persecutions during times when Christianity was integrated into the state and was cohesive within populations. The article deals with problems about the cohesiveness of the term "Christian". It focuses on pre-12th century history (i.e. mostly before the Great Schism) when Christianity was a cohesive organisation/movement. Persecution during the Christianisation of Rome, the Christianisation of post-Roman European states, and the Crusades can be said to be "persecution by Christian[ity]". The article describes the fractionation of Christianity into denominations and persecution that resulted from this. --Oldak Quill 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is documenting exactly similar information which are present in persecution of articles which is content forking. Wikipedia defines content forking as A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. There is no need to have numerous articles on same subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "persecution by" is not the same as "persecution of". Different groups will have persecuted a particular people. Information on persecution by a particular group will be dispersed through a number of "persecution of" articles. Any population which has no significant history of persecution with one exception is less likely to have a "persecution of" article. If the persecutor has a history of persecution, this event will be detailed along with others in "persecution by". Since there is a different emphasis, these articles will contain different contents. EDIT: To clarify with an example: persecution by the Nazis may be covered in Persecution of Jewish people, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. Persecution of homosexuals, Persecution of Romani people, &c. This is all-very-well-and-good for those looking for information about persecution of each of those groups, but what about those trying to find out about Persecution by Nazism? Do you expect them to find and look at each of the "persecution of" articles? --Oldak Quill 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right that persecution by is not the same as persecution of. But take the logic here. For example, the persecution of X have been carried out by Y and Z. Similarly persecution of Y have been carried out by X and Z. And persecution of Z have been carried out by X and Y. Now when you create an article titled Persecution of X, it includes information on persecution by Y and Z. The same is applied to Persecution of Y and Persecution of Z. So when you create articles titled Persecution by X, Persecution by Y and Persecution by Z, then these articles become creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject which is called POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well documented and very interesting. Could stand some expansion in spots but a useful contribution.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are not reason for keeping an article. You missed the logic why this article need to deleted. This article is WP:CFORK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you are of the opinion that is article is content forking of certain "persecution of" articles, please give a link to the article and a short description of the issue. I don't think that it is an acceptable argument for deletion that an article could be content forking. But to deal with this topic in articles with names "persecution of XY" / "persecution by XY" is not a good idea anyway. Nevertheless, since people are interested in the topic (and its definitely relevant) there need to be articles on it. If this article in its current state would be deleted, this would probably be easier. I could just recreate an article Christian debate on persecution and toleration and I would not have to clean up the reaming issues with this one. However, since I have already cleaned up several of the issued with this article, giving me, among other, a pointless controversy at the article Separation of Church and State in the United States, I would have wasted a lot of time if the article is deleted. In general, I don't consider full deletions a way to solve NPOV-issues. If you disagree with an article you will have to go through it sentence by sentence most of the time. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Execution_of_Hindus_in_India. And see Persecution_of_Hindus#During_European_rule_of_the_Indian_subcontinent.

• See Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Drowning_of_Protestants_in_Ireland and see Anti-Protestantism#Anti-Protestantism_in_Ireland. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in the same way we deleted articles 'Historical persecution by Jews/Muslims' on the basis of original research. If we want to discuss time-specific incidences of persecution (i.e. by the Roman Empire for example), then we can do it in the specific article. Presenting the issue as a "timeline of persecution" as if the separate incidences throughout the ages are actually linked is inherently original research. Unless of course this interlinking has specifically been verified by multple reliable sources, which I doubt. The link between the persecution under Theodosius (379), the events of the Spanish Inquisition (~1500), and the sectarian history in Ireland (~1600-) is far too weak to be presenting them all as related in one article. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that original research? When you compile a year article, you compile information from different sources to create a single-subject article (as with all history articles). If there is a scholarly consensus that X was a persecution by Christians, then that event should be included. If there is enough information to warrant articles, Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Muslims should be recreated. Also, if Persecution by Christians constitutes original research, so does Persecution of Christians. --Oldak Quill 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to familiarise yourself with those respective AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination); which were rightly deleted on the basis of unsalvageable original research. It's original research because no academic sources actually link these unrelated events - thus it's an inappropriate synthesis of material, implying sequence or links where there simply are none. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFDs on similar topics are not binding for related topics. If there is an academic consensus that event X was a persecution carried out by Christians and separately that event Y was a persecution carried out by Christians, they are connected as being defined as persecutions carried out by Christians. It doesn't really matter that they haven't been listed together or collated and it is not original research to collate them. --Oldak Quill 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You see, it's you who is asserting the link, not the source. This is where the original research comes in, and implies they are linked despite no source verifying it. Surely you can appreciate the misleading impression given when you implicitly link together unrelated events - it gives an impression of sequential, continuous, inter-related, successive events - even though no source at all has verified this. That's what makes it original research. From WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

The topic of the article is "Historical persecution by Christians", yet none of the sources to my knowledge are discussing in this precise context. They are talking within their own time-specific contexts such as the Reconquista or sectarian Irish tensions. None of the sources are talking about historical persecution by Christians in which they review Christians persecuting throughout history. Hence, to present unrelated incidences from different sources as somehow related is original research, as no such verification or assertion of a link exists in the sources cited. If sources exist which discuss in this specific context, then it's a different matter altogether. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All article-writing involves some level of creativity that can't be considered "original research". In year articles, when unrelated events in a year are listed, the article asserts the link, without a source necessarily listing those events together. They are all linked by the fact that they occurred in a particular year. This is the same as describing a series of events in an article which are linked by the fact that there is academic consensus defining these events as persecution carried out by Christians. That kind of collative creation isn't original research and is necessary to compiling articles from multiple sources (deciding what is important and how to present the information). Furthermore, an article about "persecution by Christians" isn't connecting a series of unrelated events to further an opinion. The article details events that are acknowledged as being persecution carried out by Christians. To state that Christianity has persecuted (with appropriate examples, sourcing and attribution) is just stating that fact, not pushing a POV. It makes no assertion about Christianity being persecutive and it isn't claiming consistent and systematic persecution.

When this discussion began, I took the claim that there were no independent sources describing these events together at face value. There are many sources which detail persecution by Christians:

• Book entitled Christendom and Its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000-1500
• Book entitled History of Christianity in the World: From Persecution to Uncertainty
• Book entitled Living Together, Living Apart: Rethinking Jewish-Christian Relations in the Middle Ages
• Journal article entitled Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century

These show that there are independent, usable sources to link persecution-events by Christianity. --Oldak Quill 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not inclined to repeat my argument about original research again as it's all available above. The basic rule is: don't assert links not asserted by the sources themselves; represent sources in their exact context. If you want to write an article about "Historical persecution by Christians" - find some publications doing just that and relay what they say. What shouldn't be done is collating unrelated time-specific incidents from separate sources and then weaving it into one narrative. Wikipedia isn't about creative writing or original articles, it's about dry, clinical presentation of material already related by reliable sources - in it's original context.

Thanks for the links, Oldak. Upon first glance I would opine that these books seem to cover time/geographically restricted incidences, so I would still say there is little basis for providing a "timeline of persecution" committed by Christians. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Withdrawing nomination== Since most of the people are opposing deletion and believe this article interesting, I am withdrawing my nomination. The reason behind my nomination was this article if POV fork. But to maintain neutrality, persecution by other religion articles also need to be created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am renomnating this article since there are diverse opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Delete all "Persecution by" articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the accepted organisation is: incidentX of persecution of Y by Z in region A is placed as X, in "by Z" subsection of geographical section A of the "persecution of Y" article. Mixing that up creates duplicate articles and POV-forks. Relata refero (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How are "Persecution by" articles any more POV than "Persecution of"? Also, unless population X has only persecuted population Y and population Y has never been persecuted by anyone else, the "Persecution of" article would be a duplicate of "Persecution by". In that case, there should only be one article. How common do you think this setup is? Most populations that have been persecuted have been persecuted by more than one group, and those who have persecuted have done so to more than one group. The two types of article have different emphasis and would have different contents. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read what I say again. Its about the duplicated statement of each incident of persecution in two different articles. That's the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. User:Itaqallah has it exactly right. This article links unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN. This is different from e.g. "Persecution by the Nazis", as they were a cohesive, centralized group with a systematic policy of persecution. But again, it would be wrong to list every act of violence by an individual Nazi under such an article, unless it was part of the general persecution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are usable, independent sources which describe "persecution by Christianity" and link disparate events (see up for list). To have an article about Historical persecution by Christians isn't original research, other sources link these events. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming you refer to the 4 linked items above, not, they don not link "these events". One is limited to the high and late middle ages, and I bet concentrates on Western Europe, with a single powerful church. One is a generic history of Christianity. The third again is limited in scope, and I don't see how the 1954 article on Turkey is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They each describe persection by Christianity. It is not original research to collate information from multiple sources in this way, and it is not creating a false timeline when there isn't one. It asserts no direct relationship between these events, simply that there have been events acknowledged as persecution carried out by Christians. It seems highly inconsistent to me to say that "Persecution by" articles are original research, and "Persecution of" articles aren't (which is the implication of allowing "Persecution of" articles and deleting "Persecution by" articles). --Oldak Quill 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Itaqallah.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Several of the people who vote delete here are being rather ignorant. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy ([11]). You have to give more specific arguments that just "Delete all 'Persecution by' articles" - and this one point could be taken into account by renaming the article.

Secondly: An article "Persecution by XY" does not any more link "unrelated events and creates the impression that they are linked, in violation of WP:SYN." than an article "Persecution of XY". If you claim that the article violates wp:NPOV 'and that the problem is so severe that it can't be fixed, you have to be a lot more specific.

Thirdly: Even if an article is a POV-Fork, the solution is merging, not deleting. This also goes for Islam and anti-Christian persecution.

There might be more points to mention here, but that is enough for now. Zara1709 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD of "Persecution by XY" articles; also Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is scholarly work that discusses how a specific group has been persecuted (e.g. antisemitism). There is no definitive scholarly work that says "This is the way Christians persecute other groups." The subject is fundamentally in violation of wikipedia's OR policies. It simply leads into a laundry list of various unrelated events that are treated as one topic, even though the article is really one massive synthesized topic. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW Keep It's preposterous to say we cannot have an article on this, even though it's a near certainty that such an article is going to be a POV battlefield and therefore always be junk. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice try, though - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? DG, read the damn comments first before being snide, OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Persecution by..." articles are by definition POV. It's inherently a point making exercise. Not what an encyclopedia is for. The word "persecution" alone is asking for trouble in an encyclopedia. --Merbabu (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What exactly is it supposed to be a "POV fork" of? The "persection of X" articles were accompanied by "Persecution by X" articles. Neither of thse concepts is any more "POV" than the other. How can it be POV to describe "persecution by" but not to describe "persecution of"? The argument that it is original research is nonsensical. Some editors here really so need to read the policy page rather than just repeat catchphrases. Persecution by Christians has occurred. There is no disputing that fact. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul, if not 'inherently POV, it is nevertheless a fork of content. Unless there are works that anyone brings to the table indicating that persecution in general by Christians is a well-defined and studied concept - as opposed to specific incidents of persecutions by Christians or individual Christian movements or people that have been studied as persecutors. Otherwise, as I say above, particular incidents will necessarily be duplicated, which is the definition of content forking. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is a normal process, as policy clearly states. It arises when information cannot usefully be contained in a single article. There is always some degree of repetition in related articles, but it makes no sense to say that the same information will be contained in both in this case. Persecution by Christians may refer to persecution of groups who are not represented in by articles and creates a meaningful marrative that would otherwise be scattered and fragmented. Paul B (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful and encylopaedic (ugh, I despise that latter term but I'll use it anyway.) Wait a minute, both of those rationales are on WP:ATA. I guess I better come up with some semblance of a real argument. Anyway, I just think that it's helpful to have both the persecution OF and persecution BY series of articles. You're only doubling the total number of articles, and it makes information a lot easier to find, if you happen to be looking for excuses to bash on the one hand, or pity on the other, a particular religion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is a POV fork. The Persecution by muslims article was deleted. At a bare minimum, remove the word "Historical" from the title. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the new title, if a similar article exists for Islam as well. Yahel Guhan 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Itaqallah; this article is impossible to write without violating WP:SYN (content) and WP:POV (title). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Itaqallah. It's a POV fork. Similar articles have been deleted. The article itself is a trainwreck and of low quality. Majoreditor (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to Christian debate on persecution and toleration 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can not do that User:Zara1709. You should instead vote for "Move to X" and let the closing admin decide. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I supposed that everyone who has written something on this talk page has taken a close look at the article and its discussion page. Since many people here have not written anything on the discussion page of the article ever and nobody put forward any objections to the move, there was no reason why I shouldn't move the article. Zara1709 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can not do that. You can vote for "Move To Christian debate on persecution and toleration" --Be happy!! (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can do it. Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself." Zara1709 (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that your name change is not controversial. Usually people propose name changes on the talk page and let editors talk. I for one disagree with the name change if it is sufficient to make it non-uncontroversial because "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is appropriate for an article that talks about philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you realise that the name change alters the entire scope of the article, which is now "Christian debate" (i.e. theoretical or theological views) about the issue of persecution/tolerance and, presumably, how these have changed. 2/3 of the article which covers the sequence of unrelated historical incidences is now pretty much redundant on top of being original research. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article during an AFD debate is bad form. The usual practice is to suggest a new name on the AFD page for the closing admin to deal with. For my vote see below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is obviously not going to be a popular article and it clearly needs some work but that is no reason not to keep it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Itaqallah's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. Not only do I disagree but I think Zara's name change has snuffed his point. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name change has been completely unilateral which I do not agree with. "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is a good topic for philosophical and theological stances on the legitimacy and place of persecution and violence, rather than anything related to the history of what Christians actually did. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, come on...this is a huge part of history. I protest the name change to Christian debate on persecution and toleration, this article is not about a "Christian debate". --MPerel 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep with original title - this is a legitimate subject. Until I (just now) added a reference to the Oxford Martyrs, it showed a Roman Catholic POV, perhpas it still does. The present article probably uses too few sources, but that is a case for improving it, not deleting it. The present title only covers the early sections, on the theoretical basis. You may not like the fact that Christians killed each other (and those of other faiths), but unfortunately it happened. 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance" is just plain ridiculous, especially considering that few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance. "Historical persecution by Christians" is a laundry list of events, factoids, and trivia that belong elsewhere. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your 'argument' really deserves a elaborate reply, but since I just have the book at hand, I can give you a long quote from Coffey (2000). After this author has summarized the debate among historians about persecution and toleration in 17th century England, he writes: "Indeed, it is all too easy to miss the striking similarities between early modern Europe and the contemporary world. Seventeenth-century England is by no means as alien as historians sometimes suggest, and the story of persecution and toleration in the period is far from irrelevant to contemporary concerns. It is no doubt true that the study of the period introduces us to a world very different from, one as fascinating and unfamiliar as the worlds explored by anthropologists. Yet it would be a mistake to draw too bold a contrast between a devout past and an irrelegious modernity (...)." After some further elaborations he comes to the point: "The religious militancy and violence that charaterized early modern Europe have returned to haunt the modern world. (...) Indeed, in many countries in the world today, religious persecution is a major human rights problem, with Christian minorities being particulary vulnerable." (p.8) So much for the argument that "few in the past 2,000 years share our understanding of either persecution or tolerance". With all those people here at Wikipedia writing articles about their religion being persecuted - it appears as if there are quite a few people out there who would share the mediaval advocation of religious persecution. Now, in a western context, this has all been debated throughoutly already. And I would consider it quite important to have an article on this debate here at Wikipedia. Some people might actually learn something from that.

Furthermore, that important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution is fact, and it is not content forking from any other article, especially not from Persecution of Christians. To pretend that this would be original research, as it has been done by Itaqallah is totally ignorant. I mean, you don't even need secondary literature for that, you'd only have to read Augustine's "Epistle against the Donatists" or Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. These books are rarely read nowadays, but if you are in a western country you should be able to obtain them. Zara1709 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a lengthy quotation about 17th-century England is supposed to refute my "argument"? I think you missed the point, which goes something like this: does the Latin tolerantia mean the same thing in the 5th century as English "tolerance" means today? Is there a Latin word that does mean what "tolerance" means? What do Augustine's and Luther's books have to do with anything? Books don't persecute, at least as I understand the term. And I never called this OR. I just believe this is the type of "article" Wikipedia doesn't need. We ought to keep the facts and remove the article. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zara, you have totally changed the topic of the article - without consensus, midway through a deletion discussion of a different topic - yet still act as if my objection on the grounds of original research applies to this new title. I'm sure there has been debate about persecution and tolerance in Christian thought, and that this can be verified by secondary sources as is necessary. The fact remains that any collection of incidences independent of eachother, spanning tens or even hundreds of years, is inevitably going to constitute original research when joined together into one narrative - unless we have reliable sources which do see sufficient links to be able to present it as some sort of timeline of persecution which this article attempts. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Articles "persecution of X" and articles about "persecution by x" ae completely unrelated, there's no reason to assume that both group of articles could end up retaining the same information. The topic of religious persecution is in itself interesting, and it is helpful to have cumarized articles about the acts by or against every particular group. If i'm interested specifically about the things X group has done against other groups, it would be unreasonable to have to look up the information on articles about the other groups. Apart form the practical inconveniences this presents, it resents a logical obstacle, as it makes the a priori knowledge of said agressions a necessity for the access to the information. This is contrary to the referencial purpose of an encyclopedia, and it culd even be considered POV puchisng, as it aims to make the simpathetic information about a given group hard to find, but the controversial facts scattered and difficult to correlte, when they are in fact related, and this relation could very well be a legitimate point of interest for a number of readers. I object to any change of name, this article should document and reference the persecutions made by christians, and only reference the debate and meaning of the concepts of tolerance et al (wich could merit its own article) if it's needed to make a point in the historical account of facts. Obviously, accounts of persecutions by other groups merit their own articles, per the above rationale. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming your premise that "persecution by" and "persecution of" articles will not contain the same information is correct, can you explain the above links given by Otolemur crassicaudatus which show how the material in this article is already covered elsewhere?
  • I take issue with your second point - the purpose of Wikipedia is to relay verifiable information in the specific context it has been relayed. We don't invent article titles or topics so as to make our own synthesis, thereby essentially forming a hodgepodge of unconnected events and sources. The critical absentee in all of this is the fundamental theme the article tries to assert through these examples, itself finding no verification in the sources which instead discuss these things in their own specific contexts. To suggest there is any relation between persecution under the Roman Empire and the events in Ireland beyond the superficial observation that Christians are involved is an absurdity. So the rationale that articles are warranted just because they are 'interesting' or 'convenient' cannot alone justify their presence. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I retract my vote, after reviewing the current state of the article. But i want to defend my arguments, as they are general. sorry :)
    • Of course: examples only serve to disprove absolute assertions of the like "there's no information common to both types of articles". ths is not what i said, the assertion presented by me was "this two sets of articles do not necesarilly contain the same information" wich is not an absolute judgement, but merely a negation of the identity of both sets.
    • Second, interest and convenience are the sole purposes of an encyclopedia. Half the value of information is its organization, as opposed to its content. A list of all acts of persecution carried out by a group has the exact and same value as a list of all the acts of persecution carried out against a group. even if they end up cotaining the same facts. WP:SYN should be cited only when the synthesis proposed amounts to POV pushing, and the criteria for the collection of information is arbitrary (or POV wich is the same in this context). In the context of this discussion, there's a clear criteria for the collection of this information (if this were what the article actually did), and presenting different sources for the members of a list is not a violation of WP:SYN. Or you would consider a list like the one in Vampire films a violation of WP:SYN only because there's no reputable source that puts this particular movies together?
    • finally, this article does not conform to the purpose i'm arguing for, so i retreat my vote quitely, but not because my arguments are erred, but because i was mistaken as to their pertinance for this case (ie this is not a factual revision of "acts of persecution by X" but a wider recount of a debate and historical facts). Gorgonzola (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to agree with you, but interest alone cannot be the deciding factor in whether an article is legitimate (see WP:INTERESTING). WP:V states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - and that's all I'm requesting: sources which discuss persecution by Christians throughout history. A few sources have been presented but they're severely limited in their scope. The reason I think there are too few sources about the precise topic is because it completely ignores the complexity of these incidences, and glosses over the fact that motivations equally as important as religious may have played a role. But that's my own speculation. At the end of the day it's the sources which verify this interlinking that are required. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing with your argument, is that in particular, it is applicable to all list of "persecution of", just as easily. And in general, it applies to ALL lists. Even accpeting that not violation of WP:SYN is a prerequisite for the confrormation of lists (which i don't, WP:IAR, etc), i think that asking for references that put all facts in the same category is absurd. What you really need is to determine ONE objective criteria, and then find sources that say that a fact X conforms to said criteria. This is the normal standard for lists like Vampire films, and the correct policy here would be notability of the criteria chosen for the composition of the list. In this case, i think that the criteria that puts together all acts of persecution carried out by a given religious group are pertinent, and wildly interesting. But this is talk page stuff, no reasson for an AfD, as it usualy is the case with lists of all kind.

However, this article is not that. That's why i can't comfortably vote keep, although i believe that both topics are valid and could make good articles. I could vote Delete and Recreate? Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment here, there is no reason for you to take a step back. On the discussion page of the article I have written a comment where I actually hinted that I woulnd't have a problem with moving this article back to "Historical cases of persecution by Christians." With such a name and some general cleanup that should only take a few hours, legitimate concerns about wp:SYN would be taken into account, and we could have rather easily achieved a consensus on this on the discussion pages if this was actually about concerns of wp:SYN. But alternatives to deletion were not AT ALL considered here. Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN. The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians. This is not the article Islam and anti-Christian persecution, and I am not claiming that I know enough about Islam to write and article on the corrosponding debate in Islam (which I suppose to exist). But, fo the sake of argument, let's just say that I am Christian. To get this down to a Bible qoute: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7) The fact that important Chistian theologians advocated religious persecution can be considered more then just a "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Chrstianity, even more than just the cases of religious persecution by Christians alone (they wouldn't be that bad if they had been against the doctrines of their respective churches at the time at which they occured.) So I will not judge the Muslims for their cases of religious persecution, but - as Christian - I demand that I'll be allowed to deal with the "speck of sawdust" in the eye of Christianity. Zara1709 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, as the persistent denial of User:Itaqallah, who refuses to accept that there was a Christian debate on persecution and toleration, illustrate, this afd is not about legimitate concerns of wp:SYN." - Okay, this line of argument is becoming a bit disingenuous now, especially in the light of my comments above which directly contradict your claim. This AfD was about WP:OR/WP:SYN until you decided to change the article topic altogether which IMHO was poor etiquette and obstructs any sort of consensus from developing on the issue initially raised here. In any case, a laundry list of every historical event of persecution by Christians is not warranted unless this interweaving is done by the sources themselves. And a laundry list is even less warranted in an article whose central focus is now "Christian debate on persecution and tolerance." and not any persecution itself.

"The Christian debate on persecution and toleration constitutes a "sufficient link" for the cases of persecution by Christians." - Look, you are missing the whole point of this discussion. That is: verification, the fundamental prerequisite when trying to establish any "link." Let the sources assert the links. If they aren't there, don't assert your own, and don't use published sources to imply unverified links. If you can find sources weaving together every single event of "historical persecution by Christians" as if it's all one sequential story, great. If not, there's nothing further to discuss here: it stands in clear violation of content policies. The latter is what your comments must strive to address, which they consistently fail to do. ITAQALLAH 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not change the scope of the article. That Augustine etc. advocated religious persecution had previously been mentioned in the article, the only thing I did with changing the name was pointing this out clearly. Probably this was bad form, but considering that the purpose of this afd appears to be making a wp:point against the article, without this point having been addressed on the article talk page, my "form" isn't as bad. Some days ago I cleaned up a real POV-Fork, the old Nordic race article. Essentially, one editor wanted to have an article on Nordic race that didn't debate the Nazis Walther Darré, Hans F.K. Günther who wrote books on the topic. No one called for an afd in that debate, the obvious and only considered solution was merging. So, if we have here a situation in which one article mentions that Christians have persecuted and have advocated persecution, and another one Persecution of Christians which doesn't mention this, someone could argue that we have a POV-Fork here and that we should merge those two articles. Aside from the point that the POV-Fork is supposed to be the other way round, no one brought this up on the talk page. The Wikipedia:Deletion policy has a whole section on alternatives to deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. " ... "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name." ... "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page."

I could continue about this afd being against wp:point, but let's turn to the issue that User:Itaqallah has raised. He is bringing in Wikipedia:Verifiability, but is it being applied correctly? After all, it shouldn't been to hard to verify that Luther wrote a book On the Jews and their Lies. For the qustion whether there was continued debate on persecution and toleration within Christianty, here is a quote: "Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. (...) The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denomintions lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incromprehension." (John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 206) This should be sufficient. If you have any more concerns, we can adress them on the article talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the article had remain in the same form as the title of the AfD, then i would comfortably vote a strong keep, but since this article is not the same than before (title changes focus, focus determines criteria for inclusion), i would have to start all over again. I too think that it is very improper to move an article during an AfD, even if you think that said move does not change focus. And i believe that both topics could make very good artciles, but this trasvestism between the two of them is just POV pushing, and confusing. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in arguming here whether the name change actually changed the scope. If this clears this afd, let's move the article back to Historical persecution by Christians or to Historical cases of persecution by Christians. I should have displayed more self-control and not moved the article, but I got pretty annoyed about this afd. I would suppose that - after two afds already and strong discussion on that talk page of the article, during which a difficult case of actual original research and original synthesis was resolved, people whould take the issue to the article talk page and not start another afd. Aside from that, concerns about the article being properly synchoronisted with other articles on the topic are legimate, but can be cleaned up with comperatively litte effort, and there was really no need for an afd. I personally have objections against an article named "Persecution by Christians", the same way I have objections against an article named "Persecution of Christians". But - cleary - there are a lot of relevant cases that fall under this, and this needs to be included in Wikipedia. Dealing with this topic in an article with a neutral title would be preferable, but the next time I won't move an article during an afd. Zara1709 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on several levels. An AfD is not a discussion on how to improve the article (this is talk page stuff), is a discussion on the pertinence and encyclopediability of a topic. In other words, what the article actually says is somewhat irrelevant over what the article should say, wich is what is really being debated. The title "Acts of persecution by christians" refers to an article that should say and collect information of a very different kind than that collected in the article "Christian debate on tolerance and whatnot", and it's impossible to decide an AfD over one if one of the things we are discussing in the same AfD is an option between this two totally different articles. It is like asking "should we demolish the brookyln bridge?" and replying "let's build a dam over the hudson river". The pertinence of the dam over the hudson river has nothing to do with the answer to the question to the original question. Based on this, i would close this AfD as null, settle on one title and then review the case, because i think that in an AfD the burden of proof is on the deletion (although this is contested).

I think that each article should be evaluated in its own merit, sync with other articles is nonsense. this is not a paper medium, there's no constraint or editorial presure but searchability.

I think that articles should refer to entities that are objectively distinct, and judged according to the notoriety of the labels we use to catalog information about them. this means that i think that a compilation of events that share an objective factual relation are proper, but references to a meta-category for description of a theoretical ("christianity" hasn't debated anything formally, as a whole, since the first schism some 1500 years ago) debate is not.

"persecution by/of" is a factual statement. it is teh neutral. Calling the article where we should be discussing this factual acts of religious hatred "Debate on tolerance" is somewhat euphimistic, or plain wrong: are we talking about the events where thousend of Cathari were brutally massacred by catholic crusaders here or about what were Saint Augustine's opinions about the correct treatment of heretics and pagans? 'cause they seem to be different beasts to me, and the criteria to judge AfD on these two animals are completely, and utterly different and independent.

Due to all of the above, i think that this article should be not-deleted. I don't say keep, because i think that closing this AfD still leaves a world-war of debate to be waiged, and the last thing i would consider is leaving this article in its current form, but that war should not be fought in this courthou... ehem, in this AfD. :)

Gorgonzola (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Historical persecution by Christians. // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your merge proposition, Historical persecution by Christians already redirects to this debate thingy... Gorgonzola (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, then it should be move to Historical persecution by Christians (or perhaps even better to Persecution by Christians to also cover recent events) and keep as it's a notable subject backed up with strong sources. // Liftarn (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have redirected to Tucson, Arizona#Education. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relvant, verified information. I've left the history intact so that it can be accessed easily to merge. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satori School[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Under the present notability guidelines for schools, the article would need to have significant secondary coverage -- it has none that I could find. Many Google hits for "Satori School" seem to be about other similarly-named schools, a band or album, or Satori. tgies (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Specifically mentioned in several books indexed by Google, must be mentioned by more books in the world (http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22satori+school%22). It is verifiable and potentially useful to many. Also, WP:SCL is only proposed and is not policy. --Oldak Quill 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:RS and WP:NNetkinetic ^(t/c/@) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How does it fail these guidelines? It has been mentioned in publication, it has reliable, independent sources available online. --Oldak Quill 16:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability guidelines are a guideline to what to keep, not a handbook to culling (even if misused that way by non-writers) - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After six pages of Googling (and screening out the school of the same name in Galveston) I get nothing but the school website and directory listings. The only non-directory hit I've gotten is this mention that they use a certain curriculum. They do show up on Google news, but only as a meeting place of a wide variety of groups. A Wikipedant could could claim that the article could be deleted for making no claim to notability; I personally would expect some specific national notice, and I don't see any. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mangoe. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Tucson, Arizona#Education. This school is sufficiently unusual that it is well worth a section backed up by the book reference, found above. TerriersFan (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tucson, Arizona#Education. A delete would be fine, but a mention of the school in the main article seems appropriate here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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