Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Petzval portrait lens[edit]

Petzval portrait lens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Petzal portrait lens[edit]

Petzval used his mathematic skills to calculate and construct a lens having a large aperture in order to reduce the shutter time needed for a correct exposure of the photographic film used in those days. He was the first or at least one of the first who took the optical abberations into account. He succeeded very well: by reducing the optical abberations his lenses gave sharp, crisp pictures. His concept had the limitation that is was only suited for lenses with a longer focal length, which made them particulary suited for making portraits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Farivar[edit]

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

Vanity page. Has been kept in the first three nominations because of the Slate article. Authoring a slate article does not in and of itself make someone notable. There would have to be another source backing up the claim that the Slate article resulted in "internet-based notoriety." Savidan 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This completely misrepresents the outcome of the previous deletion debates, which were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Cyrus has linked to this on his blog. Savidan 00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? Phil Sandifer 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe that explains some of the new accounts contributing to this afd and the Greelighting afd. I'll let the closing admin decide. Savidan 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. No evidence of encyclopedic notability to justify own article. No evidence that this is a noteworthy journalist (yes, journalists get articles published in newspapers, magazines and online all the time (including a-funny-thing-happened-to-me-the-other-day pieces) - that's their routine job function, if they want to make a living from it). Already mentioned sufficiently in Greenlighting hoax (which is itself of dubious notability). Bwithh 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge with Greenlighting hoax or Slate (magazine). --JJay 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slate is obviously a ridiculous merger. Greenlighting hoax should probably be deleted as well. Savidan 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engadget would also be a great merge option. --JJay 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really - merging a freelance journalist with multiple notable publications into any given publication isn't going to work very well. Phil Sandifer 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jimbo is a hardworking guy and doesn't have time to decide all afd debates himself. That's why we have notability guidelines. Savidan 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have notability guidelines because the community is addicted to instruction creep. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Google search of Cyrus Farivar just shows a bunch of his blogs. MetsFan76 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and Google remains the best way to learn about print journalism. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Icemuon 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - New York Times and Economist published journalist - observe listed articles at [1]. Article is a stub, but this is clearly a notable freelance journalist by any remotely sensible definition of that term. Phil Sandifer 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle and Phil Sandifer. Jefferson Anderson 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not notable. Tellyaddict 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it has serious notability, why would you propose a delete. I think you meant keep. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having authored articles in such publications as the New York Times and the Economist is, in my opinion, certainly enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article, regardless of the greenlighting issue. The quality of such publications sets journalists whose articles they publish above the herd. -- Jonel | Speak 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a columnist would be a different matter, but the fraternity of people who've published one NYT article is rather large. The WP:BIO criteria for authors seems to be reviews or awards; for a journalist, determining notability should be much the same. Savidan 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because there are oh so many reviews of newspaper articles. And WP:NOT paper - the fact that there are a lot of notable journalists does not mean we should cover fewer of them. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he's published six New York Times articles, not one. Also two Economist articles, two Slate articles, a wealth of stuff in MacWorld, and a bunch of things for Wired News. Did you actually follow the link I posted to his list of publications, or are you just completely declining to do any actual research into this topic before you argue your case? Phil Sandifer 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He hasn't done anything notable. Ahudson 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, you know, publish in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to search for media coverage ABOUT a journalist, because google turns up so much BY him. But I'm not seeing very much written about this person, and WP:N requires significant writing about him. Even in the greenlighting, which is his strongest claim to notability, I'm not finding examples of anyone but himself writing about his role in it. Of course, someone else might come up with the sources I'm not seeing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Journalists tend to be more notable for their own contributions than what people write about them. I know of very few who would pass notability on the grounds of other people writing about them. But that's OK, since "has written for the New York Times" tends to be pretty good. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Seems on the cusp of notability (contributing editor to a #1-ranked blog[2] isn't chopped liver). May even suggest some issues with WP:BIO having no specific guideline for journalists (or professional bloggers, for that). Very prolific, leads an interesting life in spite of being a workaholic. I'm not even bothered by the WP:COI since it predates our stricter policy. He'll be back, though. People like this ... they always achieve things .... --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I ain't buying the notability. I don't see significant writing about him. Philippe Beaudette 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, so he wrote for the New York Times, big deal, that's what journalists do. Until the New York Times actually writes something about his journalism (think Judith Miller or Bob Woodward) he is not notable. Krimpet 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything to suggest this is a particularly noteworthy journalist yet (no non-trivial third-party stories about him, or awards he has won, or reviews of major books, etc.) We don't need an article on every NYT freelancer. -- Dragonfiend 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quote from Mr Farivar: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?" - because I'm not notable of course.. Winterborn 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am sensing an overreliance on the argument "he's been published in the Times, he is notable." I have been published in the Times. Lots of people have. And not just letters to the editor. It is not actually a big deal.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krimpet et al. Or are we going to have an article for ever single person who has ever written for the NYT? --Goochelaar 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we should. Keep per Phil Sandifer's obvious reasoning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are advocating that everyone who has ever been published in a major newspaper deserves an article? Or just the Times? You do realize that that is thousands upon thousands of people who, like this guy, might only have that one claim to notability?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Are you just trying to wear us all down? I guess so. Let me repeat the argument I gave in the past two VfDs: Media sources often publish no information about who its authors are, other than their byline. Wikipedia articles about journalists allow a transparency that otherwise might not exist. At a time when even our most respected media sources, such as the New York Times, are being called out for not properly investigating the ties and backgrounds of its writers, is Wikipedia not a valid source for looking up more information on the backgrounds of the people who are shaping our impressions of the news? Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. More information is better. If even one person who wants to know more about Farivar or any other writer, including background that might influence their writing on a particular topic, gets that information from Wikipedia, it has served its purpose. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. It should be expansive. Jsnell 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a media source doesn't publish information about its authors, doesn't mean Wikipedia fills that niche; Wikipedia is not a directory of journalists or anything else. Just like any other journalist, until Farivar receives "multiple independent reviews of or awards for (his) work", or fulfills any of the other WP:BIO guidelines, he is simply not notable enough for his own article. Krimpet 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous keep vote has no grounding in Wikipedia's policies. We do not compromise our notability guidelines to combat potentially false information in other mediums. Savidan 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We compromise our notability guidelines whenever we feel like it - that's why their guidelines, not policies. Furthermore, it's clearly the case that the author guidelines are poor choices for journalists, considering the paucity of meta-reporting. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For reasons that Jsnell brought up in addition to adding arguments for transparency of reporting. The metadata of reporting is often as important as the reporting itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWJones (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
User's fifth edit. Savidan 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Which is, of course, irrelevant, since the post makes good points, and this isn't a vote. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phil...an anon echoing the point of a registered user is a no-brainer...irrelevant. Savidan 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information contained therein is not WP:Verifiable. Published or not, it becomes vanity -- all we could really say in this article is the fact that he was published in the NYT. /Blaxthos 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Published journalist in establishments possessing large international circulation, contributed to a significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic proffession. Also, as BWJones above. Normalphil 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users only contribs are too this afd and the greenlighting afd. This is why it matters that this was linked from the subjects blog. Savidan 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have never visited subject's blog, recent registration made in the middle of activity, should have one further comment with same IP address in 'children of the presidents of the united states', further comments made by IP address. Looking at the deletion logs, and found something interesting. Normalphil 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, are you referring to something other than the greelighting hoax as a "significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic profession"? Savidan 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new ability of how using the internet a small group of individuals acting with discipline can rapidly create out of nothing news and cultural trends that are then treated and adopted as genuine, and the detailing of how this is done is a noteworthy event in journalism. It never happenned before, the sudden change in the nature information flow in past decade made it possible. It's an evolution. The person who wrote the article on how such a thing is done is then a noteworthy contributor. There it is. Normalphil 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not make the greenlighting hoax into the War of the Worlds. A few posts in a chatroom, and a fake website are hardly a revolution in journalism. Savidan 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The method is now prooven. Some one can use it as a template to accomplish some other end than a joke (example; net-roots political campaign). The public on the recieving end can have the ability to site greenlighting and be forarmed against such manipulations of information. Normalphil 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the failure and almost total lack of media coverage of the hoax, I wouldn't exactly say the method was "proven". Krimpet 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because a person caught on, and had access to the public forum. If you insist on doing your utmost to make every instance of this 'virgin field', eventually something interesting is going to occur. For an analogy, imagine if the Albanians of 1997 had the ability to click on Ponzi_scheme. Normalphil 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, and perhaps merge sourced essentials into Greenlighting hoax. This is a tricky one, but lack of coverage by non-trivial secondary sources, weak Google tests for major articles written by him or about him, and possible self-promotion seem to tip the scales. Danski14 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article as written does not demonstrate sufficient notability, and there has been plenty of time to flesh it out. Avi 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Birds (2009 film)[edit]

The Birds (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only source is from IMDb. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --- RockMFR 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Utter rumour. Any film due to be released in 2009 could well be cancelled tomorrow. Sam Blacketer 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep May not come out, but [3] returns a fair number of reasonable sources. Still, I wouldn't object if this was deleted, though it could just end up being recreated. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL.--Exarion 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this article doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept, because of that. The film isn't even in production yet so, for all we know, it's just a script someone's been showing around Hollywood. -- Kesh 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete pn; WP is not a crystal ball, and this is pretty far in the future. It might never happen  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Premature, crystal balling. Bwithh 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball, rumors Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a film that has yet to be cast or directed...wishful thinking— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.123.186 (talk • contribs) 03:43, January 31, 2007
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when something more than "it may or may not get made" can be said about it. Resolute 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 years is a lot of time for a movie to be canceled. MetsFan76 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. There are too few information to accept it as future film! In a second phase merge to the (now unknown) director, but now it is way to early. Cate | Talk 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nomination. It can also be noted that the category for Category:2009 films hasn't been made yet.--Skully Collins Edits 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - chortle! Lugnuts 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - according to source (IMDB) it is in production, and since it is a remake of a milestone, it definitely will have a budget to come out. IMDB is also a prime source for film-related info. however, it would obviously be better to have an article issued once the film is already showing... --Jack Jones 11 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's extremely silly to remake Hitchcock films. Let's not report on them until they are out and have reviews. Jefferson Anderson 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a little to early for the article, when more information comes and it's properly cited then it would be a good article but for the minute - delete. Tellyaddict 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't understand the rush to create the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an article about it. Cyrus Andiron 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't understand the rush to delete the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an AfD request about it. BAM!! Lugnuts 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it is more than an optioned screenplay. Arakunem 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete':To much speculation and per reasons above, as well as film rights are often purchased and rumored and never happen, On The Road, was suppposed to be adapted in the late 60s but never was.A mcmurray 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too speculative and under-sourced of an article.-- danntm T C 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not worth simply using IMDB and too much speculation. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Recreate it when there's something to say about it... right now, it isn't even in production, just in development, which can mean just about anything. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not like this overwhelming chorus needs help, but delete per everyone. Natalie 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like piling on. :-) Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Philippe Beaudette 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --71.234.193.242 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how is it any different from this 2009 Ashes series?? Lugnuts 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Alice Cobra[edit]

Lake Alice Cobra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-admitted unverifiable legend; Google returns no reliable sources mentioning this. Possibly a hoax. Flyingtoaster1337 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks to be non notable, if someone can find a link that shows this is a somewhat well known urban legend I'd consider changing my vote Winterborn 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schoollegendcruft, per WP:NFT. JuJube 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT; agree with Krimpet  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google search provides no info on legend. MetsFan76 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to back this one up --Abu-Bakr69 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not wikified and generally not relevant.Tellyaddict 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, move to urban legend if at all verifiable as an urban legend.
  • Delete as unverified and probably unverifiable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What FisherQueen said. Philippe Beaudette 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brother Krimpet WP:NFT, Amen. And a classic example, too. --Shirahadasha 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged and redirected to Bingo (US). Avi 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas bingo[edit]

Christmas bingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The game really exists, but (as a simple Google search will show) there are lots of different versions of the game--the one in the article is only one version (which is not verified). The article (by presenting only one version of the game without sources) seems to violate WP:NOR. Black Falcon 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a documented Christmas bingo card, see U.S. patent #D341854. Uncle G 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sourcing, notability, and generally not encyclopedic content. Philippe Beaudette 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train take the 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike Manager (second nomination)[edit]

The article was previousl deleted in April 2006, though according to the admin that saw the {{db-repost}} tag, the content was different. Anyway, I couldn't find any reliable sources for verification. Everything that I found was just a reprinted press release. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's a reprinted press release, then it may be a copyvio. You didn't say anything about that, though, when you marked it for speedy deletion. Do you have a link to the press release? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was I couldn't find sources that weren't reprinted press releases. As far as I know, the article is not a copyright violation of any sort. --Wafulz 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no third-party sources. —Cryptic 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Cryptic Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Might not be super-notable, but the article is well-written. Maybe someone can look for sources some time  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter how well the article is written. I've asserted there are no sources- the only way to disprove this is to provide them. Also, have a read through WP:SIG please. --Wafulz 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic, the fact that the game costs money to play makes it even more questionable. Krimpet 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would costing money to play be relevent? World of Warcraft costs money, as does virtually every MMOG in existence. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he might have implied that this article was advertising. --Wafulz 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. I think the paragraph that mentions the price is worded curiously like an advertisement, boasting (sic) "an increasing user base of approximately 30.000 members spread throughout Europe and USA" and "the VIP-package that enables users to watch their games in a 2D-simulated environment". Krimpet 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless third party sources can be found. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, very original research. BJTalk 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced--Urbanshakedown 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even rewritten it still has no credible claim per WP:WEB and no reliable external sourcing.--Isotope23 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided with verifiable sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources, no evidence of notability, no WP:V. And doubly so on a second AfD since previous AfD result is presumed correct and needs to stand unless evidence is produced. --Shirahadasha 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Jones & Walker[edit]

Russell Jones & Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The previous AfD left the way open for a repost. Is this now sufficiently unspammy? Personally I would be happier if the article had not been written by a newbie called RussellJones. -- RHaworth 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, regardless of quality of the article, there are no reliable sources presented to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Strong indication that user:RussellJones is abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Shaundakulbara 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though the article seems reasonable, there is no attempt to demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:CORP. If one was made, I would reconsider. CiaranG 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. The JPStalk to me 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This firm is very often in the news, as demonstrated by a BBC News search. [4]. --Oakshade 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be confirmed as per WP:CORP, and even if so it still needs a major rewrite. Krimpet 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Since when has vanity pages been allowed? Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of this and try to find it in the search, where are the sources, so delete Pernambuco 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pernambuco  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced More news coverage than the average UK law firm, and it might be more notable than some others in Category:United Kingdom-based law firms, but no verifiable evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Delete unless it's sourced by the end of this AFD. Mereda 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an advert and generally lacks notability.Tellyaddict 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CORP. TonyTheTiger 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-promoting article without evidence of notability... would be a strong speedy candidate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Vanity Smurf strikes again. Seriously. Vanity pages? STILL? Philippe Beaudette 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources I suggested previously that some actual material on notable cases they have engaged in, with sources showing its notable beyond the common work of the profession,(i.e., not just court transcripts or listings) would help the article. If thee is, this is the time to put it in. Most professionals do keep track of discussions of their work in general media. The way to keep it is not just to delete the spam, but add something generally notable. DGG 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blast[edit]

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

Was tagged as VfD but I don't see any relevant discussion there; Was listed on AfD but no actual nom was written. Some hidden text was added to the XfD template "Why when I search for The Blast does this article come up. I checked the deletion records and an article for this guy Ray Foley has already been deleted, because he is no one of worth". I have no idea what should be happening with this page or what that even means, so I'm listing here for discussion. As this is a procedural nom, I abstain. DMacks 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Since this show seems like it might be notable, and some time has been invested in the article by someone, I really wanted to vote "keep". But the article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Surely some newspaper commented on the show? Shaundakulbara 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbly[edit]

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

Non notable website. Alexa rank of only around 20k Computerjoe's talk 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was briefly popular a few months ago (a meme of sorts), but it really doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Only media mention I could find through Google was here. Pretty trivial. --- RockMFR 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per RockMFR. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because what, if this trend begins, then what is the result, will wiki-pedia have a page for every web-site in the world, what a mess Pernambuco 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The related article Gooey should probably be AfD'd for the same reason. Krimpet 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please nominate that separately. I coulnd't delete it as part of this AFD since no one else commented on it. Punkmorten 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Interesting concept, but still, WP:WEB  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts[edit]

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A POVish "cherry picked" list. Little or no references to support inclusion. Delete and salt the Earth. --Pizzazz 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)— Pizzazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I favor deletion. There are no objective criteria for what does or does not belong on the list. It is just a list of things that some WP editors want to badmouth.
It is like having a list of politicians who have been called idiots. It is not useful for anything, and does not inform as to who is an idiot. Roger 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the nominator's sole contribution to Wikipedia is this AfD Special:Contributions/Pizzazz does that say Wikipedia:Sock puppetry ? signed Jeepday 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete indeed, it's always been problematic and serves no real purpose I can see. Arker 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There are no 100% objective criteria for anything except in Mathematics. Everything else is to some degree subjective. Clearly there are a lot of pseudoscientic concepts around, like e.g. creationism etc. A list of things that are considered to be pseudoscientific by the scientific community is a pretty objective and verifiable criterium.
It's certainly not like a list of politicians that have been called idiot at all. I challenge people to point out entries on the list that are not considered to be nonsensical by the scientific community. Count Iblis 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having no references is not an article deletion criterion, nor are POV problems. Also, "objectivity" is not the overarching standard for content inclusion on Wikipedia (this term is even avoided on policy and guideline pages); verifiability is. The standard for inclusion on this page is that members of the scientific community have labeled a field or concept as pseudoscientific. Whether a field of endeavor or concept has been labeled so is verifiable. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Science and pseudoscience can be judged in the same way that the relability of sources can be judged. The notion that it is just someone's POV is silly, foolish and dangerous and the sort of thing I'd expect to hear some one who's found their own pet crank theory listed here. Tough. --Michael C. Price talk 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Per Michael, Science and pseudoscience can be judged in a non-biased fashion. That leaves only the unsourced complaint, which is not grounds for deletion. --Falcorian (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael and others. JoshuaZ 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the list itself may not have references, the articles on each individual topic have plenty of references to support being labeled as pseudoscientific. (The blurb at the top even explains: See the individual articles for more information.) Krimpet 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is a good complement to category:pseudoscience, cf. WP:CSL. AS WP:CG says, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Thus, having this list allows a topic to be listed along with information about who said it is pseudoscientific and why. And that, mis amigos, is what NPOV and VER are all about. Jim Butler(talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the arguments for keeping have been made by others. Winterborn 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Most lists have vague or no inclusion criteria, making them inherently POV and OR. However, this article actually has a rather specific Characteristics section that lays out exactly what qualifies as psuedoscience. The inclusion criteria are very specific. As to no references, see the Further reading section at the bottom. -- Kesh 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all other keep votes  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like Pizzazz was set up just to nominate the article. The list is well researched and well written. Looks like I don't even need to vote, so lets close this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Speedy Keep for sock nomination of a well referenced article. Jeepday 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Fropuff 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it isn't a matter of opinion as to whether or not something is science or pseudoscience. Koweja 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, this list needs to be policed to avoid insertion of POV, but a blatantly fake science like phrenology is a fake science, period. Doczilla 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kesh. --Bduke 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Train take the 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obligations in Freemasonry[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic. All it materially consisted of was a cut and paste from the Internet Sacred Text Archive from a source dating to somewhere in the 1800s, meaning that it is possibly completely inaccurate with respect to modern obligations. Without that, as the article currently stands, there is nothing else to say about the topic that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. MSJapan 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin - a number of the users voting delete have an

undisclosed conflict of interest which they should at least voluntarily disclose in their votes. Since they have not done so, you should consider discounting their vote due to this conflict. The following users I beleive to be Freemasons: ALR, Blueboar, MSJapan, Grye, WegianWarrior. Frater Xyzzy 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this "accuser" chose to do so anonymously should be noted. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not undisclosed, they have never hidden the fact that they are masons. Seraphim 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clearly disclosed in this AfD. The closing admin shouldn't have to go hunting for the information. Frater Xyzzy 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you happier, I am perfectly happy to "disclose" being a Freemason. Nevertheless it is irrelevant to the debate, which is entirely about Wikipedia policy, and specifically the verifiability of this article. Also, please bear in mind that this is not a vote, but a discussion to try and reach consensus. See WP:AFD. Dave 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very specificly relevant. WP:COI very clearly states that members of an organization should not vote is AfDs related to that organization. Therefore, all votes from Masons should by Wikipedia rules be discounted. The infomation is verifiable to a source, and that is all Wikipedia requires. Frater Xyzzy 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording on that page is unclear, however if you follow the source to the bottom you will see that "These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organisations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organisation's image". There is no conflict of interest here. Your interpretation of the rules would require that no Wikipedians could alter the article on Wikipedia. Dave 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion on the reliability should probably take place on the talk page of the article, but the first couple of paragraphs, which are on the subject of Obligations in Freemasonry are verifiably referenced. The aspect that there is a problem with is self-referential, therefore not inherently verifiable. But that's not the point of this is it?ALR 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear reasons are being given for deletion that have nothing whatsoever to do with Freemasonry, and everything to do with policy. That many voters on this page are Freemasons is only to be expected, given that the article is part of Wikiproject Freemasonry (which obviously attracts Freemasons). Dave 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The problems with the 1800s source go beyond being inaccurate with today's masonic rituals. It was not even accurate in respect to any ritual used in the 1800s. While the selection that was cut and pasted conveniently did not include it, another section of the source has Masons swearing to obey the rules and regs of a "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" - a body which never existed. Without that material, the article is indeed duplicative of the Freemasonry article. And while "secret masonic rituals" may be an interesting or "cool" topic for non-masons, an article that is duplicative of another is unencyclopedic. And before the usual "Keep, but clean up" croud chimes in... the article already says everything that can be said on the topic. There is nothing that could be added to "clean" it up. Blueboar 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well referenced with material dating from 1866 to 1991 Jeepday 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I noticed that those voting delete had less then compelling arguments so I took a look at user contributions and noted that some people voting might have other priorities then Wikipidia policy. Just something to consider when discussing the private affairs of large private organization. Jeepday 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing valid here which would become more than a stub any time this year or so at least. Taking out what's unsourced etc will make about exactly a section, tyhat of course can always be expanded later, when there is something to cite etc. Grye 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided The article looks well-referenced to me and is obviously more than a simple cut-and-paste. However - I'm not going to every source to verify it and I don't know the subject enough to just read it and say offhand that it is untruthful swill. The delete comment above looks compelling, but unfortunately the nom and comments look like they want the article deleted as a partisan issue. SchmuckyTheCat 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schmucky, The article itself is not a simple cut and paste, just the quotations taken from sacredtexts.com (now deleted). Nor is the article (as it currently stands) untruthful swill. The current material is actually very well referenced and factual. The issue is that it is duplicative of material that is already presented elsewhere. Blueboar 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Jeepday. the 1800s book isn't the only source used. Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore texts. Even if the alleged oaths of Freemasons are a hoax or inaccurate, they are nevertheless published and highly noteworthy. If they are false or obsolete, the simple solution is to add true and current versions. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's precisely the trouble - there is no true and current version, because there is no one single universal Masonic ritual. It is decided upon individually by each Grand Lodge. There are always going to be differences, and there's no one obligation that takes precedence as "correct". People are constantly going to be debating on this, changing the article so it matches what they know. If this article material exists on ISTA, why simply duplicate it here? This is not WP's purpose, and there's nothing that can be said that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. I fail to see the encyclopedic value in this article, which is why I put it up for AfD. MSJapan 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the problem that Masonic rituals have traditionally been unpublished. The few versions that have been published are all like the source that was deleted from the article: they are either outdated, unverifiable, demonstratibly wrong, or proven hoaxes. Blueboar 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that you should have picked up that there is a reference to at least one current set of obligations and given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a repository of source material, then it's inappropriate to copy that verbatim.ALR 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what you are getting at, but you cannot republish current, verifiable versions as to do such would be a gross breach of copyright. I am breaching no masonic rule when I tell you that they were last majorly revised (under UGLE juristriction) in 1986, and can perfectly legitimately be found within this book, if you are willing to pay £12. I cannot speak for other juristrictions. To reiterate, these are not secrets and so there is no reason why masons would be trying to hide them. The versions given on the article are not at all verifiable, and so should be removed. Once they are removed, there is nothing in this article that isn't in the freemasonry article. Therefore, the article should be deleted. Dave 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is clearly encyclopedic, no valid reasons given for deletion. Also agree with Smerdis of Tlön that texts should be restored. Jefferson Anderson 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - striking my vote, since an IP which has commented in this AfD has now been accused of being a user who has previously been falsely accused and blocked as a sockpuppet of mine. I want not even the slightest appearance of vote stacking. Jefferson Anderson 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it was a (now banned) sockpuppet of the above user who created this article. See [5] Dave 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Further note - that's alleged sockpuppet who was inappropiately blocked because he used to edit from the same place of employment as I do. I've been following this and have withdrawn my vote because I don't want to be inappropriately blocked again for the actions of another person. Jefferson Anderson 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The fact that the article's content was removed with a reason that was a complete lie, and then immediatly put up for deletion once the content was gutted, should be a red flag to any administrator watching this page. This edit on the talk page that justifies the removal of all that material as a "copy vio" is a blatant lie, it's hard to WP:AGF when an editor does something so obvious as this. It's copy pasted content from a Public Domain book, it's avaliable for all to easially see by going to a website, the text is there letter for letter and puncuation for puncuation, yet somehow the editor decided that they don't match up. The editor who removed the material then put up a prod with a reason "The article was intended as a crude "exposure", and without the copyvio that entailed, the article does not say very much, nor is there much to be said that is not already included

in the main Freemasonry article.". Now that there is no copy vio his reason for AFD'ing the article is null and void. Seraphim 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment on this... If you check the edit history, the nominator waited a full week between removing the disputed text and prodding the article. Blueboar 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD/Prod brings attention to the page, I never knew MSJ did that before this came to my attention. Also the fact that a week passed doesn't change the fact that his original basis for posting the AFD is now completly null and void, since his "copy vio" is provably not a copy vio. Seraphim 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So he had more than one basis for nominating it, that just indicates that there is more than one reason to delete. Blueboar 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article content itself doesn't appear to add anything to the existing portfolio and appears to be a vehicle to bear un-representative material. The explanation given already indicates why the padding is superfluous and inaccurate, providing a reference for contemporary material. I suppose there could be potential to expand into a discussion of obligations in general, perhaps including material about the promises one makes when being baptised and confirmed in the Christian church etc, but without this broadening it's an de-contextualised section from elsewhere which doesn't say anything more than is already explained in context.ALR 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As articulated by User:Blueboar, the only material that remains after removal of all that is non sourced is duplication of article content found elsewhere upon wikipedia. Dave 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar and others and redirect to main Freemasonry article - without the alleged (and I've yet to see any proof it is accurate, or was/is used by any masonic body) obligations, nothing here that isn't covered allready in main article. As to the wisdom of including alleged obligations without any proof to it's accuracy... I feel that goes against WP:V, but others milage may vary. WegianWarrior 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only source for full reproductions of obligations is Sacred Texts Archive, then we have a few problems: first of all, ISTA is currently being looked at for a number of copyright violations by the heirs of some author's whose work is on ST. This makes Sacred Texts, as a source, a poor choice. Secondly, given that all jurisdictions use their own version of the ritual, there is no way for the article to be a comprehensive encylopedic look at it. All that can bee said, if direct quotes are given, is that "This is what Duncan's says the obligations are. What the actual versions as used by various jurisidictions are, is speculative and original research."--Vidkun 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both objections are spurious. As Duncan's was first published in 1866, there is no possibility that it is still protected by copyright. Also, it is available in print as well as from ST. ST provides a convenient source for instant verification. Two, Masonic editors keep removing or revising two sources which say that Duncan's is still in use in some Prince Hall jurisdictions, particualar Missouri. Frater Xyzzy 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment neither objection is spurious. Sacred texts as a website should not be used because of the ongoing copyright issues on various other items. I'm well aware that Duncan's is public domain, however, WP:EL has commentary about not linking to sites which reproduce copyrighted material. ST themselves say they can't get copyright clearances on some of the stuff they reproduce, thus disqualifying them as a source for wikipedia. And as for the second, you can show that one Masonic author claims the PHA Missouri uses Duncan's. Can you prove that any other one does? If not, why not title the article "Obligations of Freemasonry from Duncan's exposé, as used by PHA MO"? why aren't you trying to include the material from "Three Distinct Knocks" or "Jachin and Boaz", which would easily show that, among the exposés there is disagreement on what the obligations are.--Vidkun 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment not that's TOTAL BS. WP is a collaborative project. I have access to certain material, which I am using. If you have access to other material, then use it. Don't tell me to do more than I choose to. Frater Xyzzy 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does seem well referenced, and the reasons for deletion don't seem enough to overcome them. —siroχo 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeepday, Smerdis of Tlon, Seraphim, and siro. Disclosure: I started the article. Frater Xyzzy 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a vote for you:[edit]

A plague on both your houses. The anti-masons are so desparate to include whatever material they can - as such, they are constantly creating articles like this one that are basically crufty crap but refrenced. The masons are so desparate to hide whatever stupid secrets they have that they are constantly flying right off the handle with what amounts to serial revert-wars and mass procedural attacks on anything that purports to reveal the sooper sekrits. Yet another case where if I was in charge, I'd get rid of each and every one of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input... Dave 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned on the article talk page, I am not anti-Masonic. Nor do I see any evidence that any of the editors voting to keep the article are doing so for anti-Masonic reasons... Frater Xyzzy 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may a dichotomy at play, but not it's probably not that simple. Whatever it is, it's obnoxious. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Hipocrite. Edit wars aren't a prerequisite for deletion. Just H 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' They weren't. MSJapan 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the article breaks up the rather lengthy Freemasonry article and provides a sample of obligations. Concerns expressed about the validity of the obligations shown and their applicability universally should be adequately described in the article. Bdevoe 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic painting[edit]

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

No notability at all. Term appears to have been invented by, and used only by, the creator and primary editor of the article. Single link is to the creator's personal site. Doctormatt 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Interesting but seems to be non notable. Winterborn 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO and WP:COI issues. JuJube 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Maybe WP:NFT too. MER-C 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the above reasons.-22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Turgidson 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete arguments are stronger, and there is no double jeapordy in Wiki. An article which is notable will survive all reasonable XfD's. Avi 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HQ9+ (2nd nomination)[edit]

HQ9+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I know this article has come up for debate twice before and voted to keep, but since then it seems a more stringent consensus has been reached and a lot more esoteric programming languages have been deleted as non-notable, including the entire List of esoteric programming languages. Perhaps the best argument in favor of this article's non-notability though is this article is almost completely orphaned except for a link at the bottom of Quine (computing); unlike Brainfuck or Befunge, it's seemingly not notable enough to be mentioned in the main Esoteric programming language article. Krimpet 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Interesting, maybe could be expanded and un-orphaned  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Essentially this is an article about a joke created about Cliff Biffle (since there is no use for this programming language). Unless there is assertion of the significance of this joke, I say delete. Mitaphane ?|! 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HQ9+BJAODN, then del *.* ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are a lot of people talking about it. It seems to be quite a popular joke among a certain class of programmer, hence the popularity of implementing it (and there are a lot of implementations out there). JulesH 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • slighty week keep it has been nominated before and a concensous of keep was reached and i know of a large number of programmers implementing this.--Lucy-marie 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - significance and notability not apparent or, apparently, stated. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't agree with any of the reasons given to delete it and it sounds like those who want it gone are trying to get another bite at the apple. Shouldn't there be some sort of double-jeopardy protections for articles in wikipedia? --Lee Vonce 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "it has already survived a previous AfD" is an extremely unconvincing argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's just for fun. What's wrong with that? 72.134.44.224 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Just for fun" or not, like the majority of esoteric languages it doesn't pass notability requirements. Krimpet 11:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena and Shawn Michaels[edit]

John Cena and Shawn Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No need for a combined article, any relevant information can be in the individuals articles Winterborn 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support Not enough info, probably transitional champions anyways.Killswitch
  • Delete If they're not transitional champions, then Cena would join DX! Therfore all information on this page would be moved to the DX Page. 2) Cena and Michaels are not a proper tag team like Cryme Tyme. If we made a page for every team that won the titles, where's Booker T and Test's page, Tazz and Spike Dudley, Jericho and Benoit etc etc etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WackadooXanadu (talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Totally makeshift tag team that won't last more than a month. As Xanadu said, if this deserves a page, than so do Austin and Undertaker, or Batista and Mysterio, etc. MarcK 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By the time the tag team is finished there'll hardly be enough info to make an article. Just write it up in their individual articles. Normy132 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN as a tag team. They most likely will be transitional champs. Clay4president2 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both have own articles, article of them as a tag team is unnecessary.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above-- bulletproof 3:16 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnecessary, better off merging into Shawn Michaels and John Cena. Resolute 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Just because I wanted to abstain!! Also, this is a relatively new article, I am not inclined to delete or keep it. You don't know what the future holds to quote Yoda! "Always in motion, the future is!". So ye, lets just wait and see! Mind you it probably will be short lived!! Govvy 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --  oakster  TALK  14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every tag team championship pair really does not need their own article.-- danntm T C 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete They JUST formed a tag team on Monday night, and the fact that they won the World Tag Team Championship does not mean they should have their own article. Now, if they continue on as a team, perhaps, but for now, it is way too soon to have this article. Anakinjmt 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteIts not important and it is good if it is merged with both John Cena and Shawn Michaels articles..Cometstyles talk
  • Speedy Delete They're a makeshift tag team. Not every tag team that wins the championship NEEDS to have an article BBoy
  • Delete to the face The content of the article gradually slides into talking about the WWE Championship. Not even close to a worthy article. --SteelersFan UK06 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.229.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. We don't need articles on every tag team unless they are already deemed notable or more stable. For example, we don't have an article on "Rikishi and Rico" (I sure hope - I can't find one). --Dave. 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they become a permanent fixture on television lasting a long time, then maybe this article should exist, but it is far too early to predict that and as of now the article is completely unnecessary. --DaHumorist. 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable cruft. -- The Hybrid 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now they are going to face Undertaker and Batista at No Way Out. Like I said, you don't know how far these two might go! Govvy 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that they're not notable.«»bd(talk stalk) 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who originally prodded it. They are a temporary tag team. Govvy, Batista and Rey Mysterio won the titles and wrestled on Armageddon too. TJ Spyke 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - The deletes have the upper hand, and the issues pertaining to WP:NOT an indiscrimant collection of information and the lack of sources push this over the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King menu items[edit]

Burger King menu items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only the notable ones. :) --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS, <cough><cough> Bwithh 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per McDonald's menu items. While "I like it" is not valid per WP:ILIKEIT, "indiscriminate" WP:NOT is not valid either. It doesn't match any of the reasons given under WP:NOT. "Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world" isn't valid anymore than adding one biography means we have to add everyone on Earth. While a list of menu items isn't of value, a list with commentary and with calories would be valuable, since they aren't provided by Burger King in an easy to use format. The list also makes it easy to compare Burger King vs. McDonalds menu items. Its more than a menu when it contains commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V and I don't see any sources, just a pile of external links. The topic is not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT (for that matter so does the McDonald's one). And for God's sake, please stop with the "Well Article X is here, so Article Y should stay". It's not a keep argument. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as there is a page for McDonald's menu items, and the article is more than a run-down of the Burger King menu. It also includes the history of different items, as well as discontinued and international variations. --Mrath 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to re-AFD the McDonald's page as for the same reason on this and invalid reasoning on the AFD, just because McDonald's page exist doesn't mean this page has to exist as well. That is clearly not a valid reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's well enough written, but there's still no real reason for the article. Definitely a violation of WP:V.--Wizardman 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this ad. Doczilla 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; all menu items are listed more concisely on the {{Burger King}} template. Krimpet 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Restaurant menus vary from place to place, and from country to country for that matter. The "staples" in the menu (Whopper etc.) can get a mention in the main Burger King article, but trying to compile a full list of items is untenable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle, who is completely correct in saying that such a list is either untenable (due to variation) or pointless as the "star items" should be on the main page anyway. It is true that perhaps this information could in and of itself useful and should be kept somewhere. Just very definitely not here. Marm(t) 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Burger King, keeping article history. --Czj 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested. The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items? Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic list of food. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As what Sjakkalle said, BK's menu items varies in every country, so this page is not at all useful. Maybe just list a number of their well known items on the main article itself. Terence Ong 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither Burger King or McDonalds are, by any stretch of the immagination, restaurants! Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And get rid of this article, as well. I don't see why a list of products sold at a retail outlet deserve their own entry on Wikipedia, or are we going to have an entry listing all the items that Wal Mart sell? Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looking at the article, it looks like just about every non-generic (i.e. trademarked) item sold by Burger King has an article anyway, and the ones I looked at listed versions and regional variations for those products. This article provides an OK structural context and is NPOV, hence the weak keep. Also as usual, I disagree with the "slippery slope" arguments that "every restaurant in the world will have to have their menu on Wikipedia" if this is kept. Those pointing to WP:ILIKEIT to "invalidate" the arguments of others are, I hope, aware that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also a shortcut to that page. --Canley 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it appears there is a consensus to keep the McDonald's menu article, and therefore in order to maintain WP:NPOV we can't discriminate. And yes, I do know that this could result in articles being created for Dairy Queen, Wendy's, Harvey's, White Castle, etc etc but if a precedent is going to be set by keeping the McDonald's article, I can't in good conscience vote to delete an article about a competing company. (For the record I'm abstaining from voting on the McDonald's article because at this point a delete/keep vote will make little difference). 23skidoo 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the McDonald's one too. Jefferson Anderson 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As-well as the article being irrelevant, you can tell just by the title that it doesn't belong on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Burger King if there's anything salvagable. Also, please avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. -Ryanbomber 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a logical subarticle of Burger King, which as a major international brand (even if not at the level of McDonald's) receives media interest in its menu changes. The information is not indiscriminate (though much of the other brands section could be trimmed) and WP:V/WP:OR issues may be dealt with through cleanup or dispute resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination). --- RockMFR 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the creator and primary editor of this article. (Jerem43)

The are several reasons I created the article:

  1. To help show how BK adapts it product lines for the local taste across the globe. Being a large multinational corporation, Burger King has chosen to adapt its product lines to the markets they are operating in. The Burger King menu items article is in fact showing a facet of the corporate business strategy BK has chosen to employ as it expands globally.
  2. There were numerous commentaries in the Burger King Talk section about article being US-centric, specifically the Products and Advertising sections. Because of the large number of local menus and advertising programs BK has around the globe, to add all of the information from all global menus and advertising would make the primary article too large and unwieldy. With this in mind, I created the two secondary articles Burger King menu items and Burger King advertising to more accurately and thoroughly cover the information.
  3. The main Burger King article was over the 50 KB range, because people had added information to the Products and Advertising sections of the article n an attempt to address point 2.
  4. After seeing the McDonald's, Ford, Unilever and other articles, there seemed to be a precedence of showing products of these corporations. In each of these articles there there is a master list or table of contents listing the products the companies sell or manufacture. Furthermore that list or TOC have links to secondary articles that give more detail on the products. While the Burger King menu items is a separate article from the main Burger King article, it is providing the same function of the lists that are seen in those other articles. Please note that the there is a request to separate the Ford article into a main corporate article and a separate product article, this would follow the same structural pattern that I used in creating this article.
  5. In listing the menu items, I was attempting show how BK uses corporate cross licensing to help grow market share. Specifically, in the Beverages section you will see that BK sells specific products of other companies (Coca-Cola Corporation, Cadbury-Schweppes, Nestlé and Hershey's) to help drive customer sales. It has been shown that people exhibit brand loyalty, and this is one way BK exploits that brand loyalty in boosting its market share.
  6. In listing the menu items, I attempted show how BK targets specific demographic markets. If you read the article, you will see that several, but not all, have the demographic target that BK is attempting to reach with that product. (I had been cleaning up other BK related articles and was going to finish the tagging demographic markets of the products, but had not gotten back to the article.)
  7. Burger King is not in all markets: China, Russia and many other nations do not have Burger King restaurants. The Burger King menu items article could provide people of these regions an idea of what BK sells. This adheres to the mission of Wikipedia in providing an unbiased informational source. If people of those markets went to BK's corporate web site for that data, they would not be getting unbiased information.

Based on these facts, the 'Burger King menu items article is not trivia or just a list of menu items, but instead it helps to show some of the corporate strategies (e.g. demographic targeting, co-branding and local market awareness) BK employs in competing in the global market.

In addition, I am sure that if you research the Wikipedia database you will find similar precedence of having a separate article relating to products sold by a corporation.

Jerem43 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda wat's sup 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed.
  1. Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant, while not only manufacturing the product (food), it provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
  2. The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
  3. Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.
Jerem43 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a resterant Jaranda wat's sup 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The point is that a restaurant is specialized form of manufacturing with multiple manufacturing locations and whose product is designed for immediate consumption by its customers. Just because it is a restaurant does not mean that it should be treated any differently than the other manufacturing companies listed in Wikipedia. The article is not just a list of products, but a slice of the way BK targets its consumer base: it has data on the demographics the products target, reasons why it chooses to remove products from its menu and what BK does to its menu to compete in "foreign" markets. I fully intend to expand the article further to explain the process BK bring its products to market (I worked in the hospitality industry for 25 years and have experience with market development of products), which will help make the article truly encyclopedic. Please reconsider your request for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, so you are arguing that Burger King outlets are not the same as other stores, they are actually (manu)factories? I would be interested in some evidence to back this claim up, especially considering that, where applicable, local licensing authorities class them as retail outlets *not* factories, and Burger King agrees. In the UK, for example, Burger King would not be allowed to open one of their factories in an area designated for retail. I suspect the same holds true elsewhere. Could anyone give me an example in the US, say, where a shopping mall contains a mixture retail outlets, Burger Kings and a steel mill? Markb 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:
man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing
Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r
Function: noun
What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:
man·u·fac·ture
Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand
1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery
2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor
2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery
3 : the act or process of producing something
Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT Jaranda

wat's sup 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT, if you actually read it, says that liking the subject of the article is not a recommended argument to keep. Feel free to point to it when someone says "Keep because I love Burger King food, it's delicious." There is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to disparage or invalidate the arguments of others when they say the article is useful, interesting or well-written. --Canley 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL which is about the same Jaranda wat's sup 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - as a snippet of modern life quite it's an interesting page, but its noteworthiness evades me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kripto (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, a menu, or an almanac, all of which this article really is. Belongs in the dustbin with the former article on the A&W menu. Agent 86 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Canley-DESU 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, hold the onion...hold the burger. See WP:NOT. --Shirahadasha 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Dhartung Winterborn 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for same reasons I gave on the McDonald's AfD. Wl219 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Burger King is absolutely notable, nobody would even consider deleting an article on them. What are they notable for? Serving food. Accordingly, having information on the food they supply is essential for Wikipedia. I suppose this article could use some clean-up, maybe more of a historical perspective, but that's improvement, not deletion. I've said more on this subject in the McDonald's one, but basically, the nomination is flawed, and frankly, I do think any restaurant that gets an article on Wikipedia could quite possibly deserve an article on its menu. Disk space is cheap folks, and if we don't cover the food provided by these companies, well, I'd say that would cause problems. Providing more information is what Wikipedia is about, not less. Yeah, listing everything sold by Wal-Mart or Amazon might be a bit much, but listing all the software made and sold by Microsoft? Or Apple and their computer models? Or Ford and their cars? Or Coca-Cola and their beverages? Of course not. Mister.Manticore 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. So the precedent is set. Every out-let's offerings are to be listed on Wikipedia. What do I care? It's not my disk space that's going to be stuffed full with this. I made my annual contributions for a free encyclopaedia, now that it's become a cheap listing site I known not to bother again. Enjoy. Markb 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel you are correct in your understanding. Every outlet will not be included, only the menus of restaurants which are notable enough for inclusion. Thus mom and pop hamburger stand will not be covered, unless for some reason they, and their menu is notable. The same goes with every individual McDonald's or Burger King. Or even some sections of franchisees. I might understand your complaint if this was say a list of a restaurant chain's stores and their menus/addresses. But it's not. That would be a problem. But the overall pattern? Completely reasonable to cover. Also special events, say, if the McDonald's in some special location has some super-food item that gets heavy news coverage. Your arguments about size are also not recognizing something: Wikipedia is not not paper, which explains why it's perfectly feasible to include this information. It's really no different than having an article for each and every member of the US Congress, and every other legislative body in the world. That may not be information you care about, but to me, not recognizing its importance is hard to fathom. Mister.Manticore 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am getting so tired of this slippery slope fallacy being trotted out at every second AfD - that if we keep an article like this, then notability gets thrown out the window and every single restaurant in the world will be allowed to have their menus on Wikipedia (or should I say Menupedia!!!). That's just not the case: these articles are easily manageable in size and scope, and the community will quickly act against any non-notable backstreet bistro putting their menu on Wikipedia. --Canley 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...right, just like they said with Pokemon, Gundam, and all the rest, one article won't lead to others. Thank you for denying reality and proven history. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not saying that one article won't lead to another of course. I'm saying I have faith in the Wikipedia community to judge notability in such cases where the strongest argument for deletion seems to be "it's cruft" (tantamount to "I'm not interested in it"). Obviously the concept of an article on every Pokemon really rubs some people up the wrong way, but if others want that information and are willing to maintain it, and there's considerable community support then what's the problem? I presuming you're not suggesting that Pokemon and Gundam aren't notable enough for an article. So in this case, McDonalds menu items should be OK because McDonalds is notable. Jimmy's Burger Bar menu items is not and would not survive an AfD discussion, it's that simple. --Canley 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to show that articles on various Pokemon and Gundams haven't destroyed Wikipedia....well, witness the fact that Wikipedia continues to exist and function. Mister.Manticore 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that User:Jerem43 is going around user talk pages asking people to keep the article [6] Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One example is not enough to bring me any serious concern, but I'll leave a message on his talk page if it bothers you. Mister.Manticore 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for that. Jerem43 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the request from the users page and will refrain from doing it again. Jerem43 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking over the page again, I don't really see why this should be deleted. If the article were simply "Whopper, French Fries, Soda" etc then I'd understand a delete, but this goes into so much detail that I simply can't vote to delete it. -Ryanbomber 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless the McDonalds one results in a delete consensus. Otherwise you're being NPOV :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT -- also, please note that just because something is interesting or useful does not warrant inclusion (see WP:ILIKEIT). /Blaxthos 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what argument do you have for deletion? WP:NOT includes a lot of things, such as travel guides, memorials and instruction manuals. Or dictionaries or Soapboxes. This is not one of those. So, perhaps you could articulate your issue with this article? Mister.Manticore 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as redundant and arbitrary. Opabinia regalis 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trickjumping[edit]

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

This article is a list of articles in a category. Delete as redundant material. Exarion 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, while the article as-is is just a redundant list, there's no other article that "leads into" the general topic of trick jumping, and since it's not specific to any one game there's no clear place to merge it to. The article could probably be expanded and improved. Krimpet 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Krimpet  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it duplicates the category needlessly and does not state any WP:N to maintain it. Jeepday 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STONG Delete and every article it links too. It's hard to even explain how backwards the human race is evolving by allowing crap like this in our encyclopedia. I hope this offends somebody MiracleMat 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a rather random a crufty list that has no content. I would also nominate that all of the other articles that it links to be deleted, except for Rocket Jumping since that is a rather popular move. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simple, unvarnished original research, unless there are some sources that confirm its notability other than Quake demos. If nothing else, all of these gaming techniques should be condensed.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Avi 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gasior[edit]

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

Page markets non-notable, one-man training consultancy Ronnotel 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as textbook commercial spam. No books by Gasior appear on Amazon (which should be his primary sales channel if he really is a well-known US finance author). The only mentions he gets is in the middle of a list of names in the acknowledgements of a couple of books by other people[7] . Yes,he had his own radio show on an internet talk radio station in 2005, but according to the radio station's website, anyone can become a host with their own show on their station if you pay $$$[8]. Also, what does "300,000 people read his monthly newsletter" mean (300,000 people on his spam email list?) and what's the reliable source?. Bwithh 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Michael who?  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously self-promotion by a nobody MiracleMat 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Vanispamcruftisement (note: this was first AfD tagged back on 29 June 2006) Pete.Hurd 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find the discussion now, but I believe the issue was Gasior's so-called 'publications'. Kudos to Bwithh for his debunkment. Ronnotel 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chance cards[edit]

Chance cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Community Chest cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This nomination is also including Community Chest cards. Their page content seems to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, the majority of which is devoted to listing the text on each card. Information pertaining to the dates of their introduction already exists in the article History of the board game Monopoly. ~ PseudoSudo 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not entirely true. What's mentioned in the History article has to do more with which artwork was implemented when (Uncle Pennybags/Mr. Monopoly starting in US editions in 1936, but not in most of the rest of the world until later, and even then only on the game's logo). A major point that tried to be made in the two articles is how the cards, and thus the gameplay, changed from 1933/34 through 1936 in the United States, and how further changes were made from US to UK editions (and elsewhere), because of cultural differences. The articles deliberately do NOT go in depth into EVERY variation made for EVERY edition of Monopoly since the 1990s, as that would be ridiculous and an absolute violation of the point you made. They are currently brief lists, and works in progress. My only OTHER suggestion would be to merge them with information about selection/retirements of tokens (and the UK wartime spinner, etc) into an article along the lines of History of Monopoly game equipment. --JohnDBuell 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but develop it, the current version of the page is not acceptable Pernambuco 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom is quite mistaken: these do not violate WP:NOT by a long shot. The articles discuss key aspects of Monopoly, the seminal board game. The Monopoly article is extremely long. For that reason, separate articles are absolutely required to cover Monopoly fully. For an example, see History of the board game Monopoly. --JJay 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia does not need "to cover Monopoly fully" and WP:NOT for that purpose. Wikipedia needs to cover Monopoly "encyclopedically", that is, describe how reliable sources discussed it and how it influenced culture, game design, any gaming hobby that may have existed then, the modern gaming hobby, or other things that might pass the "hundred year test". Changes in particular cards -- cards which do not drive the game and rarely have more than a minor influence on who wins or what choices players make next -- don't belong in this category, unless multiple sources clearly demonstrate that they do. Barno 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Monopoly article and redirect after improvement  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to disagree here - I'm in full agreement with what JJay states (which is why these articles got forked off in the first place, along with the history article, which is an FA, and the pop culture references article, which is also a work in progress). The Monopoly article is TOO LONG to take on any more material. Again, I'd go for a "Monopoly Equipment" article, but I wouldn't upmerge these into Monopoly (game) or History of the board game Monopoly, simply because of the length. I just pared down the lists to reflect the major differences between the 1935/1936 US editions and the 1936 UK edition, the two most widely known versions of the game in the English speaking world. Cards in other editions (South African, German, French) have based their texts on the UK edition. --JohnDBuell 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Monopoly equipment article and merge these articles, along with additional information from the main Monopoly article per previous comments. Monopoly article is too long to take on the additional material. Otto4711 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The monopoly game has been heavily analyzed in reliable sources. The contents of the individual cards are not too small a detail. YechielMan 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop per JJay and JohnDBuell. Newyorkbrad 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • M E R G E List cruft! Why is this even a discussion??? MiracleMat 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of a comment is that? These articles are not lists. And where exactly do you think the articles should be merged? That needs to be specified. I agree with you, though, that this should not be a discussion. AfD is singularly unsuited to address complicated editorial questions involving featured articles. I'm willing to venture that few of the commenters here have read any of our extensive coverage of Monopoly. Given that, drive-by comments by editors who have devoted one or two minutes to the issue do not serve much purpose. It is insulting to the editors who have devoted extensive time to working on the monopoly articles. The articles should not have been nominated without a prior discussion on the article talk pages. --JJay 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. The articles require improvement rather than deletion, and the merge candidates are too large already. Resolute 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The general gist of the Chance and Community Chest cards could be elaborated on in the main Monopoly article better, but this listcruft is unnecessary. Krimpet 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles per guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Monopoly is widely noted, but there's nothing in this article (nor in its Community Chest brother) that helps a non-fan understand anything important about the game. I don't see any information describing how the card changes affected gameplay, and as a veteran gamer I disagree that someone knowing both versions would make any strategic or tactical changes between versions. I disagree with the opinion that these are "not too small a detail". Barno 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These articles (as has the history article) have been developed wholly independently of ANY WikiProject. I'm offended that anyone would want to impose ONE project's guidelines on any article or series of articles. One project should NOT decide content or rules or guidelines to apply everywhere, not even EVERY game article. And even if these were developed by project members, exceptions are, should be and will be made. These two articles were developed with the game's early history in mind, modified to reflect cultural differences, and I'm pleased to see others calling for either a more in-depth view of the game's elements as a historical whole and others calling for a broader cultural view. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to "impose one project's guidelines" on this, I'm trying to hold it to Wikipedia's core standards. The guidelines at the BTG project are clarifying how those core standards apply in more detail to boardgame articles, which is why I referenced them instead of WP:V or WP:NOR. If the significance of these component changes in the game's early history is so significant that it should be featured in encyclopedic (not fansite) coverage, then you need to show why this is strong enough to be an exception. (I agree that the guidelines have flexibility for special cases, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a special enough case.) This is "excessive detail not appropriate for an encyclopedia" in my view as a gamer and as an editor; show me where reliable sources demonstrate great impact of the "cultural" "historical" differences, or stop being offended by people upholding WP policies. Barno 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a day-and-a-half of this discussion, the nominated article still contains only trivia about minor component changes, and only one reliable source, a book about the game's early history. The article still contains no claim of notability, no content about cultural influence, no content about how gameplay might be affected, no references indicating that anyone except the single niche author has ever cared, not even a link to anything on BoardGameGeek or other modern gaming reference sites. I would consider this article (and its Community Chest twin) candidates for speedy deletion were they not part of a Featured Article walled garden worked on by sincere (though policy-weak) editors. Barno 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I were to execute a create and merge (as has been suggested by several editors), then the two existing articles would wind up being redirects, and the AfD notices (while not necessarily deleted) would not be visible. That's in violation of the spirit of the process, as near as I can tell, and I'd rather let the process run its course rather than trying to conclude it prematurely as you seem wont to do. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom. This article is no more necessary than an article on the wheelbarrow or top hat pieces. What really needs to happen is a serious copyedit to prune the main Monopoly (game) article. Reducing the verbage and some of the unnecessary detail would do away with the need for an article on every game piece. Agent 86 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you really feel that way, put Monopoly up for Featured Article Review. Many of its sections have been laid out and developed in an attempt to mirror the structure and layout of the article on Chess, which has been an FA for about eight months more than Monopoly has. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep What these articles need is expansion to include other countries, not deletion. The changes are a significant social index. DGG 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a new article as suggested by Otto4711 and merge in. Doesn't need its own article but shouldn't go on the already overstuffed main page. DB (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both: whether in own right or per User:Otto4711's suggestion. The articles record and provide some explanation for variations in the rules of a well-known game. -- Simon Cursitor 08:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article although different certainly should be kept but would read better when merged with the main monopoly article. It doesnt really stand on its own very well, and there has been a considerable amount of wokr done on the article, it is by no means just a list of the cards so deserves to be kept. As said above it does contian useful info--PrincessBrat 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many reasons stated above. -- Kevin (TALK) 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per many reasons above the article needs expansion not erasure yuckfoo 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into the article about the game itself. /Blaxthos 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, or alternatively what Otto4711 said would work well if anybody does do that. Mathmo Talk 13:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per JJay. --- RockMFR 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss this AfD without preduice (ie Keep for now). Although I'm not convinced that these articles should stay, I agree with a couple other commenters that AfD is not the proper forum. I'd suggest taking this to their talk pages (which have a total of 4 lines of text between the two of them, so there's definitely room) and everyone who's interested can hash this out there. If a AfD is needed then, let's try again. - grubber 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::► 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gandolfi[edit]

Failed election candidate, got 43% of the vote in a seat in the South Australian election. No other notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pernambuco  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete review of the article does not provided any WP:N other then ran and lost. Jeepday 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. * JROBBO 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This article is about a politician and therefore has relevance on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:SK for criteria for Speedy Keeps; this is not that. That said, I think right now this article should be a delete right now -- WP:BIO indicates that you should be "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Ol Pete may be that; probably a little research could uncover significant press coverage if he got over 40% of the vote. But, as the article stands now, there's no assertion of that level of notability. Deltopia 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting over 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. DGG 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a huuuuuge number of American politicians got AfD'd in the past 3 months because they lost their races. And these were mainstream party candidates running for significant office. A very clear consensus developed remarkably quickly that those articles should go. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he won no office, caused no significant news articles beyond "Peter is the candidate for", and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen new and failed candidates at each South Australian election. He's an ex-political advisor, current small businessman who got a local branch of a state party to endorse him for election....and lost. Nothing there is notable for an encyclopedia - noone else is writing about him and wikipedia is not a primary source - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of articles about his candidacy so he passes WP:N and WP:V, even if it is only because he was a candidate. —siroχo 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, losing an election doesn't make you notable. Lankiveil 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete nn. "because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability"? Shall we make tousands of articles or lists about candidates. 3000 candidates is Slovenia on last elections. Come on. --MaNeMeBasat 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they all pass N/V requirements, as this failed candidate does, then sure (WP:NOT#PAPER). —siroχo 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Clancy[edit]

A failed election candidate in the 2006 South Australian election. No other notability, sitting on a local council is not sufficient, in Australia, the local council is only responsible for garbage collection, gardening services. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wait and see what happens  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:N Wikipidia is not a cyrstal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article asserts that she was a former mayor of a town called Brighton. Given how many there are, and that the article links to an unrelated Brighton, would this establish sufficient notability? Resolute 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - being a mayor of a suburban council of 60,000 people isn't really notable - City of Brighton - as in Australia, the local government only does garbage collection, maintenance of parks, libraries, parking fees and not stuff like education or health or infrastructure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmmmm, Clint Eastwood is a mayor, and he's notable, but that doesn't make all mayors notable... Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on speculation about subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Losing candidate who stood not for the national legislative body but for a state body? Not notable. Hobson 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every town has a mayor, every school has a principal, they don't all need articles.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable failed candidate. Lankiveil 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - there is definite precedent for candidates with no other claim on notability not having articles. Hell, if such a precedent didn't exist, I'd have my own article. :) Orderinchaos78 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient claim to notability. Caknuck 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sufficient news coverage... Addhoc 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 2006 election article devotes only one line to the race, even though it was "tough" and "key". As that article and Rosemary Clancy stand now, they dont establish notability in my mind. - grubber 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rishworth[edit]

Candidate in the 2006 South Australian election - lost badly (33% to 67%) of vote in a seat which she had no chance of winning. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who knows what will happen; wait and see if she does anything else before deletion  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't how it works. Notability needs to be established first, then the article comes. Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep That may be the case, but a) she brought the ALP ahead on primaries to get them on to the 2PP vote, and b) she's been preselected by the ALP to contest the Liberal's most marginal seat in the country for the federal election later on this year. I don't see a reason (yet) for deletion. Also if you remove it, it makes a link on the SA 2006 election page red :P Timeshift 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:N Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just another unsuccessful candidate. Pete.Hurd 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. If she becomes notable, she can be easily re-added. superapathyman 04:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the point of deleting an article for six months until the federal election is held? This isn't playing with a crystal ball, it's accepting the reality of this woman being a (reasonably) high-profile figure within the South Australian ALP: she was the Young Labor President of 2000, after all. michael talk 05:03, 31

January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And with Kingston being Lib by less than 0.1 percent, somehow I dont think Mr Richardson will be holding that seat for too much longer. All the pollsters are predicting all marginal SA Lib seats will fall to Labor at the next election. Timeshift 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncharacteristically, I'm leaning toward delete in a heavy debate. I'm sorry, just being in a race is not enough of note: all ghits are just quick media mentions about her being in the race: [9]. Part Deux 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Over thirty media articles mention Amanda between now and February 2000, a seven-year period. Of these, a number make mention of her position as the National Young Labor President and an organiser with the SDA union. "Newly elected National Australian Young Labor president Amanda Rishworth said the Liberal party had failed...", "Another woman at the breakfast meeting, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees union organiser Amanda Rishworth, said...", "Ms Rishworth will attempt to follow in the footsteps of young Adelaide MP Kate Ellis (ALP), who won her seat at the 2004 Federal Election.", etc. michael talk 08:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know enough about Australian politics to get involved in this one, but there are failed political candidates with their own Wikipedia entries which would seem to set precedent. For example Raj Bhakta, who recently tanked in the 2006 race for my local district. He stood no chance at winning (good riddance), but still has his own developed, well-sourced article. Krimpet 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for the info, it does indeed set a precedent. Timeshift 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bhakta was a candidate for a federal legislature; Rishworth was a candidate for a state legislature (Krimpet, your equivalent would be the Pennsylvania House of Representatives). That's a substantial difference, so I doubt there's much precedential value in the Bhakta article. -- Jonel | Speak 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's something I didn't really consider, and looking at all the red links in Pennsylvania House of Representatives for elected officials, I'm going to have to lean towards Delete abstain on this one. Krimpet 05:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Rishworth is a current candidate in a federal (as with the Bhakta article), not state race (though she previously contested a state seat), and stands, unlike Bhakta, a very strong chance of winning. If we're keeping American articles on candidates who didn't stand a chance in hell, and deleting Australian articles on candidates who are very much favoured to win, then this is one hell of a double standard. Rebecca 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think we need more Australian perspectives on this, I don't think it's appropriate for people overseas to give their approval or rejection (my opinion) on a matter such as this... it really needs the opinions of people familiar with Australian elections. Timeshift 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm abstaining again... I'll admit I shouldn't have trusted one biased proponent to explain a foreign election to me, I failed to realize she was running again for a federal election, which is much more valid criteria for a keep. Krimpet 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the comment about failed candidacies in long-shot elections. Bhakta was a failed candidate in a federal election, which in and of itself made him notable. Rishworth's failed candidacy was for a state election; Krimpet and Timshift9's comments indicated they felt there was precedential value in a comparison between those two failed candidacies, which there really isn't. That both Bhakta (reality TV contestant) and Rishworth (current candidacy, youth leadership positions) have other claims to notability was beside the point of the comments. Personally, I think major-party candidates for state legislatures (in whatever country) are notable enough for articles. Clearly, that position is not in vogue; I've written enough subsequently deleted articles to realize that. -- Jonel | Speak 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rishworth has been preselected for the most marginal of 150 seats in the upcoming 2007 election. The Liberals won on a particularly strong 52.8% of the two party preferred vote at the 2004 election, so there is a strong chance that Rishworth will take it at the next election even if the polling showing the ALP ahead doesn't hold out - so she'll either be a successful or non-successful federal candidate. Not to mention she was president of Young ALP etc. Timeshift 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another losing election candidate. MER-C 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure of the relevance of if whe won or lost the previous election, but as the article states, she is up for election again in 07, making her still a current candidate and notable.Mystache 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know Australian politics well enough to infer importance properly, but this sounds like a keeper to me. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on her politics, or speculation about her subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments about Peter Gandolfi.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she's won no office, held no positions of significance, and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen failed candidates at each South Australian election. Delete the article and someone can write one of substance IFF she wins in Kingston 2007. As per Blnguyen, I can fork out $200 and be a candidate or get less than 100 people at my local labour branch to endorse me and I'm as notable. Being up for election is not significant. Only ONE recent news article mentioning her and she is not the subject - It's all about her parties leader with her mentioned deep deep in the text.Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Name yields nearly 1500 ghits[10]. Mystache 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not quite. using quotes around the name, removing wikipedia and restricting to Australian sites to avoid all of the other people in the world with the same name yeilds 42 which is hardly impressive. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed Labor candidate. Has not done anything notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If she is elected in the Fed Election then we can try again.I elliot 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failed candidate, and not an automatic winner in the Federal election either. Come back when you've been elected. Lankiveil 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per first reason listed on this debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Rishworth would not have been notable based on her previous unsuccessful run for state office, but she is notable for this one. Kingston is one of the seats most likely to change hands at the next election, and as such her name is repeatedly popping up in the newspapers, and will continue to do so over the next year. An article on Rishworth is good background for our coverage of what will be a vital race in this federal election. Rebecca 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree with you there Rebecca. There is no interest in her except she's a candidate in a marginal seat....along with all of the other marginal seats. Tony Zappia is running for the same sort of seat but is independantly notable. Noone in the world seems to care about her except us, beyond X is a candidate for Y in the next Z and we're not a primary source. Coverage of the election is more for wikinews than wikipedia. Should not be an article without reliable references which there are not even after this huge debate. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are there not reliable references? Just about very polling organisation in the country has been looking at Kingston in the last fortnight, and Rishworth appears in just about all the reporting on those polls. It is a patent double standard to keep a whole bunch of American federal candidates who never stood any chance, and to delete an Australian one in one of the most crucial races in the country. Rebecca 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't state that as I meant. There are not reliable sources as to her notability just reliable sources that she's a candidate. The seat and related contest is clearly notable but the two references in the article in essence say she's a candidate and nothing more - Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable for losing an election. She's notable for being in a current, ongoing race which is receiving quite a lot of attention. Are people even reading the article before voting? Rebecca 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are people forgetting the fact that she's not notable just for that, things like the fact she was Young Labor president? And an organiser for the Shop Distributive Allied Employees Assoc. union, and she's also a psychologist. As was already said, it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context, one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. The fact she also brought Labor ahead of the Liberals candidate to face them on the two party preferred vote as opposed to the Liberals in 2002, and also the fact she's been preselected in the country's most marginal of 150 lower house seats, Kingston at less than 0.1 percent, where a poll was done a week ago by The Advertiser newspaper in Adelaide of 550 electors in Kingston, with Labor on 56 percent of the 2PP. This is not some fly-by-night person. An article from 2001 shows that. This article should not be deleted given other examples of failed candidates given as examples here, especially when she's not a failed candidate yet. Timeshift 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable election loser. Soltak | Talk 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For gods sake, the article is not about an election loser. It's about a current candidate. Can people at least make clear that they've read the damned article before voting? Rebecca 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, crystal ball. Although she stands a reasonable chance of winning the seat, I would give the same odds to Sarah Hanson-Young, who was deleted and protected after the same debate. Her chances of winning the seat are irrelevant to the debate. I sympathise with Rebecca, but the WP consensus seems to be that she does not deserve an article until she actually wins the seat. 203.20.192.55 07:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 203.20.192.55. Having key roles in two apparently-NN organisations doesn't confer additional notability. Flyingtoaster1337 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I would agree with the nomination that her participation in the SA election does not warrant an article, together with her involvement in an important contest in the upcoming federal election, and other positions held, she seems notable enough. JPD (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Hat Brotherhood[edit]

Hard Hat Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NonNotable entry, unable to find sources for it, talk page suggests that it was created by a member. MPoint 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to douche. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebaggery[edit]

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

Neologism RedHillian 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to Douche, minimal variant on an already widespread insult, doesn't deserve its own article. Krimpet 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per above. BJTalk 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without prejudice to recreation. Originally, I was going to say don't redirect, but the term appears to be noteable: [11]; however, the current article has defined it completely neologistically and it's a dicdef. Part Deux 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Krimpet ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect ok, I too am convinced - redirect the thing. --RedHillian 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's menu items[edit]

this article was kept before in afd but with invalid WP:ILIKEIT reasoning here, rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, looks like every country has their own versions of a mc'donalds menu making it a endless list, unsourced see WP:V, and loaded with WP:OR, similar afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items Delete Jaranda wat's sup 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination resulting in a Keep descision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items EnsRedShirt 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to point out that the nominator is on shaky ground using WP:ILIKEIT to try and invalidate the results of the previous AfD. Firstly, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Secondly, WP:ILIKEIT refers to liking the subject of an article, not liking the quality or usefulness of the article itself. Unless a majority of arguments were "Keep because McDonalds food is delicious" - and they weren't - there is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to invalidate previous consensus. --Canley 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:N wikipedia is not a menu and the article ads no value to Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rundown:
  • The subject matter is encyclopedic. The subject? A list of foods served by the biggest chain of restaurants in the world. Millions eat McDonald's food every day. I think this is enough to claim that this belongs in an encyclopedia.
  • This is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minimum requirements right now are any food items sold by McDonald's, past or present. This can be tightened up a bit if need be. The list can't possibly be "endless". Large? Duh.
  • Sources exist for this. Whether they be primary (from McDonald's) or secondary, they do exist.
  • Secondary sources have covered the subject of McDonald's food as a whole. Therefore, we are not inventing some new concept by mashing a bunch of unrelated subjects together. Here's something that was published just today: [12]
  • This article needs a cleanup, yes. But not deletion. --- RockMFR 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it passes the Pokémon test, if that's your thing :) --- RockMFR 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot state it any better than RockMFR. The article is decent. I think that half of the people who are voting for deletion are doing so because of McDonald's status as a large multination American corporation. Apfox 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think it's worthwhile. Pretty much everything can be verified (it's not as if McDonald's is a small chain with a supersecret menu) and the original research can be edited out. I think that the "regional dishes" section is important/interesting enough for the article stay. This is more than a menu, some of the entries include history and many others might be expanded in the same way. The article is too long for the intersting stuff to be merged back into any other McDonald's article. superapathyman 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NOT encyclopedic. THis is not what we are here for. MiracleMat 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take this to a fan wiki for restaurants (if such a thing exists). Wikipedia shouldn't be a source to read menus ever, period. RobJ1981 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I commented before some of these items might be worthy of their own articles- it is a franchise after all- but this is less granular. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many users have contributed to this article, and deletion would be an insult to the work they have put into it. It gives a lot of historical and current information on one of the world's largest corporations. --Mrath 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason to keep Jaranda wat's sup 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most of those advocating same. The information is verifiable enough (and that which isn't obviously has no place here, blablablaboilerplate), and this information is encyclopedic enough to be included somewhere. It looks far too big to be plonked in the middle of the main article, so a separate one would make good sense. Strangely enough, my two McDonald's-addicted brothers were just comparing notes on "local specialties" we encountered on a recent trip through Europe. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wow, this article is surprisingly well written for what looks like it should be a list. Talks about the dishes and their history, and in depth international varieties. The information is worthy of an article on WP - despite nomination by Jaranda, I see no evidence of WP:ILIKEIT here any more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Much of it is also easily verifiable - how hard is it to verify the contents of a Chicken McGrill through a link (blahblahboilerplate per BigHaz)? Part Deux 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting and well written especially the international variations.. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDelete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the Burger King nomination above. Wikipedia is not a place to list all the items available at a retail outlet. Markb 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep before looking at the article, I thought the same as several people above: "if Wikipedia starts including menus, then God help us all...". However, looking at the article, I think it's a perfect example of the sort of international collaborative effort that is virtually only possible on Wikipedia. The article is NPOV, this is not a "fan page" as some have suggested. It's verifiable, in my opinion notable, and (at the risk of being accused of WP:ILIKEIT) pretty bloody interesting. Perhaps part of the problem is the title - "Regional variations of McDonald's food" does not seem to have the "Wikipedia as a collection of menus" connotation that the current title does. --Canley 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Several items on the menu at McDonald's have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. However, much of this article is messy, pointless OR McCruft. There's nothing wrong with a well sourced article on notable McDonald's menu items, but let's not be afraid to clear out the cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a travel guide, a directory, a publisher of original thought or a menu. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but article editors should consider renaming. McDonald's has spawned hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles around the world dedicated to it's menu alone. It was the subject of a documentary which saw a nation-wide release in movie theatres. While WP:NOT describes an indiscriminate collection of information, the items this list and the subject itself meet WP:V and WP:N and the article is a narrow, discrimating collection of information. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't be placing a vote in this particular AFD since it's pretty clear what the consensus is. However in order to adhere to WP:NPOV I have no choice but to place a keep vote for the Burger King version of this article. Abstain. 23skidoo 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - menus change, people should just follow a link to McD's website from the main article. Jefferson Anderson 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Lankybugger notes, the McDonald's menu is itself the subject of frequent coverage, since this is one of the world's major brands. This is not indiscriminate (although there's little point to listing all the soda brands, if you ask me), different international menus is in fact justification for having this article, and WP:V and WP:OR problems may be dealt with via cleanup or dispute resolution. This is a very logical subarticle to McDonald's. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In all honesty, sometimes I support a page because it has been created although I think other ways would be as proper. I would have been satisfied with a template since there are 28 items in Category:McDonald's foods. However, since it is there, there is little reason to delete. I did not check for overlap of article with individual food item articles however. TonyTheTiger 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a valid article as per my reasons stated in the Burger King thread. In addition, the menu is not just a collection of products for sale but a form of advertising that targets demographic trends and groups as well as the tastes of the markets these companies operate in. These companies spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on developing products that will give them market share and is a major part of their operating budgets; these articles help demonstrate that. To delete these sub-articles would take away from the main articles and fail to demonstrate how one aspect of the modern restaurant chain business works. While I understand his initial reasoning that these articles were just a list of products, it is my belief is that Jarada may never have been fully exposed to the product development processes of modern business that these articles are trying to explain and may not fully understand the reasoning process that goes into creating products at a major, international chain (I am not making a dig or insult of him, just trying to understand his thought process).

Jerem43 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda wat's sup 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed.
  1. Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant while not only manufacturing the product (food) a restaurant provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
  2. The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
  3. Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.
Jerem43 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As on the Burger King outlets discussion above, you argue that a McDonalds is not the same as any other store, it is actually a factory. Again I ask you for evidence to back this up; McDonalds don't claim their outlets are factories, and where local authorities have powers to zone or designate specific activities in specific areas, they do not class McDonalds as factories. Show me an example of a shopping mall where such a mix is allowed - the shops, the McDonalds, the Ford truck engine plant etc. Markb 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:
man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing
Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r
Function: noun
What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:
man·u·fac·ture
Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand
1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery
2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor
2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery
3 : the act or process of producing something
Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

Jerem43 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To further explain why the argument is flawed, Ford, Kraft and Coca-Cola do have regional differences in their markets, and they do change their offerings from time to time. I don't know if you've ever bought soda for retail, but if you had, you'd have a coke man come visit you and tell you about their new products, or their discontinuations if something isn't selling well. You may also wish to see List of Coca-Cola brands, List of Ford vehicles and Kraft Foods has a brand section which I think would make a good article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info - this is in effect a list. Any useful information that is relevant to MacDonalds, menus or food in general should be merged to those articles. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested. The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items? Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a menu, a directory, a nutrition guide or an almanac. I also stand by what I said in the original AfD, even if I might have phrased it differently today. Agent 86 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deserve a keep today. The article isn't just a simple menu -- it offers history and reasoning behind the menu items. Besides, some items such as Quarter Pounder have their own articles, and they haven't been deleted yet. I don't see any good way that the article could be merged back into the McDonald's article without causing the main article to become bloated (kind of like someone who's eaten two or three Big Macs.) I'm keepin' it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a menu. Agreed that it tends to attract annoying cruft, but that's what editing is for. I started this article in the first place, and did so because explanations of menu items cluttered the main article and, despite the broad homogeneity of McDonald's menu worldwide, there are significant differences that should be documented. Billions and billions served: that's notable. (Oh, Jaranda didn't inform me of this AfD... tsk tsk.) ProhibitOnions (T) 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not a menu, nutrition guide, or almanac. Contains valuable history of product offerings and regional variations, promotions etc. And, I like it. Fg2 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep though the content of restaurant meals is not normally N, it is for this chain and its major competitors, for they are part of what passes for American civilisation, and changes are widely noted in the media. DGG 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • McKeep per Fg2 --Candy-Panda 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDelete' per McNot. --Shirahadasha 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regional/international variations (beef substitutions in India, etc.) and history of popular items (Filet-O-Fish created to appeal to Catholics) are notable business & economics topics, if not also culinary topics. Wl219 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per my reasons on the burger king nomination. Winterborn 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several contributors, especially Jerem43. --Goochelaar 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next: List of things sold by Wallmart ?-Docg 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe the article you're looking for is: List of Wal-Mart brands. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck! But then brands are a lot different from listing individual items.--Docg 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're upset over that, I think it provides valuable encyclopedic content, as it provides information as to what in-house brands Wal-mart has. They are the world's largest retail concern after all. And while I do concur that listing every product produced under those brands might eventually be a bit much, that same problem doesn't apply to a fast food restaurant, which even though they can have a large menu, is still a bit more finite in scope. And besides, if you look at Sam's Choice you will see it does list individual products. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's see, nobody can question McDonald's overall notability, right? What are they notable for? Serving food. Heck, their food gets in the news with some regularity. (I know there were news articles about the Arch Deluxe, and I bet they even appeared on the Today show and Good Morning America. Thus covering their food is highly important. This article does a reasonable job of doing that, and in fact, the nomination for deletion makes a good argument for having this article. International differences are yet another thing people might want to know. I've even seen newspaper and magazine articles that discuss it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first I was sceptical about this article, however, the sheer enormity of the McDonald's franchise, and consequentially, its cultural influence around the globe, makes the list more than simply fancruft. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I'm not saying I really enjoy every item on McDonald's, but McDonald's has a vast history with many cultural differences, menu bombs, and so on. I was just thinking that this is always a hotbed of activity. There's always a tag at the top. So, what's wrong?
  • The article needs a cleanup, nay, complete rewrite. No one's satisfied if their country is plummeted to the bottom, if the countries are out of order and in bullets, discontinuations here, late intros here, and so on.
  • This has virtually no source citations. Many items are kept by word of mouth, I've never even heard of the "Mac Jr."!
  • It reads like an advertisement. "crisp, juicy lettuce"? That's probably c&p'd from the official site.
  • Lack of tables. Tables could work, but it would require a major thinking process.

In short, the McDonald's menu items article is a complete mess, but it does not deserve to be deleted. So I've added a Rewrite tag to the article. TheListUpdater 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "complete mess" at all; only the international section is long and unordered. The occasional advertising phrasing that crops up is a separate issue, but usually quickly deleted. I have moved the tag down to the international section; the U.S. section is already ordered into logical sections. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Strong Keep I was looking for exactly this piece of information on the internet and only Wikipedia had it. Makes this a deeply more useful encyclopedia. I'm serious. McD is one of the biggest and most important American restaruans out htere. One could argue there IS some inherent value in studying it's menu. Keep. --Hollerbackgril 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question So you are saying the article should stay on Wikipedia because there is no other source for the information? Jeepday 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply one of the values of wikipedia's open source architecture is it's ability to provide information that is shut out from other, more established venue. so, yes i think availibility elsewhere is one among many factors that contribute to an article's value on wikipedia.--Hollerbackgril 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making this a primary source, and therefore original research? JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
false wikipedia makes this information more accessible, and hence more valuable. i would have to navigate too many menus to get to mcd's original info. I much prefer it here. --137.146.177.86 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you aren't using WP:SCORCHEDEARTH are you? TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could some one explain why the Burger King Article was deleted, while this one is still here? The history, etc has all been deleted. If McD's has been kept, then the original BK article should be restored. Jerem43 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It had been vandalized. It's corrected now... TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Blnguyen (bananabucket) has declared that it was deleted due to consensus.
  • Keep per RockMFR reasons. Mathmo Talk 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete for what it's worth. You can't convince me this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information no matter how many sources you get. You want to know what's on the McDonald's menu, then go to McDonald's. JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hard to justify keeping (also valid) articles criticizing McDonald's menu when we would censor (delete) the menu central to the controversy. Duh! Carlossuarez46 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't care how well-developed the list is - it's still a stupid list, and should go the way of the Burger King menu list (which, by the way, is getting shot down at deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Finding out what's on the menu at McDonalds now may be best learned by going to McDonalds, but finding out what used to be on the menu, and when, or what they serve in other countries, is the job of an encyclopedia article about McDonald's menu items. This has clear criteria for inclusion, is notable, and has verifiable sources. Please do not try to stifle opinions or distort consensus by preemptively declaring some opinions to be invalid and unworthy of consideration. That sort of argument is uncivil and needs to stop. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ubiquitous and significant global product line. The reasons presented for deletion seem better addressed by cleanup than by deleting the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete lists of products like this are not what Wikipedia is for. Menu's are essentially a kind of directory. Eluchil404 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article not just lists products, but also provides context and international differences. Although it could require additional sourcing, that is merely an argument for improvement, not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be perfectly frank, I am very irritated at all the Keep votes here. Where were you guys for the Burger King discussion? I think all Keep votes should be discounted unless they can explain why McD's should stay while Burger King's should go. JuJube 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Afd's are not a vote, but I blame the closing admin for misinterpretating the situation, as I believe that person was mistaken in their analysys. If anybody here concurs and feels like saying so: The Deletion Review is the place to speak. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's already a DRV, but it's not going well. If this gets closed as Keep (as it likely will), I'll make a second one. JuJube 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, being arrogant, trying as many times to vanquish an article for good? Do you know how immature that is? You are so like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SCORCHEDEARTH. TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I actually read that as saying that JuJube would take a keep decision as a grounds to review the deletion of the Burger King article, not as an intent to argue for the deletion of this one. Perhaps you might wish to ask if that was what he or she meant? FrozenPurpleCube 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate your passion but I actually meant if this gets closed as Keep, I would argue to get the BK closure overturned and the article restored. Nice try on getting indignant, though. We all love the wikidrama. JuJube 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky penny records[edit]

Lucky penny records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating:

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

Seems to be self-promotion, not notable, and no verifiability other than their website Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Kris Koran as {{db-bio}}. DMacks 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lucky penny records as {{db-corp}}. DMacks 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both per DMacks, so tagged. skip (t / c) 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting hoax (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. A slate article alone is not enough; no evidence that anyone off the internet every heard or wrote about this. Savidan 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and salt; has already been deleted twice. Slate may be a non-trivial source, but it's the only source; WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Also the hoax only lasted three days, unlike the year-long, widely-cited toothing hoax which does merit its own article. Krimpet 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Bwithh 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete internet only and no sources BJTalk 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do people even look at the articles they vote on? There's a damn good source - an entire feature on Slate Magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment sources a subject isn't notable because it has one internet only article written about it. BJTalk 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since, generally, objects that number zero are pluralized (i.e. "there are zero sources"), saying that there are no sources is flatly misleading. Furthermore, that it is Internet-only is irrelevant - we're dealing here with an online magazine owned by the Washington Post. And we're dealing with a full feature on the subject, not a mention or a paragraph. This isn't Joe's Blog Shack. This is well-sourced by any standard. Phil Sandifer 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you would find very few objections to adding information from Slate into an article with other non-trivial sources. Good people can disagree over articles sources only to Slate, however. It's really second-tier as sources go. It's certainly not such a gold standard as to preclude the skepticism you attempt to rule out. Savidan 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:WEB is not policy, and the "multiple mentions" was really created to head off various forms of "was mentioned once in passing in the New York Times." This was the subject of a full-length piece on Slate. This is a reasonable exception to WP:WEB. Phil Sandifer 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is a single one-page article in Slate a year and a half ago any different than, as you said, being "mentioned once in passing in the New York Times"? From reading the article itself, I get the impression that it seems to be more of a focus on the (somewhat self-aggrandizing IMO) adventures of the journalist "exposing" the hoax and getting ganged up on by the SA goons, rather than actually being an expository piece describing the hoax itself. Krimpet 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, since Slate didn't adopt pagination until this year, the page length isn't exactly relevant - it's a full-length article. As for the focus, I'm sorry that you're not fond of its writing style, but that does seem rather beside the point to its notability. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said I "wasn't fond of its writing style" let alone use that as an argument against its notability; you're heading into straw man country here. However I would say that the focus of the article is very relevant. It's a first-person narrative of the author finding and "exposing" the hoax, and being messed with by the hoax's perpetrators afterwards, more of an entertaining piece than an informative piece. I noted that the style is self-aggrandizing because it suggests that elements of the story could have been fictionalized to some degree for all we know; we have no other reliable sources at all, because this hoax was simply not notable enough. Krimpet 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's still a subjective judgment of the piece that is far beyond what is appropriate under WP:NPOV. The piece was published by Slate as non-fiction - that's sufficient to establish its relevance. If you have any objections to its content, they should be sourced, not original research. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that this illustrates the reason why we need multiple non-trivial sources to write an encyclopedia article. Especially for an article with "hoax" in the title. This is a common sense issue for me. Savidan 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A full-length article on the topic from a reliable source is enough to warrant inclusion. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One Slate article is not necessarily enough. We could create billions of non-notable bios from single mentions in Slate-or-better news sources. Savidan 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be impressed if we could actually get 1/3 of the world from mentions in Slate or better, actually... And this is not a "single mention," it's a detailed feature. Please do stop misrepresenting things - it negatively affects the debate when you do. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that. I didn't mean to imply that this was a trivial reference, but just a single article. Savidan 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP is the place to look for this sort of article. Slate is used a a RS for internet culture, even more so than WP itself. DGG 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But in this situation the Slate article is written by the person claiming to have debunked the hoax; not really a qualified person to determine its notability. Savidan 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be relevant only if Slate were self-published. But it's not - the editors of Slate (and thus, by extension the Washington Post company) have vouched for the event's notability. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the implication that Slate/Wash Post is "vouch[ing] for the event's notability." Even the New York Times does human interest pieces on things that obviously aren't notable. Savidan 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that totally goes against the entire distinction we make between self-published and independent sources, right? Slate thought the event was significant enough to pay for an article on it and publish that article. Slate is a highly notable publisher. In judging notability, I consider Slate's judgment that it was worth publishing on very important, and your judgment that Slate was wrong more or less irrelevant. Phil Sandifer 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slate's credibility is an entirely separate issue from whether everything that they write about is "notable" in the sense of the Wikipedia guideline. It is unlikely that Slate's editors took a look at our notability guidelines before publishing this article. This is why multiple non-trivial articles are necessary to establish notability. For example, in the current issue of Slate, there's an article by this guy about his wife's post-partum depression [13]. That doesn't make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Savidan 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's multiple non-trivial mentions. One mention of this kind of substance is also, I think, significant. Phil Sandifer 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show us a second source, then. Savidan 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing my point, which is that a full-feature coverage is at least as significant as two "non-trivial mentions." Phil Sandifer 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pisses the point of having multiple non-trivial sources, i.e. not having to rely on a single source. We can dress this Slate article up all you want. The fact is that this greenlighting hoax is no more notable than the average internet meme and definitely not up to the criteria of WP:WEB, which doesn't say "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or one really sweet full feature coverage in an internet periodical." Savidan 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a guideline, and we're allowed to sod it if it seems poorly phrased, off base, or otherwise not useful. They're guidelines, not rules. Especially not WEB, which is disputed on the relevant section. And especially not since we're not talking about a website here, so it's not even clear to me that WP:WEB is the operative guideline. Phil Sandifer 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is definitely the operative guideline for an internet hoax. In this case the article violates both the letter and the spirit of the guildine because the purpose of requiring mulitiple non-trivial sources is to limit out minor internet hoaxes which never achieved significance in the non-internet realm. We seem to just be repeating ourselves here. Why don't we just let some other people weigh in. Savidan 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that [{WP:WEB]] probably should cover internet memes. But no text in it does, and the website rules don't necessarily translate well. Phil Sandifer 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really encyclopedic material and reads like a badly written novel Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DGG. Winterborn 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references just aren't there, this was a flash in the pan.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem notable, and a single article as a source does not make it verifiable. Perhaps it warrants mention on the Something Awful article, but even in the grand scheme of things there it seems trivial. ContivityGoddess 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt per above. /Blaxthos 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, failing that do not salt - This is one of a handful of events that highlight the metamorphisis of "news", how it is reported, and how it is manipulated or successfully fabricated as a result of the sudden availablity of widely accessed forums due to the advent of the internet. It's historically noteworthy, almost unique, and well worth referencing if attempting to describe the concept of how news or widely evidenced cultural trends can now be created rapidly and on demand, and should be availble for reference at wikipedia. Normalphil 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users only contribs are too this afd and the Cyrus Farivar afd, which was linked from his blog. Savidan 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this incident "highlights the metamorphosis of 'news'", though, considering it was a failed three-day hoax that received no media attention whatsoever outside of this single Slate article. Toothing, which "greenlighting" was just an attempt to recreate the success of, is a much better example of news fabrication. Krimpet 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pare down heavily then merge to Toothing as a section (title it "Further impact" or "Attempt to duplicate" or something of that nature). Serpent's Choice 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting suggestion, but ultimately one that succumbs to most of the same problems as having a full article, I believe. Savidan 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this is a really good idea - there is not a two source minimum, to my knowledge, for inclusion, and the Slate article would surely provide a reliable source for the addition to Toothing. Phil Sandifer 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train take the 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle soccer[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Unverifiable, and of local interest only. Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor with no explanation. FreplySpang 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE per nom. Absolutely MiracleMat 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The T-ness (of which WP is NF) is essentially written in the article itself. DMacks 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, no claim of notability, and reasons already listed. BJTalk 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a 100% literal case of WP:NFT. Krimpet 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just prod this kind of stuff; people rarely come back to remove prods from this kind of article. Part Deux 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From nom: "Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor with no explanation." BJTalk 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It! Sounds like a FABULOUS GAME!!! It will spread even faster if people can hear about it! Thats What Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.140.24 (talk • contribs)
  • Begging your pardon, but that's actually not at all what Wikipedia is for; Wikipedia requires verification and generally covers notable subjects. We prefer to avoid original research or very novel ideas, instead generally considering ourselves a repository of information which is already known, if that makes sense. For more information, see what Wikipedia is not. Thanks! Luna Santin 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's what Wikipedia is not for, as Luna points out. Sorry, chief. Part Deux 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train take the 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skies of Arcadia things and events[edit]

Skies of Arcadia things and events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft and/or fancruft. "Things and events" for one game (or even a series) don't need a list page here. Take it to a video game wiki. Wikipedia isn't a discriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as much as I'm a huge fan of Skies of Arcadia, I'm sure that a indiscriminate collection of vehicles, objects and events from a video game do not belong here. WP:FICT also states that for fictional subjects, there must be an establishment of any real-world importance and impact the subject has had. Considering all of the information in the article would only be of importance to those that have played Skies, it fails in that respect miserably. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. No real world significance. MER-C 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - game trivia -- Whpq 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train take the 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.N.Y. (Talk of New York)[edit]

If and when this album is ever released, I'm sure it will meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. The problem, as it currently stands, is that there are no reliable sources available to support this article. The scheduled release date, much like the rest of the article, changes from week to week. Suggest immediate deletion without prejudice against recreation once said sources turn up. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in The Simpsons[edit]

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

This is a rare self-nomination- I wrote a bit of this article because when I found it it was a list and I was trying to broaden its potential. But, it's redundant to the plot summaries of the episode articles and to the article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and the list seems to attract OR- in case you're curious, Homer was originally listed as a Democrat, was then categorized as a Republican, and is now labelled a communist. I'm curious as to whether it will survive, I abstain. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps the article should just be improved. The point of having theme articles is because in the main Simpsons page, you have to deal with people who say "a section The Simpsons stance on politics should be included", but instead, there is simply a link to this page. The Simpsons archive has a section on political leanings and other references. As for Homer, I don't think he has a specific party, but he has had republicanish thoughts. And, he has done Communistish things, which is why he's listed under a communism section, but perhaps that one can go. -- Scorpion 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Scorpion. It's certainly redundant with the episode articles, and some of the categorizations are suspect (really Homer's political views change depending on the plot, compare Sideshow Bob Roberts and There's Something About Marrying), but I agree that the topic is kind of unavoidable given the show's length and popularity, and The Simpsons has been analyzed on its religious and political content throughout the years. The article could certainly improved, but it's not bad as-is and at least close to the standards of Education in The Simpsons and Religion in The Simpsons Krimpet 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Scorpion. Politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons.- JustPhil 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Scorpion and Krimpet.--Skully Collins Edits 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes, in-universe speculation and OR. The only reference listed applies to a topic we already have an article on. It really doesn't matter if "politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons" JustPhil, what matters is "is the politics of the Simpsons a big subject in the real world?". So far, this article does very little to assert that it is. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis ... not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing that this article, along with the articles on religion, education, etc. in the Simpsons were originally spun off the main Simpsons article. So I would say keep and cleanup and if the resulting article is very short, merge with The Simpsons. Natalie 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satire is a large part of the show in question, and political satire is prevalent enough to warrant an article focusing upon it. Arakunem 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a good article, it just needs to be cleaned up. --takethemud 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:FICT and duplicative content; no indication of any real-world notability or influence except one article with a passing reference to this show being the source (actually just the popularizer) of one pejorative phrase. If all the unsourced (except from the show itself) and WP:OR material is removed, there isn't anything WP:V remaining that isn't already in the parent article or the "monkeys" article. Recreate this when multiple independent reliable sources, including real topical analysis and not just an opinion column, demonstrate that Simpsons political humor has had substantive effects. For comparison, fat jokes are another recurring point, and we could probably find Simpsons lines quoted on an "I Love Donuts" website, but that doesn't mean that "Obesity in The Simpsons" would be an encyclopedic article. Barno 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I want to set the record straight and say that this is not a spin off from the main article as can be seen in the first edit. This article should provide a discussion of the politics, but all it does is to summarize anything that happened on the show related to politics. You can write a good article about this, but it takes sources, which are hard to find compared to religion, psychology and philosophy, which has been the subject of some books. Since I can't find anything out-of-universe worth keeping that isn't already mentioned in the main article, then the best solution is to delete it and maybe someday somebody can start a fresh sourced article. --Maitch 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, to really set the record straight, much of the intro comes straight from the main article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but that was added later. This page wasn't created because there was too much information in the main article. --Maitch 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love the Simpsons as much as the next Wikipedian, but this is article considerable novel synthesis and duplicative.-- danntm T C 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up so that it focuses on satire in the Simpsons, not lists of characters by political affiliation (since this fails WP:OR. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - any factual information in this article can be relocated to one of the (many) other Simpsons articles here. It is clearly OR. --Lee Vonce 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons listed above Jellonuts 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff there is a way to keep this of reasonable encyclopedic quality after removing any whiff of OR. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's salvageable, actually.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT - does Wikipedia need so much Simpsons cruft? 207.34.120.71 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--M W Johnson 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And improve. Gran2 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per article author. WP:OR and no real world notability. /Blaxthos 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Navou banter 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Modahl[edit]

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

Rachel Modahl is Not Notable. Additionally, information in articly is unverifiable and most likely incorrect. Rahzel 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete CSD A1. In any case, even if it doesn't qualify for speedy, it's a cruft article with no verifiablity although it does assert notability, it really doesn't hold up to a threshold that is standard for inclusion Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wasn't sure if this qualified for CSD A1, so I listed it for normal deletion. But now I have changed the article's current status to CSD A1. --Rahzel 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above, vanity trash. Krimpet 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy it - a1, a7. Part Deux 07:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tan-Hauser Gate[edit]

Tan-Hauser Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:Tan-Hauser Gate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Shawnc 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Agathoclea. MER-C 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatize[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable neologism. superapathyman 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:WINAD, neologism and a total of 3 ghits. skip (t / c) 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Neologism. Even if it were a real word, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Creator now seems to be using this article as an editorial platform to criticize Wikipedia. =Axlq 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G10, it's apparent that it's some kid who is using this to attack someone. Ina ny case, not only is this a neologism but even IF it was legitimate, it belongs in wikitionary anyway. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFT gallore. We need to make up a new CSD category for obvious NFT neologisms. Part Deux 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - attack page. MER-C 10:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train take the 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shite (band)[edit]

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

Does not assert notability Shawnc 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbear[edit]

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

Appears to be NN/unencyclopedic/webcomic cruft —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr paul[edit]

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

Promotion for the theories/books/products/services of one psychiatrist. No evidence that these theories are influential, widely recognized, or notable. No external sources. And did I mention, blatantly promotional?

  • Note: I am also including the nearly identical article Mindos in this nomination. FreplySpang 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement Pete.Hurd 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the beyond blatant promotion, lack of useful encyclopedic content, and failure to meet WP:N. janejellyroll 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, "Dr paul" didn't even bother to capitalize his vanity articles properly. Krimpet 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - g12 spam, and so tagged. Part Deux 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the DFBot summary has this AfD listed under no consensus (50%), the two keep and one weak keep votes seem to provide little to no support for their arguments, other than noting that there are stubs just as bad as this one in Wikipedia. Delete arguments on the other hand provide strong support, and the sudden waivering of former "keep" voters to neutral or delete suggests to me a deletion consensus. Ultimately, there's nothing in this article really worth saving and no one with enough knowledge or ability to research the topic to approve it. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achargary[edit]

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

Prod tag was removed but no information on notability was added to the article. Google search revealed nothing notable about location. Fails WP:N. (see below, I changed my stance to neutral upon learning about precedent in this area) janejellyroll 07:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (changed to neutral) - as a town, seems fairly notable to me. See WP:LOCAL. Has its own noticeboard on bbc: [16]. I realize it doesn't usually go this way, but can you prove it's small enough to not be notable? Part Deux 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you pointing me to that guideline. However, I think this part of it actually strengthens the case for deletion: While some demographic or directory-type information is essential to provide context about the place, it tends to make for a dry article if that's all the article contains. If the only verifiable information is along these lines, you probably shouldn't create a new article specifically about the place. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides no information besides location. If information can be found about a landmark or battlefield or "(random famous person) slept here," then I can understand how the "places of local interest" guideline might apply. janejellyroll 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--If it is Wikipedia policy that a town is automatically notable, then I will change to a keep. I searched for a policy on towns and couldn't find one--I'm probably just overlooking it. janejellyroll 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. However, it is a stub, and it is probably expandable. Part Deux 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'd say that the thousands of auto-generated stubs from USA census data have kind of set a precedent about the notability of towns. It could probably at least be improved to add population info and more detailed information about its location. Krimpet 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Given that a precedent has been set, I don't see the point in deleting this particular article. I apologize for my ignorance in this particular area. This is the first town-stub I'd come across. janejellyroll 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is it? The article states it is a location. A location? Is it a town, a hill, a mountain, a valley? Because towns (no matter who small), and geographic features are notable and should have an article. -- Whpq 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Gruntness' reseach. It's not a town or geographic feature. As an archeological site, it doesn't appear to have attracted enough attention to provide reliable sources. -- Whpq 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. janejellyroll 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coordinates given are wrong (I'm about to change them - but even my finest-grained UK map doesn't show this place - and in the Highlands it shows things down to farms. Though I hate to say delete about a real place, this one looks to be infinitesimally important, so... Grutness...wha? 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there seems to be dispute on whether this place actually exists. The coordinates are wrong and the map shows nothing, but there is a post code? Can someone clear this up? If it's just a mile marker or a nickname for a crossroads with a gas station, it probably doesn't warrant an article. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad about the coordinates - I misread the decimals as minutes of arc, which put the place off the north coast of Scotland. It does exist - at least, it is mentioned as existing on quite a number of websites - most notably here, and the coordinates check with those at Rootsweb's location page, which is usually pretty accurate. But it doesn't show up on my trusty atlas, which usually means - as i said - that a place is so infinitesimal as to not be worth mentioning. When you consider that the same map shows that the road between Skail and Rhifail contains two hunting lodges and - a little further south - a farm which is at the site of a former village (population <20), but doesn't show Achargary, I think it gives some indication of its likely size. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - nb - I've found the coordinates on the UK locator are usually wrong. --MacRusgail 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Delete per Grutness and this, which seems to incidate it's a scheduled archaeological site because of a cairn. As there is nothing else confirming residence, I think this has little significance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans American Airlines[edit]

Trans American Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not remotely notable; there's nothing to say but what's in the Airplane! article. Shay Guy 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Krimpet 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to merge not already in the article. Part Deux 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nobody cares. MER-C 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and quick Madmedea 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. Excessive detail that doesn't help a reader understand anything of significance about the movie. Not even an important plot point nor something widely noted in reviews, ads, etc. Barno 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- If this airline were more like Oceanic Airlines, I'd say keep, but it would benefit more from a section within the Airplane! article. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Oi[edit]

Is this professor notable? I think not quite enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand; as-is it looks like a pointless vanity article but it does have references, and according to Google it appears he did in fact play a big part in convincing Nixon to end the draft, supported by the websites of the U of R, the DoD, RAND, and countless libertarian websites; the article definitely needs major improvement and expansion but I'd say it satisfies WP:N. Krimpet 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this guy is notable enough to have an article, although it needs a lot of work. I've tagged it for wikification and lack of references. Krimpet could you stick the references you found on the talk page of the article?Madmedea 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information to this article and cited it. Madmedea 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and please correct the dollar figure related to all-volunteer force Fg2 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep he is undoubtedly N as professor of economics, Rochester being a major research university. However, this articles doesnt depend on that. He's a public figure due to his historical role. Better sourcing is needed, as usual. DGG 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but work on those sources to avoid another nomination for deletion. Prof Oi is notable as historical figure yet the article fails to show it (yes I am shocked to have voted keep despite of nn sources) Alf photoman 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International "mini" Hockey League[edit]

International "mini" Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about non-existent ice hockey league. Google search for "'international mini hockey league' -wikipedia" gets no Google hits. The article itself is a cut-and-paste job of the United Hockey League article, with some team names ando ther words changed in some places. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I admire the effort, but with even the slightest intrusive research on their league page, the league just isn't a real one. When you click on game photos on the IHL TV section, you see a boy sitting on his knees in his basement with a ministick and mini-net. DMighton 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT. Resolute 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above. Skudrafan1 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Mus Musculus 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This league has over twenty players, it is a real league. although they do play in a basement what is the big deal? thats where the game of ministicks is played. --ihlhockey 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Ihlhockey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable under WP:V, not a "fully professional league" (see WP:BIO for that guideline of whether a sport's players are notable), no chance that reliable sources will be found. WP:NFT. Barno 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "over twenty players" makes me think this isn't very notable. Maxamegalon2000 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11. Sr13 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise Circle[edit]

Franchise Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Website. Alexa page rank of 1,727,676: furthermore, all Alexa metrics shown with trend indicators (rank, page views per user, reach) are shown as being on a falling three-month trend. See [18]. Google hits seem to be almost entirely based on press releases released by the company itself. Suggest deletion based on lack of notability. The Anome 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as NN spam, so tagged --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy as it claims to be the first site of its type. Claim is unsubstantiated and no sources so off it goes. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


The above debate was closed when the article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7. It has since been recreated in somewhat larger form. I still find the notability rather dubious. >Radiant< 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't we open a new AFD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Spam, no claims of notability. No neutral references. Note that the link to the "New Canaan Advertiser" is, in fact, to a pdf file on the franchisecircle website. Corvus cornix 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodday. I believe this article is notable for a variety of reasons, most notably the people who are behind this idea. David Neeleman is behind the idea and the founder of Franchise Circle was featured in a book with the likes of Richard Branson, David Neeleman, and Charles Schwab. The company has obtained sponsorship from american Express and JetBlue (verify the company's website to view this). They have obtained a growing amount of support in the franchise industry and are backed by individuals who are more than notable. Please do not delete this article. If the article needs to be re-written, please provide details as to how it can be improved as it is clearly notable69.157.249.3 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC). — 69.157.249.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Wikipedia does not operate upon individual editors' notions of what is personally important to them. That way lies chaos. Wikipedia operates upon the presence of multiple non-trivial published works, from sources independent of the subject and its creators/founders/financiers/backers, about the subject. We may not "verify the company's website". We cannot trust purported copies of source material published by the company on its own web site, such as the purported "New Canaan Advertiser" article, noted above, or other articles claiming that the company has been sponsored by someone. What we need are citations of multiple independent sources. You have not supplied any. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily: a non-notable web forum, written in an inappropriate promotional tone: Franchise Circle was created to be a one stop solution for the global franchise industry. Franchisors and advertisers get a 'Group' page where they can post information and build what’s called "Relationship Capital". Misuse of the word "solution" in this manner is a pet peeve of mine, and a sure indicator of ad-speak. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, but I'm waffling on an A7 or G11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent results (one press release) on Google News Archive. This company may be backed by big names but they haven't done it much good in terms of free publicity. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on the references:

  1. The link to "Anne Ford's Bio" doesn't work. But then, I have to wonder, why would there be a link to a biography of a person who wrote a book featuring this company, unless that person were involved with the company?
  2. The link to the Franchise Times takes you to the current front page of that website. You have to pay for back copies of previously featured content, therefore there is no way of telling what their article had to say about Franchise Circle.
  3. The link to John-Richard Thompson's page is mangled, but when you go there, you find out at http://www.j-rt.com/JTbiopage.html that he is an actor and playwright. He has also written another book with Anne Ford, Laughing Allegra. "This non-fiction work blends memoir with self-help to reach parents of children with learning disabilities and was published by Newmarket Press in May, 2003". Interestingly enough, if you go to the current home page for Newmarket Press at http://www.newmarketpress.com/, they are featuring another book by Anne Ford and John-Richard Thompson. What are his qualifications to be writing a book about Franchise Times, and why is there a link to the biography of the author of that book on this page? Same questions I have for the Anne Ford link, except at least this page exists. Next Steps does not show up at amazon, and a google search comes up with nothing concrete for any such book. http://www.j-rt.com/home.html indicates that a book which has not yet been released, called The Next Step is coming out, but doesn't explain what it's about. Since Anne Ford seems to write about developmentally disabled adults, I have to wonder what her books have to do with Franchise Circle.
  4. The link to Interantional Franchise Expo Debut is nothing more than a list of exhibitors, and I do not find Franchise Circle there, anyway. Corvus cornix 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Ad-spam. Not notable. Poorly referenced. Bad hygiene. Doesn't play nice with other children. Groupthink 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response but Franchise Circle is listed among the other exhibitors. Can we rewrite the article to provide more notability, etc.??Cartermalloy 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Cartermalloy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Yes, you may edit/improve the article during the 5-day long WP:AFD discussion, and based on the re-write people may change their mind. Leuko 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Franchise Circle is not listed among the other exhibitors. Corvus cornix 19:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISOC (Islamic Society)[edit]

ISOC (Islamic Society) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LivISOC, a specific society, and the same editor has now created this unsourced article about student Islamic societies in general. There is, to my eye, nothing here which is not entirely generic. Replace Islamic and faith with, say, engineering and profession, and the thing reads exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: too vague, unencyclopedic. No evidence of notability - rernst 14:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To call it unencyclopedic is going a bit far IMHO. A search will pull up many examples of IS's around the world, although I agree on the notability issue. Zunaid©® 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - Hmmm...tricky one. The concept of an Islamic Society (or equivalently a Muslim Students Association, the two titles are entirely interchangeable and refer to exactly the same thing) certainly has currency. You'd find MSA's/IS's on most campuses/schools where there are large Muslim minority populations. That said, there is not much more to be said about them than the fact that they exist and look after Muslim students' interests. As JzG mentions, this is no better than having a general article on "Engineering professional bodies". For the time being delete without prejudice. Perhaps it is possible to write an all-encompassing article about this topic. However, the current one isn't it, and without references does not provide the basis for such an article to be written. Zunaid©® 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This article was previously deleted by UkPaolo [19]. Agent 86 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contents without prejudice and redirect to Muslim Students Association Madmedea 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Since I was unable to find any Wikipedia qualifying published works about the topic and the article does not cite any, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Thus, although this appears to be an important subject, I believe that the article should be deleted per Wikipedia Notability requirements. Comment: If the topic becomes Wikipedia notable in the future, any recreation of the article should try to avoid confusion with the prominent Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC). -- Jreferee 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — not sufficiently notable a subject to merit inclusion, it's just a slightly expanded definition └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: - Given time the article will grow and improve - MSA article (american equivalent) went through the same process. Too many people delete without allowing enough time for article development. Despite the existence of ISOC's all over UK, not many people (especially non-muslims) are familiar with the term or what the generic ISOC may represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seljuk Soldier (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: No reliable sources. Not sure if it really is a real group.--Sefringle 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElGeko[edit]

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

Autobiography of a graphics artist, in my opinion it doesn't meet notability and has Conflict of interests. Prod tag was deleted by author. -- TexMurphy 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply from the author: i work for 20 year as an artist visual performance and exhibition in many countries. And i am a pioneer in visual art starting at a time were even the word "visualart" was not existent. I was as artist in EXPO Sevilla 1992, at ARTCORE_05 in paris, made visual performance in front of 400.000 people last year, what must happen to be accepted in wikipedia? Be an artist for 150 years? I don´t know a lot about wikipedia policy but i see a lot entries accepted from thing less important than my 20 years of hard work in art. How can i change the entry 2 be not deleted? ElGeko 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per MER-C, VSCA all the way. The Rambling Man 14:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources assert notability & confirm priority claims of the article. `'mikka 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Turgidson 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemen of Apokalips articles[edit]

Zorrm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roggra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Azraeuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yurrd the Unknown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles are each about a non-notable character who appears in at most three pages of a comic book that came out last week. None of them spoke. I was going to merge these into one article, but there wasn't even enough to justify that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - zero real world significance, merely plot summaries. MER-C 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fancruft - rernst 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:FICT, as minor characters in a fictional work that isn't verifiable through reliable sources. No indication that enough reliable coverage can be found even for a merge to a "List of minor characters in ..." list. Barno 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Clinton[edit]

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

Unsourced article, claim to fame is winning a competition with an unknown number of participants and no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to University of Melbourne. Content already merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Esteem[edit]

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

This material has just been copy/pasted from the relevant subheading on University of Melbourne. Given it is highly specific to UniMelb, there is no reason for it to have a page in its own right. Especially since it adds nothing new from the original section. Suicup 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is how to do it but, i've stated why there needs to be an extra site specifically dealing with growing esteem: Growing Esteem is significant because it is seen by some as a harbinger of a new two-tiered higher education system in Australia. The plan has been endorsed by the federal government as part of its plans to 'diversify' higher education institutions.

It is an important plan of greater significance than just melbourne university. I believe there may be a significant amount of searches on wikipedia for 'growing esteem' , and if this article is deleted people will not be able to find anything. Maxyk 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into University of Melbourne. If really pushed, create a redirect. The Rambling Man 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this has a relationship with the implementation of the Bologna process in Australia, which is likely to become an important issue, although I'm not sure that this article is a useful contribution to the subject.--Grahamec 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, probably important enough to be mentioned in the university article, but there's no way this is notable enough for its own article. Lankiveil 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common newspaper names[edit]

List of common newspaper names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a list of names. No encyclopedic value. Jvhertum 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expis.tk[edit]

Expis.tk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A software library with no notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Google hasn't heard of it. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 12:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADFE-Français du Monde[edit]

ADFE-Français du Monde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no references provided. Prod removed without comment. Marasmusine 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page is almost orphaned with only 4 pages linking to it, besides AFD. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Coordination[edit]

Creative Coordination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Creative Control (DVD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable instructional DVDs. Unsourced. Contested prods. MER-C 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. Navou banter 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Indian School[edit]

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

Merely a directory entry. No evidence of notability, no sources, no external links, no prose and no prod tag; nothing. MER-C 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion, CSDA7. yandman 13:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NetSpend Corporation[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy deletion, but the article makes certain assertions of notability: A few (minor) awards, a spokesperson, and a claim that they are the largest prepaid debit card processor and marketer in the United States today. No opinion. yandman 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to have been created by a single-purpose account, content reads like marketing (but is not copyvio, at least not that I can tell) and could use a bit of a rewrite but its claims of notability appear to be substantiated. Flakeloaf 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep almost skipped over this one. At first glance they are notable, but of course it needs 3rd party documentation, like almost everything that come here. I have put a fairly detailed suggestion about how to go about it on the article talk page. Unusually, the ed. asserts on the talk p. that he is writing about the company & wants to write about others, thus implying he is not part of it. DGG 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although if someone wants to work on this per the concerns below, I will make the content available to you. W.marsh 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAX (Dance Dance Revolution)[edit]

MAX (Dance Dance Revolution) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft, unverifiable, original research, you name it. Moogy (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fan/listcruft and definitely WP:OR in there. The Rambling Man 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 100% WP:OR. yandman 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Super incredicruft that doesn't belong in anything non-DDR oriented that even tries to be serious. It's also a gross violation of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR. Voretus 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. may need a lot of adjusting to became an wikipedic article --Euzebia Zuk 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition of major revamps This could work as an article, but as it stands right now, it's got one source. 'Dat's bad. -Ryanbomber 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition of major revamps. I think this series of songs is significant enough to grant an article (there are other articles on DDR song series). But as it is now, it's just fancruft and repeated info from other DDR articles. Pi (π) 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBS University Cooperations[edit]

EBS University Cooperations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of schools that may or may not have a relationship with the focal school (all relationship cells are "?"). Unreferenced, unclear, not really notable Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above comment. Wikipedia is not an organization's web page Corpx (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Higgins[edit]

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

Missing assertion of notability? Although admittedly he does yield a number of Google hits, including an IMDb entry. — Timwi 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed, no notability asserted, and definitely WP:COI. The Rambling Man 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten limited to notability Keep if rewrote limited to notability The critereon is multiple non-trivial mentions by independent sources. He has mention at BBC and Times - two equals multiple. The article sucks The article has nothing to do with his notability as underground explorer and is currently vanity spam, but that it no reason to delete Keep if rewritten such that the subject matter meets the inclusion threshold for the notable factors, per the two media articles. But this needs a complete rewrite! --Kevin Murray 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Updated. --Kevin Murray 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the policies also include conflicts of interest - Higgins has written this page himself... The Rambling Man 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counter-Comment Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, under the section "Creating an article about yourself", writing an autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. I certainly am skeptical about autobios, but if it qualifies in all regards, it may be legitimate. --Kevin Murray 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Houdini[edit]

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

Nonsensical and irrelevant. Green Eyes On Television 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to "keep". I am not persuaded by the arguments that individual episodes are not notable: how then could they be awarded Emmy Awards? I also understand that this is a work in progress, in common with most of Wikipedia, and that older seasons will be brought into line. The delete arguments mostly appear to amount to "smash them all" which is hardly in the spirit of constructing an encyclopedia. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1:00PM-2:00PM (24 season 6), 2:00PM-3:00PM (24 season 6), 3:00PM-4:00PM (24 season 6), 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6), 5:00PM-6:00PM (24 season 6), 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6), 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6), 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6), 8:00PM-9:00PM (24 season 6), 9:00PM-10:00PM (24 season 6), 10:00PM-11:00PM (24 season 6), 11:00PM-12:00AM (24 season 6)[edit]

Virtually no content in any of these articles. Z388 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - no deletion reason provided; being blank is just a argumentum ad ignorantiam, all the pages listed above will have content by the 17th of April, seems illogical to delete them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Standard episode pages about to be filled in. - Peregrine Fisher 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for practicality. It's not worth deleting them all to be recreated gradually (count this as ignoring rules if someone says this is crystalballery). Trebor 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. dposse 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough, once the episodes will air. In my opinion it's stupid to create these pages before the eps are aired, it will only encourage these kinds of nominations though. Still once they are there, no reason to delete them. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these articles are pointless - other articles have separate articles for episodes because each episode is a self-contained story. 24 is different as each episode is part of a single series-long story. These are episode articles for the sake of it - i.e. just created because other shows have them. (Same applies to all 24 episodes). -- Chuq 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete / maybe merge, per Chuq and other concerns. While I'm usually not a fan of individual episode articles anyways, Chuq is right in that the unique nature of 24 makes these types of articles just stupid (even if you love episode articles, why organize the plot summary like this?). This same logic can be applied to the reason I normally (but certainly not always) discourage individual episode articles, the individual episodes are not independently notable nor do they need to be split for page size concerns. It's this kind of preemptive article creation that leads to the massive misconception about episode articles. WP:NOT#IINFO #7, we are not plot summaries, and other uses of plot summary don't need this kind of formatting. It's being done just because that's what someone did for other episode articles. These episodes, aired or not, shouldn't be formatted this way, even if you like episode articles. -- Ned Scott 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed that no other season of 24 has episode articles, they instead use season articles. I'm thinking this has had to come up for discussion before in the other five seasons.. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all' - I propose that we create season articles instead of individual episode articles. As others have said, episode articles don't really work for 24, and a single season episode which contains the whole season plot plus any other relevant information would be much better and easier to follow for readers. Jayden54 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the Season 1-5 article pages for 24, which indicate that there's a strong way for the entire season to be covered within the scope of one article. Individual episodes are non-notable and might make reading a jarring, unpleasant experience. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Jayden54 and Ned Scott. If articles are kept, rename to titles that people are actually likely to search for. A Train take the 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the other seasons do not have episode articles, we don't need them for this season. I support a season article and maybe a link to the 24 Wiki could be provided. The 24 Wiki has episode articles for every episode between Day 1: 12:00am-1:00am to Day 6 11:00am-12:00pm and probably beyond that as well. --Barinade2151 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all reasons given above. Having these makes even less sense for 24 than it does for other series Madmedea 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a Season 6 article to stay in-step with the rest of the articles on this subject, unless there is a compelling reason why Season 6 warrants this treatment. Arakunem 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator Comment While I of course would hate to see my articles deleted, I do understand they need content. Content which hasn't been provided yet, via Fox. I do believe that we need individual articles to cover each episode. One reason would be the spoiler, some people may want to only read one episode. Second, usually the episodes are covered a bit more in-depth; and you shouldn't really pile them into one larger article. External links to the 24 wiki, while nice, discredit what we are here to provide. One large source of information, to research and look things up. Somitho 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    External inks to the 24 wiki don't discredit us.. If anything it helps us by directing editors to the proper place for high level of plot detail. As for the spoiler concern, that's pretty much nabbed in the ass by us not being censored. (Although I do think it is acceptable to write plot summary in a chronological sense. For example: "Jimmy went to the mall, is ok" but " Jimmy, who later died, went to the mall" is needless.) -- Ned Scott 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - articles can be created if they make sense after they have aired or have some semblance of actual content. In any case, the structure of the show doesn't lend itself to episode article anyways. -- Whpq 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:FICT. A season summary (when supported by independent sources, not by Fox broadcasting the episodes) is plenty. Episode articles are excessive detail for encyclopedic coverage and fall within what Wikipedia is not. Barno 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per other arguments to that affect. Soltak | Talk 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All No guarantee that people will actually write in these articles, and having an article with no content "just to be filled in" is crystal ballery. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that episode articles are rarely a good idea and even on shows like The Simpsons you just end up with a plot summary and a ridiculous trivia section.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all since the episodes have not yet aired, and essentially there's nothing we can say about them other than existence. I've never watched the show and so can't speak to the wider issue of if individual episode articles make sense for 24; while I'm generally in favor of episode articles, I see that Category:24 (TV series) episodes does not contain anything for seasons 1-4. BryanG(talk) 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No point deleting them when they will all just be recreated gradually after each episode airs.-PassionoftheDamon 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that they won't.. we've been using season articles instead of individual articles for the past five seasons. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. I know, because i wrote the episodes articles for the past three seasons while the episode was airing. It was only months later before someone decided to remove them. dposse 12:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual articles like this is not appropriate encyclopedical content. In fact I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAN is referred to on this and all the 24 articles. Whilst yes a popular programme, each hour does not deserve an individual article. One 24 article outlining the plot and outcomes would be sufficient--PrincessBrat 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - They are appropriate in a television encyclopedia, which is one of the many things that wikipedia is. - Peregrine Fisher 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To delete these articles but keep separate articles for countless other shows, even those with a sequential plot, would be inconsistent to say the least. If the consensus turns out to be to delete these, then it should be applied to the hundreds of other articles like these for dozens of other series'. Goodnightmush 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual episodes are not inherently notable. /Blaxthos 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge into an overall summary etc Whilding87 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons stated by others in favor of keeping --IvanKnight69 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I like this format, it is easier to read. Also no reason to delete later articles just to later re-create them. Superbowlbound 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the intention of many of the "Delete all" votes here is that this applies to 24 episodes in general, not just un-aired ones. -- Chuq 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Act of War: Final Option[edit]

Act_of_War:_Final_Option (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

There is no official announcement of this game. --SkyWalker 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The Rambling Man 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Proposed"? "Popular"? "Unknown"? "It has been said"? Not much more needs to be said. --- RockMFR 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, esp. crystal ball. YechielMan 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Dao[edit]

Not notable losing contestnt on a reality television show. No claim to notability outside the show. Difficult to find references that are not PR from the article. Mikeblas 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was actually the winner of the reality show and a notable fashion designer in her own right. I'm also not sure what "PR from the article" means. Can we stop this continuous campaign waged by a few people (and their sockpuppets) to delete articles for contestants from Bravo reality programs. You may not like the shows. It doesn't mean the contestants, and especially the finalists, and winners, are not worthy of articles here. Crunch 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The motivation behind creating the article notwithstanding, the Bravo link is a reliable source. More sources to establish the subject's notability "in her own right" would definitely help things along, though. Flakeloaf 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the winner (as opposed to an also-ran) of a reality TV series. -- Whpq 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won the show, and I can't think of a better reason why this article should be deleted. --- Tito Pao 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won Project Runway and deserves to have her entry here.Scarletsmith 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed with all of the above; she won. Also, she was invited to the opening ceremonies of the Smithsonian's "Exit Saigon, Enter Little Saigon" Vietnamese American exhibit, and as such, was listed under "other dignitaries in attendance" by the weekly newspaper Asian Week (1/26/07). Sounds pretty notable to me. Mel21clc 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no third-party evidence of substantial notability. DumbBOT, please read WP:RS; Bravo's website is not an independent source about a Bravo program. I don't evaluate "other 'dignitaries' invited to the opening of one museum exhibit" as showing any significant notability by WP's standards. I'm neutral as to whether winning this televised quasi-competition is itself notable enough; if some genuinely independent publications said more than "here was this little show, so-and-so won, they'll do another round of it next year", and showed some lasting influence, and if it's cited, then I'd be much more in favor of keeping the article. If all the coverage is like that (and I assume some will be found), then a merge and redirect to Project Runway would be more appropriate. Barno 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. For example, the Forbes article already linked there; others easily found by Google like Washington Post 2006-03-09 (the links at the bottom of the article seem to have expired). cab 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. She is the winner of a notable reality TV show, and further meets WP:N per the primary notability criterion (as described by cab above). In addition to cab's Washington Post link above, the article already cites CNN, Forbes, and the Houston Chronicle. Other sources on Dao: a People article and a July 12, 2006 article from the Sacramento Bee. schi talk 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Quinn (footballer)[edit]

Sean Quinn (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Never played a league game, so fails WP:BIO on that account. Suggest text merged into Micky Quinn and this article deleted WikiGull 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- have also put afd tag on Staniforth. Patterson does appear to have played for Wycombe, so is fair enough. WikiGull 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never played a professional match, delete per nom and WP:BIO. Qwghlm 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Qwghlm - and no need for merging any of this into Micky Quinn. - fchd 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one sentence in his brother's article ChrisTheDude 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Micky Quinn per ChrisTheDude. The Rambling Man 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Micky Quinn. --Skully Collins Edits 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. No objection to redirect, however not sure what should be merged - so far we don't have any sources. Addhoc 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I dont know much about soccer/football hierarchy, so what kind of team was he on? I looked at the articles on the teams, but it still all looks Greek to me! Is he an amateur player? A pro player? Something in between? - grubber 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was contracted to Liverpool F.C., a professional club and generally considered one of the biggest clubs not only in England but in all of Europe, and was later contracted to Portsmouth F.C. another professional club, however in both cases he never made it beyond the youth (most likely under 19) team ChrisTheDude 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is being on the "youth team" like being a red-shirt freshman in the US? It's prep for the day you finally do get to play with the "real" team? Or is it more like a loose association to the actual pro team, like when two cities are "Sister Cities" or when a high school has a "sister school" in another country? If he got "high" enough in the ranks, I would consider him notable. I think his early death is an interesting fact, though I want to make sure he accomplished enough before that to justify his own article. - grubber 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing sourced so nothing to merge. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry's Old Geezers/Gals[edit]

Terry's_Old_Geezers/Gals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

completely without merit. Joke article. All relevant content is already in Terry Wogan. Nssdfdsfds 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he ever uses the terms. He often says 'togs', but never the expanded form. The togs redirect is ok.Nssdfdsfds 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Staniforth[edit]

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

Not notable as a footballer and I don';t think all people who die from drug misuse are notable either. Suggest include details in his fathers page (Gordon Staniforth) WikiGull 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Qwghlm - fchd 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into his dad's page, although that page could do with some work as the info merged from here would most likely be longer than the content on the page's actual subject ChrisTheDude 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To quote WP:BIO: "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.". Any player to have stepped onto the pitch for Sheffield Wednesday F.C. passes WP:BIO... therefore this player passes the notability criteria, even though he never got off the bench. --Dweller 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely that covers current squad members, who are still an active part of the club (as per the present tense in "the individual is at a club...."), not random blokes from several years back whose career highlight was being an unused sub....? ChrisTheDude 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting reply, thanks. I don't believe it's clear that that is the case . If it were, I'd certainly expect the language to include the word "yet" between "have not" and "made a first team appearance". Under the current language, it seems to be inclusive of current and former. --Dweller 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • NB I have posted at WT:BIO in an effort to correct this ambiguity one way or the other, so that future similar AfDs can have a clearer steer from policy. --Dweller 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with his father's article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it interesting and informative. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this doesn't fail WP:BIO, Sheffield Wednesday F.C. first team squad member unless ChrisTheDude's interpretation of "current" is correct. It's certainly ambiguous. He does gain some additional notability from his untimely demise. However, the article does lack WP:RS and needs some to pass WP:V. It shouldn't be too difficult to provide some. The Rambling Man 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gordon Staniforth. Catchpole 10:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the relevant information is in his father's article. HornetMike 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: reference it, and then we'll see if the references support notability. Everyking 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. No objection to redirect, however not sure what should be merged - so far we don't have any sources. Addhoc 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added references to his father's page. WikiGull 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Gordon Staniforth, I seem to remember his death being mentioned on the News Kingjamie 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vosovic[edit]

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

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" after the show ended. Little written about them, aside from PR splash from the show. Mikeblas 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable runner up in non-notable reality show. The Rambling Man 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reality show also-ran with no notability outside the show. -- Whpq 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g10 attack. NawlinWiki 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heza09[edit]

Heza09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A short bio of user on multiple forums. No actual notability. Could be noted that the user has mistaken using the main wiki for a Userpage? Skully Collins Edits 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Good to see an effort made, but it only demonstrated the original point that there are no reliable sources for this subject. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower defense[edit]

Complete lack of sourcing. A google search doesn't readily reveal any reliable sources. Almost all links are to a flash game of the same name, or downloads pages for websites for maps with this title or the occasional forum. Any information derived from those is original research. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep this article. Crossmr 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR. The Rambling Man 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails core requirements. Trebor 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced original research. -- Whpq 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. /Blaxthos 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful: the term TD and the idea behind it is not obvious to non-native english speakers, and occasional gamers. The article requires clean-up, that's for sure, but it describes an existing term and game-genre even if it's as special as it is. --Shinjin 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't a glossary. The article requires sources for which there is a total lack of. Just because its useful doesn't mean it can be kept in the face of non-negotiable policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Hence why I pointed to WP:ILIKEIT this is not a valid argument for keeping an article.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tower defense is a growing genre in gaming and needs an entry, even if it's not the most well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    If it can't be sourced, it doesn't get an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came to this article directly, looking for info. There's no reason to delete the whole article, it just needs to be improved. Having a stubbed article is not grounds for deletion. Ellisonch 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a few citations Ellisonch 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the provided links I can see that a website has a map which bears the title of being tower defense and blizzard has released a map with that name. Beyond that the world eater website publishes tutorials submitted by users. Is there any evidence to support the fact that "SD_Ryoko" is any kind of authority on Tower defense or that world eater certifies the content of his tutorial to be correct and accurate with editorial oversight?--Crossmr 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are two more links to sources, including one on a Warcraft wiki. If this subgenre were limited to Warcraft exclusively, I could understand hesitation in documenting it due to its possible obscurity. However, there have been custom maps in other games such as UT2004, and, as you noted yourself, a proliferation of flash games. --Ellisonch 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other wiki's cannot be used as sources on wikipedia. They're not reliable. There also hasn't been a proliferation of flash games, just one specifically named itself tower defense, so any search for it is flooded with flash sites mirroring that particular game. As far as I know there have only been 2 or 3 made.--Crossmr 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original point: no, having a stubbed article is not grounds for deletion, but if there are no sources then it is. A wiki isn't a reliable source. Trebor 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Bromodifluoroacetylchloride[edit]

Keep (nomination withdrawn) by Diez2

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

Has been prodded and de-prodded many times. There is no information on the substance in question other than its chemical formula and IUPAC official name. There is no verification either. I'm sure the article could be expanded (maybe), and I would really like to prod this (so that anyone can raise it back from the dead), but I would like to have this deleted until anyone can come up with more info on the substance. Diez2 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete unless someone can show this substance exists somewhere, even theoretically, other than a list of compounds put together in a textbook. Citicat 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Neutral as per Beetstra Citicat 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no ghits other than wikipedia mirrors and random-word spam sites. JulesH 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reacts with deletium peroxide to form /dev/null and a brief mention in the middle of the bromide yellow pages (red pages?). Flakeloaf 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a real-world compound. NIST has a mass spectrum of it, and it's commercially available (from Matrix Scientific and Oakwood Chemical). Asking for "Verification" of data such as MW and formula doesn't make sense...they are "obvious" from the name. DMacks 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't doubt its existence, but aside from "This compound exists" the article is completely devoid of content. Does every chemical compound in existence merit its own encyclopedia entry? Flakeloaf 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. I was responding to the above comments suggesting it isn't even real. However, I'd say Delete, unless it's somehow practically useful or scientifically interesting in some way.Keep, now that it's got a documented use. I don't think we have good guidelines for notability of chemicals, so "it's got a documented use and is available" makes it viable for me. DMacks 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added a use to it (though there are not many uses for this compound reported). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a contributor to many chemical articles on Wikipedia, my bias is towards creating and keeping as many as is feasible. But there are ~30 million chemical compounds reported in scientific literature - and they were all made for some purpose. I can find no evidence in Chemical Abstracts that this compound has been used more than a few times as a minor intermediate in producing something else. There has to be a higher level of notability than the minimal utility this compound displays in order to deserve a Wikipedia page. I suspect this page may have been created as a test - even the original author posted a "delete" comment of the article's talk page in response to one of the earlier proposed deletions. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since sources and a use have been found. Krimpet 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Krimpet --Lee Vonce 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If it has a source for its usage, it's good enough. However, if it were a musician rather than a chemical, I might vote for deletion for its having less than 50 nonwiki ghits. YechielMan 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment: I think we should... Oh yah! I can't leave a comment as per WP:SOCK --SockingIt 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Seeing minor improvements, I withdraw this nomination, although I still believe the article needs to be expanded greatly. Diez2 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only claimed source isn't. If it's real terminology, it's obsolete and will never be more than a dicdef. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bifurcated channel signaling[edit]

Bifurcated channel signaling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dicdef, I don't see much room for expansion. It's been here since March 2005 and there has been nothing added since. Contested prod. Sable232 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge. Nobody has said there's anything wrong with the information. Might or might deserve a separate article. I contested the deletion proposal, writing "This article is a valid stub. It can grow beyond a dictionary definition. The solution is to expand it, not to delete it." Wikipedia allows stubs (there are about a million) and has no deadline. Fg2 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not clear that this term has *any* Google hits (as a fully quoted string of three words), except those derived from Wikipedia. Probably it's an obsolete terminology. No need for us to have an article on it; it could be misleading to our readers if we offer the term but can provide no context. EdJohnston 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, but with what? The definition appears to be correct but without more of an article to clothe it with not much can be learned from it. Flakeloaf 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a huge number of similar jargon nano-articles sitting in Category:Telecommunications stubs into the Glossary of telecommunications, since they are copied from glossaries of Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188, as these nano-articles say. `'mikka 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of them are stubs with potential for expansion. The FS 1073C articles require a more discriminatory approach than that. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up has been a slowly on-going project for over a year, now. I suggest that editors read read the prior discussion to familiarize themselves with the whole issue before commenting. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fg2 is quite right that we don't delete stubs simply because they haven't been expanded yet. We only delete stubs if there is no possibility for expansion of the article beyond perpetual stub status. Furthermore, as stated, if editors want to deal with the FS 1073C articles, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up first. Blanket mergers and blanket deletion nominations are not the best ways to proceed.

    However, having said that, this is not an FS 1073C article. The article claims that it is sourced from FS 1073C. But I've just checked the two on-line versions linked to from Federal Standard 1037C#External links, and this concept is not listed. Several different searches lead me to no other sources.

    It's worth noting that many of the the FS 1073C articles were created en bloc by 213.253.40.156 (talk · contribs) in 2002. This article was created by Wanton creation (talk · contribs) in 2005, and is that person's sole contribution. It is possible that it is hoax.

    Therefore: This is a stub that has no (valid) sources, and for which no sources can be found after a reasonable search. It cannot be expanded beyond perpetual stub status; the only sources that it cites prove to be false; and, looking, I can find no alternative sources to use. Therefore this is both an unexpandable stub and unverifiable, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that means delete. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for taking a closer attention and investigating. Now that you suggested a potential vandalism, I did some more nosing around and see that the article was created by a slight tweaking of the Separate channel signaling. So I am changing my vote. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Pegg, Jr.[edit]

This article got created on Jan 25, 2007 by Pleasantville. It was speedy deleted in a day or two by SlimVirgin per A7 (not-notability). Prompted by Pleasantville herself, and also by KSmrq, I restored it to have it go through the usual AfD process. Here are the arguments by these two people I have seen. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(from Talk:Ed Pegg, Jr.)
... Wikipedia cites the guy twelve times or so (I made some links but his name was tehre already.) That's why I made him an entry. He's notable enough for you to use his work and cite him freqently, but not notable enough to have an entry? .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26 03:37:57 utc (UTC)
(from User talk:Oleg Alexandrov)
I haven't seen the articles, but I'm slightly familiar with the name of an Ed Pegg, Jr., who is fairly well-known for puzzles, such as this MAA collection. If you restored his article I would ask to keep it. Three years of regular puzzles for a solid mathematics organization, by itself, establishes notability; and a little searching should show more, since '"Ed Pegg"' (in quotation marks) turns up tens of thousands of hits. --KSmrqT 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(These comments do not preclude Pleasantville and KSmrq from commenting again below, of course.) So I wonder what the community at large thinks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this was a valid deletion for having "no assertion of notability." Of course, if people know the person to be notable, and flesh out the article to explain why, then the situation would be quite different. Insofar as the users above think he ought to be kept, and noting the fact that he appears in various other articles, I hope that this happens over the course of the present discussion. -- SCZenz 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got 19,400 hits on Google by entering "Ed Pegg Jr". That's a lot of hits for a very precise string like that. I looked at a dozen sites or so ... they all look pretty legitimate to me (i.e., not self-puffery, but posts by other people who are interested in his work). He's not just into recreational math, either. He apparently helped Stephen Wolfram write his book A New Kind of Science, and he's involved somehow in the Mathworld web site. If I can find enough time to dig into it a little bit, I'll add some stuff to the existing article, to address SCZenz' comment. DavidCBryant 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 49 results on Google News Archive including significant publications such as the NYT. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per my comments quoted above. Now that I have had a chance to see the article as deleted, it seems clear that it was missing relevant facts. But then, it was marked a stub. I have expanded it slightly, which I hope will suffice for now. --KSmrqT 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see a lot of value in some of the external links (MathWorld, MKS, NKS forum) in the article as it stands, without a description of Pegg's role in those links. MathPuzzle and Math Games are ok because Pegg is the primary contributer to them, but "contributes online to the associated forum" could be said about millions of non-notable people for various internet forums. I think the standard of notability for a non-professional mathematician such as this should be, not WP:PROF which doesn't make sense for this kind of person, but the general standards of notability for any person, in which we seek reputable publications that have written articles about Pegg. I see several such articles in Dhartung's search and think some of them should be added as references to the WP article. —David Eppstein 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "contributes" phrase (which I added) is not so vague in the context of its use; the emphasis is on his seminal and on-going contribution to the NKS work. Disclaimer: I did not contribute the links you find of little value, and added the NKS remarks in support of others' observations about notability. For me, the MAA reference is sufficient evidence for a "keep".
    If I may suggest an easy way to get some perspective on what really passes for "notable" on Wikipedia, view several random articles per day. (Try the link on the left side of each page.) I just did it five times and got
    In my experience, these are fairly typical. I detest "advertising" articles and realize living persons necessarily draw extra scrutiny. Even so, I think we could ease off the trigger finger just a bit. I happen to recognize Ed Pegg's name, just as I recognize that of David Eppstein; but even someone who did not could quickly check that both have some claim to fame in their respective circles of activity. In fact, I find a disappointing lack of articles on numerous technical people who have an impeccable claim to notability. David will recognize the names of Marshall Bern, Frances Yao, and David Dobkin, for example, none with articles. And Dobkin is now the Dean of Faculty at Princeton University! --KSmrqT 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do recognize those names! And they are clearly worthy subjects for WP, but I'm probably too biased to add articles on them myself. But back to the subject. My complaint about links not adding value is not so much that the links were not relevant, but that their relevance was not sufficiently well explained. I think you can see how the "contributes to a forum" could be read differently than you intended, for instance. The recent edits to the article have helped in this respect. But I think some references to external articles about Pegg from Dhartung's search would make his notability more clear-cut. And since I haven't yet expressed an opinion on the AfD, let me add keep. —David Eppstein 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Krimpet 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pleasantville. -- Dominus 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DavidCBryant. I can't imagine how this was eligible for speedy deletion. My faith in the assumption of good faith, already weakened by the recent Dave Winer deletion episode, is now gone. MarkBernstein 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, primarily per the MAA articles cited by KSmrq. That's a notable magazine and he's a regular columnist. I suspect mathpuzzle.com may be on the verge of notability too, which would be an additional claim. Mike Christie (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Aby Rosen[edit]

Keep (nomination withdrawn) by Diez2.

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

Not much notability, no verification. This article goes in a roundabout way in describing this person's life. The most notable thing he did was to open the club "54", with "some German friends." Incredibly vague, not much info. I say delete. Diez2 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation. This person might be notable (>18,000 ghits, many about real estate), but the article as it stands is unsourced and cannot stay. YechielMan 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Keep based on the revision which asserts notability and provides sources. By the way, this is my first time using the strikethrough feature. YechielMan 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to have improved. Tyrenius 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this guy actually is well-known, I'm surprised the article was in such a state.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - very well known real-estate developer who owns landmark properties throughout New York City, including Lever House. His name gets over 19,000 Google hits. --DavidShankBone 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art fag[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR and WP:WINAD. Metrackle 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concur on WP:WINAD. Belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. Arakunem 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Krimpet 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It also might fail WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. YechielMan 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure why I didn't nominate it the first time. JuJube 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pastordavid 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment::I have to say that not only is this original research, but it can't be anything else, because apparently nobody has written anything on the term, a quick search of all the news sources in the US via lexisnexis gets 5 hits, not so much talking about art fags or the term as much as calling people art fags, although there is one news documented self proclaimed "art fag" at least. Google Scholar has a few hits that are for the word "art fag" instead of some chemistry acronym, but no article describing the term or its rise to popularity or anyone's opinion about it. I would argue that anything relevant you could put on this page is unsourcable, based on these little searches. Apparently, our academic and popular media have nothing to say about it.66.41.66.213 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moving to deletion review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village School Charlottesville Virginia[edit]

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

See previous AfD here

Relisting. A small private school which provides no reliable sources for its notability. Reads as an advertisment as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining as this debate seems to go deeper than first appears. Arakunem 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and until this school (or someone from it) does something of lasting importance, this article finds itself on the wrong side of that line. Flakeloaf 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the principle that the previous deletion debate ended TODAY January 31, 2007. Give it a rest for a few months. It looks like abuse of the AFD process to relist immediately. Edison 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep willing as I normally am to delete articles about non-notable schools, Edison is right. This seems unfair. perhaps it would be possible to change the rules and require a minimum time-- I can not immediately imagine a situation where this would create a problem.DGG 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no time limit on relisting of AfD's. If a person believes consensus is unfair, he may create another discussion at any time. See the perennial proposal on time limit. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I remarked in the last debate, there is no evidence that this school is any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional comment, I'd like to say that I feel that the last debate was closed incorrectly ( that is, by an administrator with a particular bias ), and have no problem with this immediate re-listing. If anyone wishes to challenge the results of other recent school AfD debates closed by the same closing administrator, I will be happy to check, and possibly support, such challenges. I do not at present have substantial confidence that that particular administrator is unbiased, and have indicated accordingly on their talk page. WMMartin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in deletion review and close this afd right now, I don't know why wmarsh closed it has no consensus, while the article did approve some, there is still obvious problems with the sources, which was only the school page and some other website that said that the school exists with 64 students no where close to reliable, and I would have closed that as delete. But relisting this in afd a day after it was closed wasn't a good idea, instead dispute the close on DRV. Jaranda wat's sup 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like a good job for a template. W.marsh 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States of America, Tom Clancy novels[edit]

President of the United States of America, Tom Clancy novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is better implemented as a category, in my opinion. It is, however, currently being used in "succession boxes", so I'm not "prod"ing it. — CJewell (talk to me) 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and resurrect it as a category. If the list were more expansive I'd suggest List of Presidents in Tom Clancy Novels but there are only five of them. Flakeloaf 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to template seems logical. --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorize per above. YechielMan 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: someone has created a template that already organizes these presidents in chronological order. Category is unnecessary. Danski14 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete both W.marsh 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Ahmed Dockrat[edit]

Farhad Ahmed Dockrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Junaid Ismail Dockrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is newsworthy, not encyclopedia-worthy. These two individuals are not notable in and of themselves, their claim to notability rests on their being named as potential terrorist suspects by the US. Not enough for their own articles, and quite possibly not even enough to be mentioned on a list if there was one. Zunaid©® 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this article because these two individuals not only represent person who are currently making headlines within south africa but represent a very interesting about South Africa's presidence at the UN Security Council as well as both South African and US relations as well as the USA's activities at the UN. Finally it is another point on the perpetual debate of what is a terrorist. A google search for "junaid dockrat" returns 380 returns. The article is not there because they are declared potential terrorist subjects but the issues that that declarations have created. If the exact same issue was happening, except the accused was residing within America i'm sure a much more extensive article would have been created about them. —The preceding ry of the event is of drastic importance, had these two been citizens of Germany we would not be having this discussion. Secondly, the two individuals have not been arrested, please research the incident properly before requesting a deletion. Even if they had been that is not the issue, the issue is the international media attention surrounding the incident. Thunsigned comment was added by Aliwalla (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 January 2007 UTC.
    • Their country of origin (which happens to be mine too) isn't the question here. The crux of the issue comes down to whether persons or entities mentioned in the news qualify to be encyclopedia-worthy. I have doubts they would pass the 10-year test, much less a 1-year test. While the incident may throw up interesting debate (and may WELL be deserving of an article, especially if it results in an extradition order and/or international court case), the two people are not in and of themselves notable and don't automatically gain notability just by being arrested, no matter how unusual or rare the charge is. The distinction is important. There is a difference between the notability of an event and the notability of the people involved in the event. (This is similar to those murdered cops we had on AfD a few weeks ago. The murders may well have been unusual and article-worthy, but the cops themselves didn't gain sufficient notability just by being killed in the line of duty.) Zunaid©® 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fistly, when it comes to notability the countirdly, cops are murdered on a daily basis, the questioning of the declaration of persons as terror suspects by the UN security council and the subsequent issues over what this means for South Africa's position on the UN Security Council and it's soverignty is important. If you would think it would be best to combine the two articles into an incident article then do so. The point of the articles is to convey, to the reader, the relevant information pertaining to a current event in South Africa that involves the UN, Al-Qaeda, the South African Government and its foreign policy and the American governmnet and its foreign policy. I fail to see why you feel something that has been frontpage news in South Africa - and has appeared in the international press - in the past couple of days will be forgotten in ten years. --Aliwalla 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete To be one of the great number of people that the us suspects of terroism is , unfortunately, not notable. And there isnt really any more to the article than that. DGG 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per requester and DGG Netuser500 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps a userfy would be a good option to allow the article to be rewritten in terms of the incident rather than the people involved. Zunaid©® 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed: Perhaps "2007 South African Terror Listings" ? I'll try to put something together soon --Aliwalla 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now appears to pass WP:BIO. A merger in the future could be wise. Addhoc 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Adhoc notes, Farhad Ahmed Dockrat does seem to pass WP:BIO; as for his brother Junayd, I'd merge his article in that of Farhad, as he is clearly the less relevant of the two.--Aldux 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC) A Train take the 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, being listed by the UN Security Council as a suspect seems unusually notable by default. The news wires and Google show ample coverage of this case, so it is not just one of many terror suspects. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not inherently worthy of being chronicled. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of items. Unlike someone like, say, Jose Padilla who has actually made changes and such, merely being listed as a terrorist suspect isn't very notable. I'm sure the US has hundreds of such lists and merely being on a list does not entitle you to an article. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and repeat, shall I head down to the police station and see who all has a warrant out today? WP:NOT paper, perhaps, but this is the wrong URL. The correct one for news articles is here. Seraphimblade 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- Zunaid©® 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as more suited to Wikinews than wikipdeia. Edison 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Gemnoviag[edit]

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

Apparent hoax presented as reality, with no reliable sources. A similar page -- Micronation of Gemnoviag -- was apparently speedily deleted before, and the user warned about vandalism. PubliusFL 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. This appears to be a hoax. No externally verifiable information exists. Google search only turns up other Wiki entries. Arakunem 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Purported currency?! Hoaxes are technically not speedy deletion candidates, but I would support quick deletion here, perhaps via WP:IAR. - Black Falcon 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant fraud. First hits for "Gemnoviag" pull up two other wikis with completely different flags, histories, locations, etc. Improbcat 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. dcandeto 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I also support quick deletion suggested above. Natalie 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. According to the "censored" page listed as a reference, Gemnoviag is actually in Idaho. The article defies any sort of claim of being verifiable. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Cool Hand Luke 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Keenan[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion but contested. There is an assertion of notability here as the subject is a published author, though I'm not sure he meets WP:BIO. Regardless I figured it was only fair to give this the benefit of a community review. This is a procedural nomination, I have no real opinion here.--Isotope23 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is a notable writer in South Africa - he's been writing for decades and has had numerous books published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistermister80 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep but only if sources assuring WP:N are found. Google News Archive had a handful of scattered boxing writings of his. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There is insufficient information now, and like Dhartung I hope more will be found. DGG 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming the article is sourced. I briefly searched on google, but because the man is an author it was hard to find the things written about him, as opposed to simply by him. He's at least written a lot, which is a start. Natalie 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's a notable writer and has some sigiificant achievements - including the fact that he was one of the few S.A. writers to stand up to the establishment in his older writings— Preceding unsigned comment added by Injinchee (talk • contribs)
  • Don't change the Header You are breaking the linking that would allow anyone participating in this AfD to actually read the article. I also note that there are a couple of new users that are single purpose accounts at this time in regards to editing the Ronan Keenan article and this discussion. I'm not accusing anyone of anything at this point but I'm just going to toss out WP:SOCK for some light reading so we hopefully don't see a bunch more new editors suddenly show up here.--Isotope23 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and reference i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep article has been updated and sourced.--mistermister80
  • Please only add keep or delete once per discussion.--Isotope23 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Pro Wrestling[edit]

Varsity Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See User talk:24.97.115.162 and User talk:Paulley, and my talk page, for some background on this. The anon has taken issue to this article and wants its deletion (I'm filing this AfD on the anon's behalf), believing it to be non-notable. The article itself doesn't have much sourcing, and it doesn't have any of the independent sources I'd expect to demonstrate notability. I don't know too much about this subject, though. I'm starting this AfD both because there has been a serious request (which to me is not worth rejecting out of hand) for the article's deletion, and because once the relevant arguments for keep/delete come out, hopefully the dispute between the anon and Paulley should calm down somewhat. --ais523 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy/Strong Keep: i wasnt really a disput cus i have never talked to this anon user before. Anyway as for the article yes some more sourcing is required and i am in the mist of doing that... the promotion its self is a notable pro wrestling school bringing in national and international stars alike including Billy Gunn (who made his first UK indy appearance with the promotion and made a second tour last year) and now are set to bring in All Japan Pro Wrestling star Suwama (recent newspost here). The actual promotion was apart of the Revolution British Wrestling territory system as RBW Southwest until RBW closed and The UK Kid turned the promotion into his own school. --- Paulley
Comment: lol i had a look at this user and i think he has mistaken me for User:RobJ1981, who put his promotions page up for deletion... i was one of the people trying to help him (and his various sockpuppets) to make the promotion's page Squared Circle Wrestling justifiable (see here) --- Paulley
Referencing is now included -- Paulley
  • Strong delete Anyone with money and a wrestling promotion can hire an international wrestler, it doesn't make the promotion notable. There's no independent coverage, the sources are basically press releases posted on UK wrestling news and rumour sites. There's no non-trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The promotion is a split off of a notable territory system... as is a highly regarded pro wrestling school... hiring international talent isnt exactly non-notable esspecially if your bring over highly regarded stars into the country professionally for the first time. Their really is some bias against promotions and wrestlers of the UK on this site... i can list loads of non notable, poorly written American promotions that seem to hang around -- Paulley
Comment Why is it notable? If it's notable, provide sources to show that. Excuse me for not simply accepting your word that is is notable, but I think you should know Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Ditto for highly regarded, you need to cite sources to show that. As for your accusation of anti-UK bias, incorrect. I'm from the UK, and know that VPW tend to run shows in one area of the country that aren't particularly notable, correct me if I'm wrong didn't the Billy Gunn show draw about 120 fans? That isn't a criticism as I know how the UK wrestling scene struggles, but I'm more than happy to !vote (and have done so in the past) for American promotions that are of similar size. One Night In Hackney 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry having a bit of a bad day.. just a little annoyed that this only came up because an anon user was sending personal attacks to my user page all afternoon. Though it has infact caused me and other users too improved the page alot... im all for referencing and such these days (i tend to do that more now than i do adding info). Anyway RBW's territory system though short lived did cover the whole of England (which is notable, cus the last time that happend was Joint Promotions which was again short lived after management changes) this is the history of the South West territory that has numorous hits on google (just under its current name), and has several internal links from other wikipedia articles. I just think this article is in a lot better shape than dozens of other promotion articles on wikipedia and has been referenced to the best of my abillity... and if that's not enough then there isnt much else i can do.. ---Paulley 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google hits are slightly misleading, due to spamming of forums with VPW press releases. A Google search ignoring Wikipedia returns 46 unique hits. One Night In Hackney 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1stopwrestling isnt an anti-wrestling pressure group. it also appears on wrestletalkradio.com, bournemouth.gov.uk, eyesonexeter.com 88.108.158.148 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WTR article is simply a reprint of an press release sent in by notorious forum spammer Adam Gard. The other articles are just as bad, nothing but advertising blurbs. One Night In Hackney 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources have improved, but there is still a complete lack of newspaper articles. That would fit with the absence of hits in Google News that are later than 2005. A poster above claims that www.1stopwrestling.co.uk is anti-wrestling, but I don't believe that's the case. I think it's a general site for wrestling info, though as a self-published web site, it wouldn't be classed as a reliable source for factual issues. I agree with User:One Night In Hackney that notability remains to be shown. The wrestlepedia link doesn't work. EdJohnston 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you feel those articles should not be on Wikipedia, you are free to nominate them for deletion. Other crap exists is an argument to be avoided, as it does not address the problems with this article. One Night In Hackney 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. i can think of only one newspaper the this may have appeared and that would be The UK's Daily Star paper that has a wrestling section on sundays (i think).. im sure the Billy Gunn appearances would have been mentioned. I will see if i can find some online transcrips or something though that is a long shot... a very much doubt i will be able to find anything though... its not like i know people that archeive papers or anything lol! --- Paulley
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich[edit]

Article topic is non notable, google search results in 110 hits including wikipedia and other similar stuff. No reliable sources are provided for this alleged rabbi the whole article is full with unsourced original research with sentences like: "The speech may have been invented by Eustace Mullins or Strom Thurmond". CloneGuard 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Article has a reference, although I don't have access to a copy of the book it is using to check what exactly it substantiates. Anyway, if the text is correct and this name has been used for multiple made-up speeches by antisemites, I think the topic is notable. JulesH 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not an OR: this short article is referenced. We don't want to promote hatred, and many of those ghits are hate sites. Remember Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." All that said, surely our article could and should be improved. FYI, I have removed unsupported allegations. ←Humus sapiens ну? 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article topic is non-Googol-able. The ghits mentioned aren't RS in any case, so there is no reason to use them. More details would help, and there should be some sources from organizations opposing anti-semitism. DGG 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JulesH. Mathmo Talk 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, something there yet no sources to prove it, therefore I suspect that we will be back at this in a month due to WP:V, and if no improvement is made I'll vote the other way Alf photoman 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Shyam Bihari as "A7 Not notable person". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Narayanan Astrologer[edit]

A. Narayanan Astrologer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Marked as a speedy for patent nonsense, but it's not patent nonsense. However, no sources are cited and the article is hard to follow. I cleaned it up a bit so it's actually readable and did a preliminary Google search, but it's not the sort of thing I'd expect to find on Google anyway. I don't have any resources other than Google to look for information on obscure-but-possibly-notable people in India, so thought I'd send it to AFD hopeing that people who work in India-related topics can discern whether this is verifiable or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game)[edit]

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an advertisement for Microsoft's gimmick. It has no sources other than from Microsoft itself; the article doesn't meet WP:CORP (products and services) or WP:WEB. An anon made some edits after I prodded the article, but they didn't address these concerns. Lunch 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Much of this page seems to be advertizing videogame competitions. Anthony Appleyard 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and then STRONG KEEP. Is that called notable!? I would like to answer "YES" to that. Sources? Search in google news or something, and the outcomes are really not disappointing. Here, take it if you don't want to search. (long commentary with links to sources moved to talk page --A Train take the 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)) --202.71.240.18 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -I don't think it should be deleted - yes, although it is a BSP of Windows Vista, it's generated enough attention via huge displays across the world to deserve a wikipedia entry, and people need information. I live in seattle, and me and a few friends caught it by chance. However, we did find a few people who were fascinated, and one guy who came all the way from detroit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hazzayoungn (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Another vote for keep I first learned of VP from the New York Times this evening and came onto Wikipedia for more information. I agree that the article needs to be improved, and I think we can rely on the usual process to make that happen. But that fact that VP is advertising doesn't make it less notable. There's plenty of articles on advertising-related topics in Wikipedia. If the lack of sourcing bothers you, work to improve it, don't just nominate for deletion. Gabriel Roth 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC) A Train take the 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is definately notable; sources can and have been found. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability under WP:SOFTWARE or other guidelines including those at the video-games WikiProject; no indication of sufficient independent reliable coverage to establish notability, as the sources mainly appear to be associated with Microsoft, or to be unverifiable forum posts, or to be minor passing mentions (I haven't gone through all of the refs in detail). WP is not for promotion of commercial promotional activities. Does anything in the VP situation pass the hundred year test? I follow some aspects of the Vista introduction and related issues, and I don't see a reason to say this gimmick will be remembered at all, let alone be considered influential. Barno 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me? Winterborn 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winterborn, for such a new user, your edits to AfDs seem rather unusual. What drew your attention to this AfD? Or have you edited Wikipedia before under another username? Thanks, Lunch 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Were you the anon that edited your comments?
Sorry for the very late reply. I was unaware that my contribs were unusual at all, I just had a boring night so I spent some time on the articles for deletion page, I figure it's something I can do to help when I have the time and no I was not the anon. I'm sorry if I've caused you any alarm. Winterborn 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, too, took a look through Google news, but I couldn't find much of anything other than press releases, blogs, and discussion forums. I think someone mentioned a New York Times article, but I looked any couldn't find any. The article mentioned by Gabriel Roth above does mention Vanishing Point, but it is only a single paragraph of three short sentences at the very bottom of the article:
Most of Microsoft’s vast marketing budget will be on print, television, radio and Web advertisements. But some will go for so-called viral marketing events like an online puzzle contest called Vanishing Point, sponsored by Microsoft and A.M.D. The winner will get a ride into space from a private space travel company.
That's not a source on Vanishing Point; it's a source on Vista's release. I also searched through LexisNexis. If I searched for "vanishing point" in the headline or lead paragraphs, I got no hits. If I search through the full text, I did. That tells me that Vanishing Point only received brief mention; it did not have whole articles about it.
To those who think the article should be kept, please please edit the article to add sources. The Neowin forums are OK, but they're not sufficient alone. As I understand them, the notability guidelines call for multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Lastly, as another user asked above, is this marketing gimmick going to be remembered in 10 years? If not, does it belong in an encyclopedia?
Unless someone addresses these concerns, I stand by the nomination. Lunch 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Who said this is a piece of software!? Why is it needed to comply with the WP:SOFTWARE policy for it's not a software? Moreover, that new user has unusual edits for this edit doesn't mean that he uses another user name or even anon edits! The truth is that the person typing this comment is the anon (using IP 202.71.240.18) that user Lunch was talking about. If you do not trust the anon (that's me), it's just fine, I have no further questions or more arguments to refute yours as you think having a username meant you're greater than other IP editors, and that anons do net deserve a right to speak here. --202.71.240.18 06:20, 2 February 2007
BTW, new "independent sources list?" starts here:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/01/vanishing_point_ends/ - The Register
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/2127 GeekZone
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2007/01/vanishing_point_1.html - Mercury News
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/01/space-contests-take-flight-irs-takes-notice/ Engadget news on no free ride to space
http://www.space.com/news/ap_070129_spacetourist_contest.html - space.com, "No Free Ride to Space for Contest Winners"
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/6310/7334/microsoft-amd-vanishing-point-puzzle.phtml - Pocket-lint.co.uk, UK reports
Also, if you are trying to say the sources I listed here are linked to Microsoft, please provide any supporting references for their relationship with Microsoft.
Oh, I forget, if something is special enough, that even will be remembered for a long period of time. Though you won't believe me... --202.71.240.18 06:31 2 Feburary, 2007
And yes, that NY Times Report, I cannot find references there, but I do see a paragraph about the game, so it's not a source but do interested some people to go find out about that... --202.71.240.18
Though the above came from User:210.0.209.178, from the fervent attitude, I'm guessing it's the same person who left the second comment on the AfD. It also seems to be the person who has made some edits to the article.
Regarding those edits, though, these sources still haven't been added to the article. And, no, I'm not claiming that these articles are written by or funded by Microsoft. But -- to pick on one -- a blog at the San Jose Mercury News isn't exactly the greatest of sources for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, an article in the Mercury News itself would be a bit better.
I didn't suggest the WP:SOFTWARE notability guideline; someone else did. I suggested WP:CORP and WP:WEB as notability guidelines. If you think the article would better fit under yet another guideline, then please suggest one. Bald assertions of notability aren't particularly convincing to me.
Again, please edit the article. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the article, but I think it would be best directed at improving the article. Lunch 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The article from The Register is nice, but can you find something a little more widely read/distributed than that and the Neowin forums? Again, I didn't have any luck with LexisNexis, but maybe you know somewhere else. Lunch 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response is that, just because I replied every comments you guys made previously in one response, doesn't mean I am pointing the accusing finger on you, Mr./Ms. Lunch. Thanks for the advice though. I will work on that. :) --202.71.240.18 06:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I just don't think it's notable enough (mostly sporadic forum and blog coverage as with most viral campaigns), and will fall out of interest very, very soon anyway as it's closed. -- Northgrove 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Changed opinion on this upon studying sources and the quality of this article. See comment below. -- Northgrove 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are pages for I Love Bees and Lost Experience so why not this. Personally, i think that an event/ARG that sends someone into space noteworthy and wiki-worthy Kuzmaster 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (fixed up at/by Kuzmaster 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sending someone into space as a prize for a contest is neat, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping the article. Do you know of any published articles about the game? Anything, perhaps, in a flight trade journal that mentions it? Lunch 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. "I Love Bees" got written up in Wired magazine and received a Game Developers Choice Award. "Lost Experience" has articles in Newsday, the Boston Herald, and the Daily Variety. If you can find sources like this for Vanishing Point, I'd definitely change my mind. Lunch 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There are pages for I Love Bees and Lost Experience so why not this." -- for one thing, these articles read like much better crafted actual encyclopedia articles, and was also been brought up more in mainstream media, part because of the novelty and historic significance. Just because these articles were made for a number of reasons, doesn't mean we need to automatically have viral marketing game articles regardless quality and significance outside what still seems like a rather tight knit community to me. -- Northgrove 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first heard about this game, I came to wikipedia and it did not disapoint. This article served a purpose to inform, and it meets standards for notablity as far as I can tell. And, if I win, I want the article to talk about me. heheGiovanni33 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What standard does it meet for notability? (I'm genuinely curious. WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply, and it doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB for the lack of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources.) Lunch 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't find a video, but this was mentioned on G4's attack of the show the week it launched out of pregame. Also, this is a fairly prevelant game in the ARG community. There is a lengthy summary on ARGNet, one of the most popular ARG news sites. -AtionSong 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep popular game --Rayis 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any sources that say it's a popular game? How did you hear of it? Where was it reported? Can you add that to the article? Thanks, Lunch 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Delete, been read through other articles in the ARG category and yes, they all have at least ONE primary sources away from tabiolds and blog posts :/, and that the game have been mentioned in the ARG article itself, so it's notable enough for a relatively small ARG, maybe post back the contents if the game have got any "notable" awards or something. --202.71.240.18 06:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last comment. This discussion on the Wikimedia Foundation-L mailing list about corporate ads finding their way into Wikipedia was recently brought to my attention. I hope it gets widely read. Lunch 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I earlier voted Delete on this one, but could possibly stretch to a Weak Keep if it was largely rewritten. I feel there's so much here right now about how Microsoft carries out the advertising of the game, and so little about the game itself. This case is worsened by the fact that due to the nature of the game, the concepts of "advertisement" and "gameplay" is all mixed up. I think the problem with articles like these is that they can read very confusing and quite a bit unencyclopedic with only scattered bits of info revealed. After all -- that's the whole point of viral marketing. However, it's a point that is in conflict with quality articles on Wikipedia, with clearly laid out facts and verifiable information. This article is everything but about a game where the developer is eager to reveal the exact content of it, with great coverage with interviews on it, and so on. The essence of the game that fuels it is speculation. At this point, the effect right now reads like an incoherent and confusing article to an outsider on the subject like me, and I barely understand what the point of the "game" is. The actual game play section also seem to be placed way late in the article, and should probably be the most important part of it. -- Northgrove 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NT-based[edit]

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

WP:NOT a dictionary, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (although I've already cleared up the worst of the POV problems this page had) JulesH 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, completely pointless, the differences between Win9x and NT are already well-described in other articles. Krimpet 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not even accurate, and certianly belongs elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wrinkle. Sandstein 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pruney bathtub skin[edit]

Pruney bathtub skin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NEO Neologism - zero hits in Google John Nagle 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and flag for expert attention as to where this should go, and merge this information if it isn't already present. This is a real and familiar phenomenon which may inspire curiosity. There ought to be a more formal title and article name where this phenomenon can be discussed. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a Washington Post article that discusses the phenomenon, and also uses the "prune" metaphor. Unfortunately, the WP reporter seems not to have found the formal medical term for the phenomenon either. This is a valid topic that belongs somewhere, but where, I know not. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. If an appropriate parent article is found, it's not likely to lack any verifiable info from this article (so nothing to merge), and I don't think this is a plausible search term (so no redirect). Only source when nominated was a webcomic that fails WP:RS. The Post article appears to be one usable source, but isn't "multiple". Barno 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Post article also doesn't use the term "pruney bathtub skin", and it appears to be a trivial human-interest fluff piece rather than featured news or analysis. Multiple such articles can demonstrate that an idea has some currency, but we need more than this type of story to make it rise above "something that might be worth one sentence in a broader article". Barno 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm sensing cruft. Madmedea 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with skin, a section about the effects of water on skin or something similar. RHB Talk - Edits 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (not much here, really) with wrinkle, where there is already a photo of a water-wrinkled finger. I don't think the phrase "pruney bathtub skin" has ever been common anywhere. "Dishwater hands" is a somewhat common term, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Dishpan hands" or "dishwater hands" is a different problem; that's a dry-skin type reaction to cleaning agents. --John Nagle 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I suggest Prune Fingers or Osmosis and Skin Wrinkles with a redirect from prune fingers since that's how I found most of the links. Some of these are more reliable sources than others but I got [20], [21], [22] (brief mention only but in scientific context) and [23] (google answers page with links to several other articles that I haven't had a chance to read yet). Plymouths 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link that claims the real word for it is pnigmenoderma but I can't seem to verify this - doesn't show up in any dictionaries I can find.Plymouths 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, attack page (vague allegations of homosexuality, other namecalling) and A7 (non-noteworthy person). Likely hoax as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Green[edit]

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

Hoaxery poaxery. Apparently an inventor of a belief system based on worship of the color red. None of this exists on google. Deprodded. Weregerbil 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close without prejudice against relisting. This was the work of a banned user's sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Next King of Games[edit]

The Next King of Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete / procedural listing. See nomination below. My opinion is Neutral. Navou banter 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination begins below

Additional pages included in this nomination

  1. The Graduation Match, Part 1
  2. The Graduation Match, Part 2
  3. Back to Duel
  4. Champion or Chazz-been
  5. A Lying Legend
  6. Hearts are Wild
  7. Let's Make a Duel!
  8. Blinded by the Light, Part 2

There's a number of Yu-gi-Oh articles that say nothing except a plot summary (something just a one sentence long summary), an info box, and sometimes a cast list (indiscriminate collection of information, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We don't need 98+ Yu-gi-Oh GX episode articles (only a matter of time before someone makes an article similar to this one for each Yu-gi-Oh GX episode, not hard to do either) if all they're going to contain only plot summaries and an indiscriminate dump of cast information.

And has an article that does have commentary and real life context. With information which can be verified and sourced (although it currently is not). However, there is no evidence that the 120 other Yu-gi-Oh GX articles will ever reach this stage.

A scene-by-scene synopsis is something to be avoided as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes

There's nothing wrong with episode articles if they're good and well developed, but that isn't the case here. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says:

  • Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show.
  • Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.


  • Articles with really short summaries (short as in one-paragraph, or even one-sentence, long summaries)
  • episode 1 through 98
The Next King of Games
The Key Factor

—The preceding unsigned nomination was made by Goldendoggy (talk • contribs).

  • Merge all (with cleanup of unsourced material) to Yu-gi-Oh GX per WP:FICT, or to a season summary article if enough content can be sourced. Episode articles shouldn't exist unless there is a lot of independent (not fansite) coverage, and even then they tend toward exessive detail that doesn't help a reader understand the series. Barno 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, because these can be improved and the person who tagged and moved all of these pages is a vandal who needs to be blocked. Red Director 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect, whatever works best. Mathmo Talk 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no logical reason to delete this out of hand. If anything, it should be merged with the main article. TheQuandry 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's possible to expand the articles and give them improvement. Raven23 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I admit I am biased, I created most of the Episode pages for GX and more or less oversee them now (although others edit them, which I don't mind at all). However, I do agree they can be expanded. I've considered an episode-long synopsis, but am not sure what would be needed to make them full, notable articles. Anyone who would like to discuss this with me at my talk page. Drake Clawfang 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott R. MacIver[edit]

Scott R. MacIver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Business person with no credible claim per WP:BIO. There are 2 sources in the article and both are trivial mentions in an industry magazine's "Forty under forty" list as well as being named a "David Rockefeller Fellow". My opinion is that this article should be Deleted.--Isotope23 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I am also concerned that this article, and articles related to this one, have been added in bulk by someone who appears to have a business relationship with the subjects of the articles. LastChanceToBe 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Google News Archives has more information on a Scott MacIver in ... Scotland. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, notable accomplishments.User:Spencerpet— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.150.17 (talk • contribs)

abstain After a conversation with the author of the page on the talk page of a deleted article I'm thinking the author is the subject in violation of WP:Auto. I don't want the author to continue feeling like I am personally attacking them hence my abstain vote. --Hansonc 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable references i.a.w. WP:BIO are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is better to allow someone else to write an article Re: Scott R. MacIver. Do what you will.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above searches - only a single mention in the "AdWeek New England" isn't sufficient for WP:BIO... Addhoc 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is CEO of a company that itself is apparently not notable (only 1 other search hit in WP and 100 non-company-site hits in Google). If that and a reference in a publication are his only claims to fame, in my mind he's not notable (yet). - grubber 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mullenweg[edit]

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

WordPress is notable, but is it's founder? Misterdiscreet 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and clean up. We might as well nominate Rasmus Lerdorf for deletion. Or Guido van Rossum. However, the current article (in particular, the links and the references) needs to be cleaned up, per WP:EL. --- Tito Pao 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I also agree that references need cleaning up, though. — JeremyTalk 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The information does not duplicate the WordPress article, but I see nothing here that deals with anything except the precursors to WPress and related products. If there is no real information about him, the articles should be merged. DGG 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and only weak because the article is not up to par. If WordPress is noatble so is its founder. Alf photoman 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The work is very notable, the person however not at all. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Byrne[edit]

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

User:Eskadus very likely is Owen Byrne Misterdiscreet 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having been underpaid for coding a popular website doesn't sound particularly noteworthy to me. Are there specific inclusion criteria for programmers? JulesH 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. He does not appear to pass any of the criteria listed in WP:BIO, and I don't quite see which part of the article contains an assertion of notability. Both links posted are news articles with trivial mentions, but their existence is likely to deny a speedy per {db-bio}. User:Eskadus is a single purpose account set up to write this article. Ohconfucius 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Beer After 11[edit]

Free Beer After 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already speedily deleted twice, once each for WP:CSD A7 and G11. Either could apply. Brought to AfD so that G4 can be added to the list. Band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and certainly doesn't meet WP:N. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable. The only Google hits are Myspace pages and a Wikipedia article, and there is no entry for them in All Music Guide. Jhinman 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Already speedy deleted a couple of times, and article not improved to change the reasons for this. Saligron 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. YechielMan 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do NOT speedy it for chrissakes because: (1) Speedy-deletde pages may be freely recreated, while AfD-deleted ones may not. A speedy delete just means the article will be recreated. (2) Let the article author(s) see that there is broad support for the deletion of the article. No albums on a real label, no national tour, no notability. Also, the name of the keyboard player is "What The Hell Is This?", which is probably not a very good name for a musician (or anyone). I will say, with a name like Free Beer After 11, they either better be damned good or else expect to get beat up a lot. Herostratus 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No interviews, no albums released, fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did someone say "free beer"? Yes, please! er I mean Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. No singles, no albums, no national tours, no press... Did I miss anything? Ohconfucius 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? I was inclined to say delete - but then again; Hey these guys seem interestin enough, maybe wait for some links to audio files... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.63.192 (talk)
  • DeleteGet rid of this as it doesn't meet the criteria, but i did check out their myspace page and that was pretty entertaining. I'm going to get hold of one of those Cd's. who knows maybe in time they will have a valid page, until then
  • Delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.90.170 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Ta/wangi 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete after merging. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Abuses by the Special Task Force[edit]

Human Rights Abuses by the Special Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant POV Fork, brazen attack page, unencyclopedic and seemingly indescriminate collection of information. Due to the nature of this article and its title, however much it is revised, it cannot to be brought under numerous Wikipedia policies especially WP:NPOV. snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, then delete - merge any useful referenced information from the article into the "Allegations of human rights abuses" section of Special Task Force, then delete this article as a POV fork. I am willing to do the merge (and subsequent cleanup) myself if a consensus is reached. I reject deletion on the basis of "brazen attack page", "unencyclopedic", or "WP:NOT#IINFO". - Black Falcon 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Black Falcon. The existence of such allegations is widely noted in reliable sources, and has much more potentially lasting importance than an episode summary for your favorite TV show. Labelling an article with this title suggests endorsement of the allegations, and is difficult to write and maintain in NPOV fashion. Barno 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Barno and Black Falson, RS sources are used however I do have quams about merging it with article Special Task Force, who's quality is vastly inferior due to it's use of un-reliable sources, though this can be rectified. --Sharz 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete ..The whole article is based on weak logical fallacies and on the pure hatred that user has against anything srilankan.. WE already have 2 articles related to human rights in Sl, and why on earth we need seperate one for STF ? Do we need seperate articles for human right violations by Prabhakaran, Human right violation by Pottu amman,Human right violation by Anton balasingham,Human right violation by Sea tigers, human right violation by LTTE police etc..this is rediculous !! The whole argument is based on some Invidual actions taken by some STF individuals..hoｗon earth we generalize this and accuses STF ?!!
if you still dont get it let me explain ..
  • if a german tourist engaged in act of paedophilia ,can we create an article name "Human right violation by germans"?
  • If a american soldier rapes a japanese lady, can we create an article name "human right violation by US army"?
  • If an indian　soldier steal something from a shop,can we create an article name "Human right violation by the indian Army"?
If NO is the answer for all above questions,how on earth we say some actions by the STF personals should be categorized as "human right abuses by STF" ??
editor should prove GOSL or the Higher ranks officers of STF were personally involved or directed these actions..if not, this should be immediately directed to a place in the dustbin.finally wikipedia should not be a place to express your personal vendetta .
thanks--Iwazaki 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have performed the merge and am currently in the process of cleanup. If you disagree with my action or feel that it was premature, please feel free to revert my edits. -- Black Falcon 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Black Falcon, kudos for all the work you did, but the question isn't about whether the sources are reliable or not. For one are things like

On 23 March 2005, STF members allegedly threatened Anura Kirithi Rajah, an organizer for an employees union at a textile factory. The president of the union also received a death threat.

notable? Also, simply packing an article with such accusations, none of which have been proven, and most of which have been done by indivudual soldiers, just dilutes Wikipedia and needlessly opens it up for abuse.
Also, take a look at the US Army article. It doesn't contain any mentions of massacares or such. The IDF article just has a section titled critisism, which is more than acceptable. Wikipedia is not a place to list every single such accusation. We can't just do a Google search and copy everything that comes up onto Wikipedia, which appears to be what has happened here. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you note the current version (I just finished cleanup), I have deleted a great deal of the irrelevant details. In addition, I support deleting a number of the statements currently there, including:

On October 9, 2002, eight ethnic Tamils were shot and killed by the STF during a pro-Tamil demonstration outside the STF's camp in Kanjirankuda[26]

On March 23, 2005, STF members allegedly threatened Anura Kirithi Rajah, an organizer for an employees union at a textile factory. The president of the union also received a death threat.[27]

On January 5, 2007, STF personnel and members of the Sri Lankan police raided the regional headquarters of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) in Trincomalee and Vavuniya. The organization's Colombo office was raided, without a warrant, by police the next day.[28]

The first doesn't give enough details (e.g., where the shootings possibly provoked). The second and third are hardly noteworthy. Essentially, after all is said and done, I probably deleted >80% of the text of this article pre-merger. I do believe, however, that the text of the intro and disappearances sections should be kept (perhaps as one section). I can be swayed on the "Extrajudicial killings" section, but that's probably more a matter for the article's talk page. I am in favor of having a more general section titled "Criticisms" that lists general facts (like the disappearances and the book qutoe) rather than specific sections. If you like, by all means do so. I decided to do the merger so that potentially useful information would not be lost, but I ended up deleting most of it myself. Go figure. Black Falcon 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although I have tagged the page with Template:R from merge, I still believe it should be deleted as:
  1. The article was created by essentially 1 user and much of the text was copyvio (including the entire "Extrajudicial killings" section), so very little history will be lost.
  2. No articles link to this redirect (just some talk, user, and AfD pages).
  3. The title is POV. Black Falcon 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Black Falcon- First a big thank for spending your time in helping to make this a better article..Hats off to you !! BUT certain issues still remain to be solved..I would say immediately.As you have correctly pointed out the whole abuses section was made by just one editor ,who posses an extreme hatred towards anything SriLanka..The whole thing is a copyvio and thoroughly unencyclopedic ..Some of these accusations such as threatening a union leader is absolutely not notable..Even if its true, how on earth we accuses the whole STF for that ??.

The whole Extrajudicial killings" section ,as you have correctly pointed out must go to a place in the dustbin..We can keep the disappearance part,as it ,true or not, directly accusing the STF ..And it should be under a category, like "criticism" just as the IDF article..IF raiding the TRO is a crime, then raiding every single Al-Qaeda cell is a crime..TRO is a proven pro-LTTE organization and regular raids should be carried out in order to safe guard the innocent people of SriLanka..SL have certain rules such as emergency laws, to combat terrorism and using them cant be categorize as "Abuses"..If you read the points i made earlier, this article could create havoc here..The whole wikipedia may go crazy if maniacs start making "Abuses" articles ,insulting every single institution in the world !! If someone from the NHK sexually harass a lady ,can we create an article name "Suxual abuses by NHK employees" ??.Common sense says we Cant..But this article gives us the impressions, WE CAN..thanks--Iwazaki 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. No matter how well-sourced a statement is, and no matter how reliable and neutral its source, it should not be kept if it is irrelevant or trivial. I've made three changes so far: (1) I renamed the section title to "Criticism"; (2) I deleted the "Abuses of rights" section -- one threat and an instance of a raid are hardly sufficient to condemn an entire institution; (3) I deleted the 9 Oct. 2002 shooting incident as the circumstances of the shooting are not made clear in the source -- it may have been an accidental shooting, a provoked shooting, etc. Criticism of an institution should, as you note, refer to a pattern of behavior by its members. The disappearances section makes such a claim (responsibility for 5% of disappearances over a period of 9 years). As you note, it's truthfulness is not at issue--it is verifiable and that is all that is needed and relevant. As for what's left of the "Extrajudicial killings" section, I am considering a way to trim it down because, even putting aside POV concerns, it just reads awkward and disconnected from the rest of the text. I will watch the page over the next week or so to see if POV is reintroduced into the section. Thank you for your comments and your acknowledgement. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply..Black falcon, you have done an excellent job here..I know its not easy to shape up and trim a really mess like this "abuses sections", but you have put a tremendous effort..kudos for that !! I hope you will make adjustment to the "Extrajudicial killings" too..As this,you have correctly pointed out,make no sense at all.Also, thanks for promising to keep an eye on this ,for a while..I have the feeling that, this editor might pop up soon and start messing this article again.--Iwazaki 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know who started this article or why, but I don't want to automatically assume that it was a bad-faith creation. He or she may have simply thought that this was enough information to merit an article of its own. I have added one more sentence to the "Extrajudicial killings" section but really can't think of any other changes in the absence of additional sources. As per your concern above, I have noted at the start of the subsection that the examples given are of "extrajudicial killings involving members of the STF" (emphasis added), and thus not necessarily sanctioned by the STF itself (this last part is implied, but to write it in might violate WP:NOR). I am currently working on topics related to other countries--Iran and Yemen--but will periodically check the STF article for potentially NPOV material (given that the STF is an active organization, I suppose unsourced accusations might even be libelous). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge then delete The merge should be done with WP:RS cited information only, and this seperate article should be deleted.Kerr avon 12:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No content.--Sefringle 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It is not possible to discern any consensus to do anything from this AFD, especially given the posting of the AFD on the noticeboard below. --Coredesat 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Iranianism[edit]

Anti-Iranianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
That's the defined purpose of the "notice" "board": To inform editors of articles in need of attention, cleanup, sourcing, etc.--Zereshk 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the real reason, it would have been listed there weeks ago. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was, and many times. Take a look at the article's history. It has been listed before. Example, July 20th, 2006, it's been listed, and nopt by me.--Zereshk 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the real reason may or may not be (or have been), I don't think it is inappropriate to get comments from the individuals who contributed to this article and who may be more involved with and/or knowledgeabe about the topic. Black Falcon 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly okay to post a message on the noticeboards. That's what they are for. They also prevent spamming. --Aminz 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is, first and foremost, Original Research. It compiles a list of harsh words or negative actions taken towards Persians, the nation of Persia before it became Iran, and the Iranian government and defines them as "anti-Iranianism." There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article. The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading "anti-Iranianism." The term "anti-Iranianism" is a neologism. If you exclude wikipedia forks and websites referencing wikipedia there are only 365 google hits on the phrase "anti-Iranianism" of which only 150 are unique. [24] Anti-Persianism only gets about 200 ghits without wikipedia [25], and "anti-Persian sentiment" only about 40 [26]. Only six books in the Google books database contain the words "anti-Iranianism" [27] and only two scholarly articles use the term. [28]. By comparison, a well-established concept such as anti-semitism gets over 2 million google results. Anti-Japanese sentiment gets 55,000 google hits and 650 google book hits. [29]Furthermore, the article itself is highly POV. The section on the united states, for example, defines diplomatic actions such as denying visas as anti-Iranianism without any kind of sourcing to suggest that they are. (Not to mention the fact that the content is almost exactly duplicated at United States-Iran relations. It is also highly-POV to lump actions taken against a government together with racism towards an ethnic group (Persians), but this article makes absolutely no distinction between the two. I recently removed a photograph of a US Army poster with the words "IRAN... you're next" and a picture of Uncle Sam holding a wrench from the article. Although presented as an official US Army poster, the image was, of course, ripped off from a WW2 James Montgomery Flagg poster which originally referred to Japan. This kind of flagrant POV violation is rampant in this article. GabrielF 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Some editors are actively trying to improve this article by implementing the suggestions made here. I've said that I will withdraw my AfD if these efforts bare fruit. If you are interested in helping see Talk:Anti-IranianismGabrielF 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding "neologism", actually "Anti-Iranianism" in Persian language gives 17,000 hits for ایرانی ستیزی and 25,000 hits for ایران ستیزی. Not that google is a measure of what exists and what does not. The article now has a "usage" section, whioch improves on that drawback.--Zereshk 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of your three links works for me. Yes, there are books that use the phrase "anti-Iranian", but is it "anti-Iranian" in the sense described in this article? If the government of Azerbaijan is politically opposed to the government of Iran is that the same thing as racism against Persians? It is OR to link the two together without a scholarly work doing so. GabrielF 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your claim that the article is well-referenced: Yes, there are references that specific events happened. That's irrelevant. There are no references that justify lumping together separate topics (racism towards persians in antiquity, historical disputes between Persia and other countries, disputes between the government of Iran and other countries, anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world) under the heading of anti-Iranianism. GabrielF 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your claim that we should keep this article because we have other articles on anti-ethnic terms: This is irrelevant, we are not debating the validity of Anti-Italianism. Some of the other anti-ethnic or anti-national articles may be deserving of deletion as well. GabrielF 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename, cleanup - First, a clarification, the term "anti-Iranianism" would refer to the actions taken against the country of Iran or persons of Iranian nationality, but not persons of Persian descent (that's anti-Persianism). I do agree, however, that lumping anti-Iranianism and anti-Persianism together is inappropriate. In response to your criticisms:
  1. Violating WP:NOR - how so? Please explain (the article provides a great many sources).
  2. Non-notability - I don't think the comparison with anti-Semitism is appropriate as I'm sure its use exceeds all other forms of anti-"Group"ism (with the possibly exception of anti-Americanism).
  3. Violating WP:NPOV - Even if the article is kept, the section on the US should probably be removed in its entirety and replaced with a brief summary and a link to the United States-Iran relations article. Moreover, much of the article (excluding the US section) is about anti-Persianism. Perhaps the article would benefit from being renamed to anti-Persianism and edited to reflect this new title. -- Black Falcon 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR - The OR comes from taking many separate concepts (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken against Persia by various governments, actions taken against Iran by various governments, anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world) and lumping them together under a new concept that is not used by scholars. I agree that an article about racism against Persians is acceptable and I agree that an article on US-Iran relations is acceptable, but putting them all together under what is essentially a neologism is not acceptable. GabrielF 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, then, we are (essentially) in agreement (with the possible exception that I still think the article ought to be worked on and not deleted). I think the OR element would be removed if a distinction was drawn between anti-Persianism in reference to the Persian people, anti-Persianism in reference to the Persian government, anti-Iranianism in reference to the Iranian people, and anti-Iranianism in reference to the Iranian government. In order to fit with the Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, etc. articles, the article should include only anti-Persianism and anti-Iranianism against the Persian and Iranian peoples, respectively. Although the two groups are not the same, I think the fact that many (including most Westerners) equate the two groups justifies their inclusion in one article at least for now (ideally, they would be separate articles about hostility to Persian ethnics and Iranian nationals). Black Falcon 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could support keeping parts of the article if it was called something like Racial prejudice against Persians and Iranians and only dealt with that topic. The problem is that the events and quotes in this article are generally cited, but I don't see a source that really defines the concept of anti-Iranianism or anti-Persianism and gives its history. In the case of prejudice against minorities in the west and even in the ancient world, there are many notable historical works that identify what the prejudice is, how it is defined, what its history is, etc. Those works can then be debated by other scholars. In this case we're doing that work ourselves and that is OR. If the article is rewritten so that it is based on scholarly work about anti-Persianism and not an original synthesis of historical events that identifies people as anti-Persian than the article is okay. Otherwise, I think we're outside the domain of an encyclopedia. Regardless, the political stuff (Bush Sr. not apologizing for shooting down a plane, the US denying visas, a legal dispute about Persian antiquities, etc. etc.) must be removed from this article. It is highly, highly POV. GabrielF 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I posted in response to your unrevised comment. I do agree that most of the political section should be removed (in fact, I will take a look right after I submit this comment). I am not really familiar with the scholarly dialogue and can therefore suggest this: Delete the blatantly POV sections and cleanup the remainder of the article through a discussion on the talk page. If after some time these issues have not been resolved and constructive dialogue on the talk page has ceased, nominate the article for AfD once more. What do you think? Black Falcon 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be an acceptable solution for me. Particularly controversial cases could be discussed on the article's talk page. However, the cleanup needs to be done carefully. For example, Russian occupation of Persian territories is really not anti-Persianism. However, other cases should be kept (or at least discussed). For example, the photo with the poster stating "Deport all Iranians" or a statement like "Nuke Iran" are aimed at both the state and the people. I think such cases should be included (but again, this is a matter for the talk page). So, (assuming, of course, you and the remaining contributors to this AfD agree) how do we go about doing this? I don't know if it's proper Wikiquette to rename/hugely modify a page during an AfD (although if it survives completely unchanged, I will be bold and do it myself). Black Falcon 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, maybe the current title should be kept and a statement added at the beginning about what the article will and will not include. I'm not opposed to renaming if a good (and ideally 'shortish') title can be found. Black Falcon 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability Even without the comparison to anti-semitism, you would expect that the topic of a wikipedia article would be, especially one as controversial as this, would generate some scholarly interest and discussion. However, I was shocked at how little I found about the concept of Anti-Iranianism. GabrielF 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, by cleanup I mean deleting at least 2/3 of the article. It is useless (and also POV) to classify every criticism of or military action against Persia or Iran as anti-Iranianism (not just in the US section). Black Falcon 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, every military action against Iran has not been listed. Youd be surprised at how many times Iran has been invaded. And this is not "criticism", nor is this, or this or this. Now if all these said "Fuck the Jews", we would be quick to list them as examples of existing "anti-semitism", wouldnt we now.--Zereshk 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that every action has not been listed; I was trying to make a point. I do agree that anti-Iranianism and anti-Persianism exists (see my comments above, including the example on "Nuke Iran"), but think the article should address them in the context of hostility to the Iranian and Persian peoples, and not the Iranian and Persian governments. Also, whereas "Fuck the Jews" is anti-Semitic, "fuck Israel" is not (at least not necessarily). Likewise, "fuck Iranians" is anti-Iranian (people) whereas "fuck Iran" is not (at least not necessarily). I still favor keep and cleanup. Black Falcon 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your second point that any criticism of Jews would be included on wikipedia. We do have notability standards and I would be absolutely opposed to including a discussion of non-notable idiot attack websites on wikipedia. Notable anti-semitism should be discussed, but nukeiran.com has an alexa rank of about 3,000,000. Perhaps there's a larger point here. If the best examples of anti-Iranianism you can come up with are a couple of non-notable webpostings, should we really have a 90k article on the topic? GabrielF 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that while I do think the topic is encyclopedia-worthy (and should be kept), much of it currently reads like History of hostile interactions between Iran and other states. Anti-Iranianism against the Iranian state is also very real, but that should belong in the individual country relations articles (US-Iran, Iraq-Iran, Russia-Iran, etc.). I don't believe the content of the article is useless or bad (in fact, I think they are quite well-sourced and should be available on other pages on WP); just that it is inappropriate to put it all together and especially to put it under this title. Black Falcon 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge and major cleanupI think the material contained within the article is notable although I believe it violates NPOV in some respects. Listing cities "likely to be attacked by the US" is a good example. Surely this could be worded differently.--IRelayer 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep: Per Mardavich. Surena 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article was nominated to deletion please look at the former discussions too.[33]--Sa.vakilian 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course, per GabrielF and Morton devonshire. Wikipedia is not the place for invented victimhoods and neologisms. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy keep. First, I think the proposing of deletion of this article is highly politically motivated. Secondly, "Persia" IS Iran: It is the official name of the country prior to 1935. Thirdly, calling the article things like "POV fork", "soapbox", or "neogism" is completely unfounded; that's the very reason why nearly 100 sources are given to back up every inch of the article. And finally, Google is not a scholarly or scientific measure of what does and what does not exist, by any means. Google only quantifies the number of links to a page by other ranked websites, mostly commercial. Take for example the article Zayandeh Rud civilization. It exists NOWHERE on google, except for WP and the links given there. So does it not exist? In fact it does. Similar here. Anti-Iranianism does exist and it is VERY REAL.--Zereshk 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where to start. First of all, this qualifies as original research, second of all, it isn't notable as an academic subject and finally, this looks like a pov fork attempt. Guy Montag 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With such strong referencing of the article, it's a bit difficult to call it "original research".--Zereshk 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is often well-referenced; that's how just about every PhD thesis is written. However, while that's fine for PhD theses, it's forbidden in Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHD theses actually count as sources according to WP rules.--Zereshk 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? The article is not a PhD thesis, and Wikipedia doesn't allow original research! Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didnt follow the logic. Regardless, if it was "original research" it wouldnt be listed by Persian google on 42,000 hits.--Zereshk 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Zereshk, Mardavich, and Black Falcon. How are there articles such as Iran international crisis, yet this should get deleted?Azerbaijani 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current title is a neologism and most of the content is original research. Maybe something like Anti-Persian sentiment may work, but it will be a different article. Beit Or 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost completely OR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find it very notable. Anti-Iranianism is rampant in the world, especially these days. I have hear this term used on CNN alone several times. The pov (if any) should be toned down but the article is extremely notable.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GabrielF: Google-hits-based OR. Undoubtedly, there are other OR-based failures like eg. Anti-Irishism; however, that's a reason for clean-up or AfDs, not for emulation. --tickle me 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--MONGO 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Notability - a Google count is not always the best indicator of notability. However, there is a large number of hits for anti-Iranian and anti-Persian (essentially dropping the "ism"s). The article is however quite POV (not a reason for deletion) and should be cleaned up. What does anti-Iranianism refer to: hostility against the people or the state? If the former, most of the political history should go. If the latter, then the article is POV: the history of a state's conflicts with other states is a matter for the History of Iran or History of Persia articles. Black Falcon 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes it seem as if Islamic Republic = Iran; thus, opposition to the regime is opposition to Iranians which is false.--Patchouli 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The article makes reference to times before the Islamic Republic abundantly. Anti-Iranianism examples like this are not targeted at governments.--Zereshk 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Iranianism#US_refusal_to_grant_visas_to_Iranians_for_United_Nations_activities Iranians should be proud that mullah Mousa Qorbani didn't get a visa. He is the one in charge of Majles, not the speaker.
Anti-Iranianism#Claims_of_threats_of_a_military_attack_on_Iran_by_the_US is the best thing for Iran. What is wrong with dropping bombs on mullahs?
Anti-Iranianism#Claims_of_plans_for_use_of_nuclear_weapons_against_Iran. Iran can have nuclear weapons, but the mullahs, NEVER. It will be the permanently of totalitarianism, veil fetishism for the mullahs and their prancing Islamic cohorts.
Anti-Iranianism#Iranian_fears_of_attack_by_the_US No one has any fear. Irania love it.
Split the latter part of the article and dub it the anti-mullah movement.

--Patchouli 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per Mardavich and Zereshk. Article is very well sourced and the topic is legitimate, no question. That some people here want to minimise, ignore or even deny racism and prejudice against Iranians (who are NOT just Persians! I myself am half-Kurd, half Arab!) is horrible and disgusting. There is a double standard on WP when articles like Antisemitism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Hellenism, Anti-Irishism, Anti-Italianism are here, and this one is to be deleted! This is amazing! Anyone who thinks that racism and bigotry against Iranians (Persians, Kurds, etc etc) doesn't exist is living in a fantasy of ignorance and denial. And I am getting very tired of all the attacks on Iranians on WP - it never ends! We come to WP to help make an encyclopedia and instead we are all always having to defend ourselves against bigoted attacks towards our ethnic and national background. Is this a joke? Khorshid 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should consider actually reading the the nomination? To quote: "There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians exists, and it deserves an article. The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading "anti-Iranianism." The term "anti-Iranianism" is a neologism." GabrielF 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this carefully: I am NOT Persian! I am a half-Kurd half Arab Iranian! Persians are less than half of Iran population and there are many other ethnic groups! My God! Khorshid 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that nobody is saying that there is no animosity towards Iranians in the world. This article is being nominated for deletion because some users believe that it violates wikipedia policy. Also, those other articles are separate issues. They may very well be worthy of deletion as well. GabrielF 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Khorshid, I do not think this was a bad-faith nomination or constitutes "bigoted attacks towards our ethnic and national background". It has been noted many times above that Iranians and Persians are distinct groups (including by the nominator--see the first thread I started). I do not perceive GabrielF's concern with the article to be that it is about a non-existent topic, but rather that it conflates hostility against the Persian/Iranian states with hostility against the Persian/Iranian peoples. I believe the article should be kept and anything addressing only anti-state sentiments removed (not discarded; possibly merged to individual Country-Iran relations pages). Anti-Iranianism, as it refers to the state, is a real phenomenon, but it can be convered in the articles for US-Iran, Iraq-Iran, Israel-Iran, Turkey-Iran, etc. relations. I don't know if a foreign relations of Iran template exists, but (if it doesn't) it would be useful in connecting these separate articles. Black Falcon 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Rayis 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to mention that this article has gone thru name changes on previous Afds, some names of which have been proposed again here. I call this the "oscillatory effect". Going back and forth on something.--Zereshk 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and major cleanup to separate the lumped-together topics. Also notably while there is a huge difference between prejudice towards people of a nation and that nation's government, unfortunately many people in this great nation the USA consider them one in the same, making things very complicated. Krimpet 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GabrielF" if you don't have any other thing to do, please take a look at this Animal rights and antisemitism(?!)

I will bookmark this AfD for future refrences; take care --Pejman47 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your rationale is (a) a straw man fallacy - you are misrepresenting the nominator's reason's for AfD'ing, and (b) ad hominen. Comment on the actual arguments, NOT the people making them. GabrielF 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:), excerpt of my vote: "It has lots of reference and personally I take it as another "reference" for the factuality of that)--Pejman47 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that argument above. Yes, the actual incidents in the article are referenced, what is not referenced is a reliable source that defines those incidents as anti-iranianism, or a source that defines anti-iranianism in the first place. Wikipedia cannot combine racist quotes about Persians with political statements by world leaders about Iran's actions under the heading of "anti-Iranianism" without a source that identifies that action as equivalent to racism against Iranians. GabrielF 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move content to other articles article is a collection of topics with a highly misleading title, please keep the content in wikipedia, but in appropriate articles Elizmr 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support drastically shortening the article (its currently >90K and should probably be at around 10K). I also support merging most of the content from this article to individual Country-Iran relations (e.g., United States-Iran relations) articles. However, why not keep this page and refocus it toward addressing negative sentiments toward the Persian and Iranian peoples (instead of the governments)? Black Falcon 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you in spirit, but in action sorting out the bit about neg sentiments against the peoples vs gov'ts would be very difficult if not impossible and would involve a lot of OR. The first photo (70's us protestor), for instance, where would that fall? I'd wager many would say it was evidence of anti-Iranian-people sentiment in the US, but I think it was more of a protest (albiet a ridiculoulsy stupid one) against the Iranian gov't actions against Americans in that country. Elizmr 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think that that is something that could be resolved on the talk page. I personally favor including it due to the text of the poster: "Deport all Iranians", even though I completely agree with you as to its actual sentiment. True, the problem is compounded by the fact that sentiments often transfer from a regime to its people, but again I think that a solution could be reached on the article's talk page. As for the remainder of the article, I believe the absolute majority does not belong -- I have said above that it reads like a political history of Iran's negative interactions with other states. I have made the following suggestion to the nominator and he has said he is thinking it over: Delete the blatantly POV and other irrelevant sections and cleanup the remainder of the article through a discussion on the talk page. If after some time these issues have not been resolved and constructive dialogue on the talk page has ceased, nominate the article for AfD once more. -- Black Falcon 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case, it would be a different article and I am sure my opinion about it would be different. Elizmr 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging any salvageable material into other articles (where sourceable). I have no doubt that any particular ethnicity, nation, minority or even special-interest group can be discriminated against; yet there is nothing in this article to support a particular "Anti-Iranianism" concept. None of the sources listed actually discuss such a topic or provide research into such a supposed phenomenon. Further, Google provides next to no such usage of "Anti-Iranianism, outside of Wikipedia and mirrored copies. In sum, it's the very definition of Original Research, intended to support a precept that does not conform to Neutral Point of View policy. --LeflymanTalk 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support drastically shortening the article (its currently >90K and should probably be at around 10K). I also support merging most of the content from this article to individual Country-Iran relations (e.g., United States-Iran relations) articles. However, why not keep this page and refocus it toward addressing negative sentiments toward the Persian and Iranian peoples (instead of the governments)? Black Falcon 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as regards Google, you will get a lot more results with "anti-Iranian" excluding wikipedia. Black Falcon 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anti-Iranian" is not the same thing as "Anti-Iranianism" -- the "-ism" suffix denotes some sort of definable phenomenon, practise or organised movement. Any citizen of any county in the world-- of which there are nearly 200-- could claim someone is "Anti-" them. That's why we get such silly articles as Anti-Australianism and Anti-Canadianism, although surprisingly, not "Anti-Mexicanism". In short, such articles are misuses of Wikipedia as soap-boxes for a particular viewpoint, not descriptions of actual encyclopedic topics. --LeflymanTalk 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the "ism" is unnecessary and makes it sound like a theory or a broad-based movement, but this can be easily corrected by renaming the article (and, of course, major cleanup). Black Falcon 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inherently POV; original research by synthesis; WP:POINT. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GabrielF and Tom harrison. Also, given that, as many have pointed out, millions of Iranians are not Persians, I don't think this is this article's second AFD, it's the first. AlexeiSeptimus 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the current article is POV, but only because it conflates hostility against the Iranian people with hostility against the Iranian government--this can be removed from the article. Also, while I support creating two separate pages for Anti-Iranianism and Anti-Persianism, I don't think that is practical at this time. I see nothing wrong with including them in the same article, as long as they are treated separately in the article (and this separation is explicit), especially since many (in Europe and North America, at least) fail to realize there is a difference between the two groups. Black Falcon 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The conflation is fundamental to the article. The article is an essay proposing a grand narrative of hostility towards Iran stretching from the Battle of Thermopylae to Operation Ajax. Not even Edward Said was that historicizing. AlexeiSeptimus 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree and have noted the same above (that the article reads like a history of Iran's negative interactions with other states). As I wrote to the AfD nominator, I think at least 2/3 of the article should go (including the whole of the US section). Yes, most of the article should be deleted (or at least merged into other articles), but the article itself needn't be deleted, just significantly improved. Black Falcon 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOR. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GabrielF - this isn't the place for constructing original arguments and presenting them, TewfikTalk 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronly keep per nom. Not only the Persian form of " Anti-Iranianism" has so many results in google but its English form has results out of wikipedia in some reliable sites as in CNN.--Soroush83 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very real concept. It article could be cleaned up and I could see it being renamed away from the "Anti-Iranianism" neologism to something more sensible like Anti-Iranian sentiment. There are 84,000 hits in Google for "Anti-Iranian" even excluding Wikipedia. --70.51.232.106 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are predecents in Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Croatian sentiment. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water. A renaming of the article and a clean-up seems much more reasonable than a deletion. --70.51.232.106 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't base your keep vote on the existence of other articles. The issues with this article are not necessarily the same as those with other articles and just because another bad anti-ethnic article hasn't been AfD'd now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. GabrielF 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the delete votes are based on WP:NEO. This user's "keep" vote addresses that concern by proposing to rename the article so that the "neologism" (Anti-Iranianism) isn't used. Black Falcon 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users only contributions are to this AfD. GabrielF 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can discount my vote if you so desire, but I feel it is legitimate. I don't use a formal account. Me and GabrielF have run into each other twice before, on "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" where we were in agreement and then later on "Proposed_Israeli_Nuclear_First_Strike_on_Natanz_Facility" where we were not. --70.51.232.106 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is not a single purpose account and his vote should not be discounted. GabrielF 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you had noted this for another user as well. I'm just curious, what's the point? Black Falcon 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs are not votes, but nevertheless non-contributors who post for the first time to offer their two-cents can obfuscate consensus. CONTRIBUTOR CORRECTED AlexeiSeptimus 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for editors to mark possible single purpose accounts on controversial AfDs. Many AfDs have been targeted by sockpuppets and meatpuppets in the past. GabrielF 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. However, do take this with caution. My first contribution (on a talk page, not an AfD) took place after I saw an article that I thought was factually inaccurate (List of terrorist organisations). New users are often drawn to the controversial articles and/or debates. Finally, this may simply an established user who hasn't logged in for whatever reason. Black Falcon 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:WP:Neologisms - is WP:NEO really a reason for deletion in this case?? If you don't like the fact that the word has an "ism" at the end, rename it to Anti-Iranian sentiment (per Anti-Japanese sentiment). This is a simple move--it doesn't require deletion. That rename should have happened even without the AfD -- I would do it now except I don't know how problematic the technical consequences (if any) would be (e.g., broken links). Black Falcon 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Iranian sentiment" only gets 228 google hits of which 134 are unique. [34] How is that less of a neologism? GabrielF 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a simple Google test is not a good reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test). Secondly, don't search for all three terms together--"anti-Iranian" minus wikipedia gets over 80,000 hits and "anti-Iranian" sentiment(s) minus wikipedia gets nearly 15,500. Thirdly, the phrase "anti-Iranian sentiment" is a simple phrase constructed from commonly-used words. Finally, though I do agree with your criticism of the article and the need to drastically change it, I would also like to note that it's going to be rather hard to improve if it's gone. Black Falcon 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is a rule of thumb which notes a particularly high cooccurance of articles on recently coined (or completely original) phrases and original research. In this case, it is spot on. CONTRIBUTOR CORRECTED AlexeiSeptimus 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, thank you for noting this. Still, a few of users have based their delete votes on this point, even though it could be easily corrected by a page-move. Black Falcon 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:OR violation is implied, but fine. AlexeiSeptimus 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your comment that "though I do agree with your criticism of the article and the need to drastically change it, I would also like to note that it's going to be rather hard to improve if it's gone." There's no reason to assume that just because an article is deleted through AfD the topic won't be covered by wikipedia. To give a recent example, after I nominated [[35]] I created a short article to deal with the topic at Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq. I would advise waiting a couple of days before doing that in this case because this debate has really just begun. I would also advise basing a new article on works by professional historians rather than just copying the current original synthesis. GabrielF 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it would be simpler working with this (well-referenced) article as a starting point? People know where it is, it has (if not before then now for sure) attracted a great deal of attention and potential contributors, etc. And yes, I do intend to wait at least until this AfD is closed before I seriously think about starting a new article (e.g., by researching the topic). Essentially, I do think that this current version of the article should go, but I don't think all of the content should be lost. Black Falcon 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sections I propose to delete in their entirety:
  1. "The Mongolian era" – the Mongolians treated everybody horribly (no special sentiments proven/sourced)
  2. "By colonial powers" – purely political history (no hostile sentiments proven/sourced)
  3. "By the United States" – same as above
  4. "By the media" – single quote, probably applies to Iranian regime
  5. "Against Iranian scientists" - mostly political actions against Iran itself
What is left is the section on the ancient Greeks, (possibly, as I haven’t read the external article) the Turks, and the Arabs. These sections do, of course, need to be revised, but at least all of them directly address hostile sentiments held against Persian and Iranian peoples. The missing US section is significant, but it can be added from scratch (encompassing present anti-Iranianism and such sentiments during the hostage crisis). Comments? Black Falcon 00:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a doodely. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GabrielF. There's no doubt that what you could broadly call "anti-Iranian" sentiments exist. The problem is conflating various critisms of the government into some kind of ethnic hatred to advance a novel synthesis -ie WP:OR. <<-armon->> 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree with your argument, but not your vote. If the problem is this conflation (which I have noted above is NPOV), it can be removed from the article (see my thread with the nominator if you wish -- second vote from the top). Black Falcon 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Category:Anti-national sentiment. It has a lot of neutrality and original research problems as many delete voters have pointed out and hopefully some of them will stick around to try to clean it up. Savidan 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Similar articles exist and it is well sourced. --alidoostzadeh 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR concerns. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep if your going to nominate these nominate the rest. Nareklm 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibernophobe (a neologism for people who hate the Irish) for deletion. I may nominate other similar articles in the future. The point is that there are specific problems with this article - specifically that it isn't about racism but defines a new concept that encompasses everything negative anyone has done towards Iran whether racially motivated or not. (See Zereshk's definition of anti-Iranianism on the article's talk page). GabrielF 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I haven't all the comments, but if there is anti-semitism, anti-black.. there is also anti-Iranianism. For example Saddam hussein's uncle wrote a book: three things god should not have created: jews, flies and Iranians. I think readers have the right to know about this. Note I am not saying Iranians were perfect either and I am sure there is critism (as there should) of some Iranians in other articles. --alidoostzadeh 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether racial prejudice against Persians or Iranians exists is NOT the issue being discussed here. The problem is that this article is OR and POV. An article on racial prejudice against Iranians would be fine. 01:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Should be kept not only because anti-Iranianism exists, but also because of the simple precedent of ethnicities getting "anti-" pages where evidence is available. Weak keep because this article has always been rambling and off-topic, treating regular wars as if they are some example of anti-Iranianism. Actual examples of anti-Iranianism should be added to these contexts, instead of just listing off history summaries. It isn't like the enemies did not express anti-Iranian views, so I have always wondered why the creators of this article never put actual examples in to these parts. In sum, this article should be improved, not deleted. The Behnam 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behnam jan, you should chekc out the thong I just added (before it is erased under some bani-esraeely pretext).--Zereshk 01:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, that is an especially despicable example. Just like this nomination. The Behnam 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just added a "usage" section which should put to rest claims of neologism.--Zereshk 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per alidoostzadeh comment. Behaafarid 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I hope the nominator & friends note the improvement to the article that this nomination has ultimately spurred and reconsider their position. The Behnam 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, adding a list of every time somebody has used the term "anti-Iranianism" to the article is NOT an improvement. It is completely unencyclopedic, useless to the reader and intended only to prove a point in an AfD. GabrielF 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing, at least it refutes your claim of "neologism" which is what this AfD is based on. I suppose that 6 million Iranians must die in gas chambers for people to find "Anti-Iranianism" as "encyclopedic". And never mind that the term gives over 40,000 hits on Persian google.--Zereshk 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, all articles need improvement. But the faults listed on this nomination are not warranted. I dont support the deletion of this article. It's way too rich, and thoroughly sourced.--Nightryder84 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am unconfortable with all this 'anti-xyz' sort of articles, my decision is based on what I might call 'Jurisprudence.' There are precedents, but I won't like it if every group start requesting its 'anti' article. But I can concieve how there could be materials about this. Fad (ix) 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional comment Just an additional comment. One of Saddam's ministor and former government of Baghdad said: Ajam (Iranians/Persians) are animals that God created in the shape of Humans. Also he further said: Jews are a mixture of the dirt and leftover of diverse people. If anyone is offended, I apologize, but I wanted to mention the seriousness of the issue. Note just like the idiot Ahmadinezhad recently made some anti-semitic statements which have been condemned by Iranian intellectuals, there have been people and dynasties (like the Ummayads) who actively discriminated against Iranians. Note the chemical use of weapons by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war against Iranian civilians. And here is a source from Cambridge university which is legitimate and uses the term: The Barkamids probably favoured some Zoroastrian officials like Banu Sahl and opposed anti-Iranian officials like Muhammad b. Laith.(The Cambridge history of Iran By William Bayne Fisher, pg 71). Thus legitimate references are easy to find. --alidoostzadeh 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We are currently working on a compromise over at the talk page. Take a look and feel free to contribute to the discussion. The Behnam 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep The article is not OR, it is the compilation of material mostly from named sources, and that is exactly how all WP articles are supposed to be made. The historical parts need more references, but almost all of the existing historical articles in WP are in the same state. A few good general sources for these sections would help, in English if at all possible since this is the en WP. DGG 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prime example of this: After the revolution, Iran and the US were inevitably led to a collision course with the US making every effort to destabilize Iran with repeated allegations of Iran being a major if not the largest "state sponsor of terrorism"… Seriously, this article has some major original research issues that violate both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to remove such a detailed article. --Aminz 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Take a look at one of the most recent examples of Anti-Iranianism by Arabs. - Marmoulak 05:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, major cleanup. It's original research and biased. --Shervinafshar 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and per my position on all similar "Anti-X'ism" articles, see [[User talk:Duja/Archive 5#Anti-X'ism articles for reasoning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-leaning towards weak keep. Per my previous comments in Serbophobia, I think the most important thing is to imrove the content of these "anti-" articles rather than delete them. Because, otherwise, deleted or not, these articles will get irrelevant and pointless by their lack of quality.--Yannismarou 09:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sahaban 10:04, 01 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article was nominated to deletion ,but please look at the former discussions about Anti-Persianism_by_Arabs too.[36]--sahaban 10:05, 01 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is interresting, well sourced and informative. It has been proposed for deletion in the past and the result was a keep, and I do not see what has changed since then to justify a delete. MI see that most of those who want the article deleted are actively pushing pro-israeli POV on the pages of Wikipedia and suspect that this is their main motivation for repeatedly proposing this deletion. Abu ali 10:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Farhoudk 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last few months of CNN hearing can tell that topic is real. It does not matter if it is fully developed article or not as long as the topic is real. --- ALM 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I read the comments. All questions have been answered properly. The article has to be kept obviously and improved further. It is neither OR nor POV fork. It is not "Neologism" either. Calling this, neologism is itself POV fork. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of English language. Many of the titles that we have in wikipedia have no equivalent in non-western languages, simply because the issues are not relevant to those cultures. The reverse is also true. Anti-Iranism and other recisms like anti-arabs, anti-armenians etc exist both in real life and in the literature of those involved. Let me inform you that the word Holocaust did not exist in Persian literature until one and a half years ago (before the new president got the office). Do you think we should not have a page on holocaust in Persian wikipedia? Are persian wikipedians allowed to call it Neologism? I have noticed that some voted for "delete" arguing that they are against all "Anti-X'ism" articles. This argument is practically useless and irrelevant to our discussion here on this particular page. About anti-Iranianism in the US, the subject will be improved as time passes. It for sure exists and has had clear manifestations. Sangak 11:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, the article muddles two things: international relations (political actions against the Iranian state) and racism. Personally, I think either one could be an appropriate topic for an article or part of an article, but not in this totally muddled form. Second, the article seems to me to be entirely original research. It might be interesting to have an article on divisions in Islam, whcih could include not only conflicts between Sunni and Shi'a, but also conflicts between competing national centers of power, and then, in another article on Iranian history, discuss Iran's conflicts with its historical neighbors as well as conflicts arising from European colonialism and then the Cold War ... I suspect much of what people wish were of value in this article could be accommodated by those two articles, each of which would provide more clarity and effective contextualization. Even so, contributors woul dhave to be more familiar with our NPOV and especially NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Being original research or not" has nothing to do with our personal opinion. If some thing have been researched before it is no longer an original research. This article is not about Iran-US relations and the conflicts between these two countries. There are other articles covering it. If US president insult Iranian president, we will not cover it here. If US wants to attack a nuclear site in Iran, we will not cover it here. But when it comes to "prejustice" and "insulting" and "treating all Iranians the same way" then this article is a place for that. Racism and politics are not separate from eachother. There were lots of politics around Holocaust, Armenian genocide, and anti-Iranianism by Arabs. It is meaningless to separate policical manifestaion of racism from racism. I have to emphasize that Iran-Setizi or whatever you want to call it, has more 1000 years of continuous history. Sangak 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the current article as a whole violates NOR and is thus unacceptable. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it violate NOR, when there are review articles on the subject in Persian? One can not say some thing is not OR because there is no proper review article on the subject in X-language. Racism exist every where (US, Iran, Arab countries, Europe etc). And it is not wise to look for a review article on recist view of let's say iranians in their language. Ofcourse no one write about his/her being racist! Sangak 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are wrong about the article not being muddled, not muddling international relations with racism. The article is muddled. It does include much material on foreign relations anti-Iranianism, which is not racism. For example, contrary to your initial comment, the first quote (which comes from an apparently authorless and unpublished paper which may or may not constitute a valid source) refers not to racism but to US foreign policy - precisely what you said the article is not about. The anti-Iranianism in Vali Nasr's article is about Iraqui foreign policy - again, international relations, not racism. The section on the Greeks and Romans makes irrelevant remarks (th eentire last paragraph) and has no citations. I am not going to go on - virtually the entire article is about international relations and not racism, despite your protestations, and it includes unsourced or primary material, or inappropriate source (Edward Teller?) The Nelson frye quote concerning Arabs is more a statement of Arab ignorance than racism; the use of a dictionary definition to establish racism is clearly a violation of NOR because it is using a primary source to make a synthetic statement. Anti-Iranianism in early Islam is again about international relations (competition between different states for political power) and not racism. Changing the names of places from one language to another is not racism. The quote from From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries is also original resource because a quote is taken out of context, put into another context to make a point the quote itself does not make. The section, Ali vs. Umar ibn al-Khattab, also seems to rely on primary sources. And so on, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true. I never claimed that this article has a high quality. I only said racism will become important when it is put into practice by politicians. So political manifestaion of racism and racism need to be covered together. That's all what I said. We all know that people of any two country in Europe or Asia may make joke about each other. This is not important but when these ideas are put into practice and real life by politicians then it will become important. About Iranian-Arab relation which has been studied alot, I have to say that: There exists a racism and it was a driver for wars. Have you heard about Saddam last words about Persians? He wanted to clear the earth from Persians even in his last minutes of life! This is not politics or "international relation"! This is racist ideology. Sangak 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to offer an example here. In wikipedia, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is considered racist. One can easily use your arguments and say all his remarks are about politics and international relation. But this argument can not succeed as our experience shows. Ahmadinejad even clearly rejected allegation of racism in one of his speech. But he is considered a racist by the public. And it is acceptible in wikipedia. Sangak 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how can you explain this: Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created: "

In the 1940s, Talfah wrote the ten page pamphlet Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies. In 1981, following the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government publishing house Dar al-Hurriyya (House of Liberty) republished it, and the Iraqi Ministry of Education distributed it as part of a textbook for school-boys. The work describes Jews as a "mixture of dirt and the leftovers of diverse people". [37]"--Pejman47 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep if only because we cannot tolerate that articles are deleted because someone does not like the content. Alf photoman 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is being nominated for policy reasons: NOR, NPOV, neologism, etc. NOT because someone doesn't like the content.GabrielF 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least in the english wikipedia. Although the concept/topic exists, the word basically doesn't, in English; any more than anti-Icelandism, anti-Australianism, anti-Houstonism, etc. etc. This ought to be addressed as sections of articles on Arabs, Iran, Islam, etc. Gzuckier 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not acceptable. English wikipedia is not for Americans or British people. "Worldview" must be satisfied. Anti-Xism will gain notability when it has impact in real life. For instance anti semitism is important because many have been killed due to that ideology. Many Anti Xisms are not notable as they are some minor ideas only in mind of people and in their privacy with no clear and significant manifestaion in public.Sangak 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier best you can say based on your arguments is to rename it. Instead of saying to delete it because you do not like title? --- ALM 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier - the neologism issue can be easily resolved by renaming the page to "anti-Iranian sentiment". The "ism" is what basically makes it a term rather than a descriptive phrase. This issue is being discussed on the article's and several user pages (and in this AfD) and will be addressed. Black Falcon 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Eupator. Kaveh 16:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aparantly there are some guys who oppose article's content and they aren't against its existance. They voted to save this article few mounths ago but now they wante to delete it. If they're disagree with its contents, why do they want to delete it? They can put POV or disputed tag on it.--Sa.vakilian 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I found that some of wikipedians voted to keep this article last time[38] and surprisingly have voted to delete it this time.Even they had proposed to changed the name and agreed with this new name last time. They are Elizmr :"Strong keep but take out the phrase "by Arabs" to increase parallelism with the Anti-Semitism, Anti-Arabism, etc articles. Elizmr 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC), Tewfik :Keep per Nightryder84 & Mani1, however move to NPOV title. The current title does not even reflect the early periods of Greek conflict described in the article. TewfikTalk 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) and Armon : * Keep per Mani1 as Anti-Persian sentiments not "Anti-Persianism by Arabs". --Armon 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess this article has gotten really, really bad, then. AlexeiSeptimus 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Sa.va's comment, however title and content were different in that iteration. I am concerned about two things in this iteration of the article and title. First, the title does not represent the contents. Second, there is a high potential to mix up racisism against the Iranian people with criticism of the Iranian gov't policies. I think some of the stuff written about the US and certainly graphics in the current article mix these issues in a misleading way. Elizmr 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may only include racist views against Iranians as a whole (Iranian government is indeed a part of Iranian society). However any actions that is exclusively against Iranian government's policies will not be considered racism and need to be moved to other suitable articles. This is not a big deal. Sangak 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, and what an utter mess of an article. If it were properly cited and referenced, it might stand a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR is not the case here as explained above and in Users' talk pages several times. Yes the article is a mess and needs to be wikified like thousands of other articles, but this can not be done by deleting it! We don't delete messy articles. Instead we tag them for revision until it reaches wikipedia quality standards. Sangak 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept for several important reasons. I will start off by addressing the arguments already made on this page (i.e. by user GabrielF). The section on the U.S. must be improved, but it should definitely remain. This is because a great deal of Anti-Iranianism exist in the United States. It is common knowledge that this was the case in the late 70's and early 80's because of the Hostage Crisis. In fact, the United States has been involved in Anti-Iranianism is many other cases. The article covers this a bit superficially and with a bit of POV, but this can be improved. I disagree with GabrielF that countries that are against the Iranian government aren't necessarily against Iranians. This is a distinction without a difference. Although there are many dissidents who oppose the government of Iran, we cannot say that the Islamic Republic is not a representation of most Iranians. Imagine a country being Anti-Israel without being Anti-Semitic. I must further disagree with GabrielF when he says "The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading 'anti-Iranianism.'" An understanding of the divide between East and West is necessary to understand why Anti-Iranianism in the ancient world is directly related to Anti-Iranianism in the modern world. Greek and Roman literature has contribited to Anti-Iranian sentiment in the modern West. This is discussed in the book Persian Fire. Also, the reason that anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world are "lumped" into Anti-Iranianism is that they are all forms of it. Take the article on antisemitism for example, it discusses antisemitism in the ancient world and in the modern world. It "lumps" antisemitism by Arabs and by Americans under the title anti-semitism. This is the case with this article. Even though anti-semitism by Arabs and Americans are very different and for different reasons, they are still antisemitism and should be included in that article. As the sections on Anti-Iranianism by different countries grows, they will have their own articles. GabrielF concedes that Anti-Iranianism exist: "There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article." This article must be improved, not deleted. It is true that there are many problems with this article, but they should be addressed in its talk page. Furthermore, the article has greatly improved since the posting of this AfD, and many points have been addressed (i.e. referencing sources). GabrielF says that there are too few returns for the google search of Anti-Iranianism. But he does not elaborate why it is too few. I believe it is quite sufficient and only proves the point that this article should remain (i.e. scholarly books use the word Anti-Iranianism). The point has already been addressed that there are article on anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. This is significant because it shows precedent, a major theme in Wikipedia. In conclusion, there is no doubt that there should be an article on Anti-Iranianism, and this article is not only salvageable but quite sufficient as a starting point. Agha Nader 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]


Comment: I reviewed the article again and now I have the idea of Strongly and Strongly and ... Keep and this article should be protected from any other deletion proposals .

I should say this article not only has so many reliable citations but its notation with the name of Anti-Iranianism that is criticised not to have enough sources is unaccepted too. because the words about Iran have mostly been Translated from Persian and the translation has been different and I think the current translation is the best and says the meaning better as "Xisms" is translated extremely different . and I apreciate User:Zereshk's added section (usage) that shows the accuracy of the article better. According to its use and this article's renaming mustn't occur becuase the titles discussed in do not qualify that name. For this claim you should be more familiar to Persian literature and Iran history to understand how different the Mongols where to Iran rather than the others. Not only their behaviour to Iran and their destruction is suggestive of this fact but continual centeral Asian People attack to Iran is another evidence for their Anti-Iranian policies(If can be said policy). As the mongols' army where mostly Centeral Asian people.
And totaly to User:Black Falcon :you've discussed sth doesn't relate this discussion and I can show you evidence for some of your claims I know about and believe to be deleted. For example "By US": US act and support in Mordad 28th rebelion in Iran in 1332(Solar Hijri Calender).You can't say US was just Anti-Mosaddegh . "Against Iranian scientists": deporting and temperorily imprisoning Irananian scholors goning to Sharif university of technology annual conference in US in 2006.

I assert that Anti-Iranianism isn't just a sentiment and isn't however you see the above evidence about the acts of US and Centeral Asian tribes include Mongols. The other similar items can be said about Arabs or some other tribes such as Peter The Great's statement about reaching to Persian gulf needed invading Iran so they needed to be anti-Iran. And nowadays Persian gulf renaming can be considered as another Anti-Persianism(=Anti-Iranianism) acts. --Soroush83 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and Speedy keep Subject is highly notable, has precedent, and a great article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic on M. Mossadeq[edit]

Is there a mullahcracy in Iran because Mohammad Mossadeq was supposedly removed from power by the CIA? I looked at the preamble of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. According to it the "anticolonialist movement centered on the nationalization of the oil industry" in 1950s was "failure" because it wasn't Islamic[39]. I assure you that Mohammad Mossadeq would be totally against Islamic totalitarianism.

If Mossadeq=Iran, then anti-Mossadeq=anti-Iran. Therefore, Islamic Republic = Anti-Iran.--Patchouli 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Patchouli: I never said Mosaddeq=Iran. I told that rebellion with US support was anti-Iran not Anti-Mosaddegh. I added it to answer the possible claim that it was Anti-Mosaddeq as sth of them is said to be anti-Iran regime. However I believe there are a lot of anti-regime sentiments and acts by them.--Soroush83 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article indicates otherwise. As a result, I conclude it was concocted by the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) in Qom. It is politically-motivated and propagates falsehood.--Patchouli 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the gist of your comment is, but this article is about Anti-Iranianism in general, rather than anti-Islamic Republicanism. If there's anything that leads you to believe otherwise, you should discuss that on the talk page of the article. From what I can see of the article, most if it deals with attacks against the Iranian civilization and peoples, rather than the government. Khodavand 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think such a "conclusion" is warranted, especially given WP's principle of assuming good faith. Black Falcon 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was making a joke :) GabrielF 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Deleting such an article, filled with numerous legitimate sources, is not the answer. The topic of the article is absolutely valid. Any issues concerning POV (of which I personally don't see much in the way of problems within the article) or information that pertains more to the government rather than issues of prejudice and so forth can be worked out on the talk page. But there is literally no justification for deleting this article, nor is there any Wikipedia policy that would support such a deletion. In other words, deleting this article would constitute a severe breach of WP:NPOV and would reflect badly on Wikipedia in general. Prejudice and discrimination should be denied, minimized, or ignored, especially in light of our post-9/11 world. The fact that certain editors would rather delete the entire article rather than work towards consensus on its talk page (as far as inclusion of information), speaks volumes. Its just sad and depressing, especially for those of us from Iranian backgrounds. Khodavand 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It think you're missing the point of this AfD. According to the writer of the article, Zereshk,: "Anti-Iranianism refers to any act act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran." (quote is on the article talk page). That's the problem - this ISN'T an article about racism towards Iranians, its an article about everything anybody ever did that hurt Iran, whether those actions were caused by racial or ethnic prejudice is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Quite frankly, this article is a disservice to people who want to combat racism against Iranians because it devalues real racism by effectively calling everything anybody ever did that hurt Iran racist, even if the motivation was purely political or economic. When somebody says that everything anybody ever did that hurt them was racist, than people who might otherwise be sympathetic to combatting racism are going to be less likely to listen when real prejudice occurs. GabrielF 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry that you feel sad and depressed about how Wikipedia functions; however please understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or publisher of original thought. The Neutral Point of View policy has nothing to do with demanding some sort of "balancing of perspective" to Wikipedia-- it's about making sure that articles themselves are non-biased. However, the reason an article such as this has no place here is because it is Original Research -- conflating bits and pieces of history and news accounts into a proposition that there exists some sort of researched topic of "Anti-Iranianism". The very fact that the article itself can't point to a definition from a reliable source demonstrates that this is a neologism created to present a particular POV, not an academic or historical term. Every place, group, tribe, religion, cult, organization, political party, business entity, product, movement (did I leave out any categories?) has someone who is "Anti-" them. Just because there are people out there who may not like you, doesn't mean a bizarro-world "Anti-Wikipedia" article is required to set them straight. --LeflymanTalk 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mardavich, Zereshk and the other arguments. --Striver - talk 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to come participate here in an e-mail. No opinion on AfD. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for noting this here. I really can't understand why anyone would do that, given that: (1) you express no particular political or philosophical orientation on your userpage that is relevant to this AfD; (2) AfD is a discussion and not a simple vote; and (3) you do not seem (from your edit history) to be involved in Iranian-related topics. In any case, thank you again for noting this. Cheers, Black Falcon 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - possible English-language sources relevant to anti-Iranian sentiments in the US. In the continuing effort to improve this article (present in a number of discussions on this AfD page, Talk:Anti-Iranianism, and several user pages, I am posting some links relevant to a section about “anti-Iranian sentiment” in the United States (I found these links through a relatively brief search; I’m sure there are many more and better ones available online and in print sources). I suggest incorporating them into the article once a consensus is reached about what content the article should or should not contain (these links reference the type of anti-Iranianism that should be included in any case: animosity. against the Iranian people). Note: I am posting them here instead of the talk page because there is more discussion here than on the talk page (at least for now) and because the whole point becomes rather moot if the article is deleted. Black Falcon 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A documentary film – "The film shows how the Iranian-American community has had to overcome being scapegoats for anti-U.S. sentiments and activities in Iran since the Hostage Crisis in 1979."
  2. Online magazine article - I am unsure about the source's reliability (it could be very reliable or completely unreliable). "The media machinery disguising genuine goals of the U.S. pressure upon Iran is shamelessly manipulating the public sentiments inspiring anti-Iranian sentiments in both America and elsewhere."
  3. NYT article – "As a high school student Ms. Ardalan -- who dropped her first name, Iran, after anti-Iranian sentiments blossomed in America in the wake of the hostage-takings in 1979".
  4. Article about Iranians in the US – "At least since the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" in 1980 Iranian immigrants have been subjected to discrimination and prejudice in the U.S. Although anti-Iranian sentiments have subsided over time, they flare up every time the Iranian regime engages in an allegedly anti-American activity."
  • Comment -- may I also suggest turning to scholarly literature on Iranian-American communities abroad as a source of information about anti-Iranian/Persian sentiment (or the lack thereof) in particular countries or regions. Black Falcon 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this may have promise. See, for instance, an article by Fawaz A. Gerges in The Journal of Palestine Studies titled "Islam and Muslims in the Mind of America: Influences on the Making of U. S. Policy" [40] (unfortunately it's not free-access). Still, there is a section on the effect the 1979 hostage crisis had on American feelings toward Muslims in general (inclusive of course of Iranians). A quote: in a 1981 poll of Americans, "50 percent of the respondents described 'all' or 'most' Muslims as 'warlike and bloodthirsty'". I think scholarly work of this type can go a long way toward improving the quality of the article, once consensus has been reached, of course. Black Falcon 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article would go a long way to improving the articles Islamophobia and Orientalism. Find me a scholarly work that deals with anti-Iranianism. (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.) AlexeiSeptimus 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This topic may warrant an article in Wikipedia, but certainly not in its existing format. It reads as a polemic that conflates all instances of hostility towards Persia/Iran the state as somehow being a form of discrimination. There is no treatment of (very real) ethnic hatred and condescension towards Iranians within Imperial Russia, while Russian territorial aggression is supposedly passed off as being an example of ethnic hatred?! Russia expanded because it wished to become more powerful. It expanded into Iranian territory because Iran at the time was weak and an easy target. That's only one example from a long list of fallacious assertions in this article. If we are to keep this article, we should start over from scratch with a coherent and limiting definition of what Anti-Iranianism (awkward term in my opinion) actually is. I would suggest: statements or beliefs regarding the cultural or ethnic inferiority of Iranians and actions taken based upon such beliefs. To include an action in this category, therefore, it would have to be demonstrable that it took place because of a belief in cultural/ethnic inferiority of Iranians. Moreover, the link between actions and beliefs would need to be established AND generally uncontroversial within the scholarly literature. This task is far from impossible; salvaging this article based on its present content is, however, impossible.
I don't believe that this article is being nominated for deletion because of a desire to stifle discussion of this topic. I believe it is nominated for deletion because it is 1. presented in an unencyclopedic, unscientific, and unprofessional manner and 2. about a english term which neither exists in the popular consciousness nor is widespread in academic literature. --Treemother199 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with most of what you say above except the last part. I don't think "salvaging this article based on its present content is ... impossible" -- it simply requires a great amount of content to be deleted--there has been quite a bit of progress in this respect over the past two days. Also, in response to the reasons for deletion: (1) "unencyclopedic, unscientific, and unprofessional" -- I think you are being a bit too harsh; in any case, this can be corrected by editing/improving the article based on consensus reached on the talk page. (2) The article could (I believe should) be renamed (or moved) to "anti-Iranian sentiments"--this would no longer be a neologism. Overall, I think this AfD has been positive for the article as it has been improved quite a bit (although it still needs a lot of work) and, more importantly, the major contributors have begun discussing on the talk page and on various user pages to establish consensus as to the future direction of the article and to address criticisms raised in the AfD. The thing is: it will require time to improve an article of this size--time which the 5-day limit of the AfD simply does not allow. -- Black Falcon 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked back over the very long article, and the only information that I think exists that would be relevant for an "anti-Iranian Sentiments" article is the section dealing with toponymic changes to eradicate Persian names. But that information should be condensed dramatically--I think its length is unwarranted. And more space should be devoted to a coherent explanation of why this activity constitutes ant-Iranian sentiment, rather than to listing empirical evidence of a phenomenon which has many potential causes. Quite frankly, I don't see a use to the rest of the very long list of examples for which relevance is not explained. --Treemother199 05:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sections noting "in the Greek of this period 'barbarian' is often used expressly to mean Persian" or "Be watchful of Iranian Muslims and never treat them as equals of Arabs"? I do agree that much of the content should be removed as unrelated to "anti-Iranian sentiment", but large parts of the Greek and Arab sections (and small parts of other sections except the Mongols, colonial powers, and the US--I think these three sections should go altogether) should be kept (and possibly the pan-Turkist section as well--I have not read the cited article, so I cannot comment). I do hope that the contributors take to heart the call to devote more space to providing "a coherent explanation of why this activity constitutes ant-Iranian sentiment" based in reliable sources, of course. I think efforts so far to improve the article are promising and that it should be kept so that these efforts can continue. If, after a real effort to improve based on consensus achieved at the talk page, the article still falls short of Wikipedia standards, I will re-nominate it for deletion myself. -- Black Falcon 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Seems like an origional idea--Sefringle 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable??!!Sangak 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!!What's your definition for notablitity.--Soroush83 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into other articles. The term "Anti-Iranism" is a neologism that suggests that opposing Iran is some kind of ideology. -- Heptor talk 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Note that while this AFD is in progress, the very same people that have voted for the deletion of this article are already deleting large sections of the article, regardless of the AFD, and irrespective of any discussion on the talk page. I find that troublesome.--Zereshk 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? They are deleting the parts that motivated the Afd, and there has definitely been discussion. It is an act of improvement so that the article does not have to be buried; in essence, we are trying to save the article. The Behnam 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad sources and original research are not reasons to delete an article so long as subject is notable. Considering that even Saddam Hussein's last words included a condemnation of Persians, I think this topic is notable and verifiable. Joshdboz 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alert Possible canvassing. See [41] and [42]. The latter does not appear to have a corresponding contrib on Mardavich's part [43] that accounts for the notification of Agha Nader; canvassing email is suspected. If anyone can account for these suspicious activities, a response is invited. The Behnam 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information
  • There was also some canvassing by an IP user (see edit history). However, as far as I can tell, the canvassing by the IP user seems to be more or less acceptable as
  1. There was limited posting (only 4 users).
  2. The text of the message is neutral (only an invitation to participate) (see the text of the message).
  3. The canvassing seems non-partisan. The persons contacted are all interested in Iranian subjects, but there was nothing on their userpages that might constitute being "on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization)".
Furthermore, all 4 canvassed users had already posted to the AfD beforehand. See: (all times UTC)
  • User:Kaveh voted at 16:13 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:20 on 2 February.
  • User:Sa.vakilian voted at 19:12 on 31 January, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Agha Nader voted at 22:02 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Soroush83 voted at 22:26 on 31 January 2007, and was canvassed at 01:18 on 2 February.
  • User:HighInBC posted on this page that he was canvassed by e-mail (see diff). I honestly can think of no reason for this as the user neither expresses any particular political or philosophical orientation on his userpage nor seems to be (based on edit history) involved in Iranian-related topics.
  • User:Agha Nader thanks User:Mardavich (see diff) for notifying him about the AfD. Note, however, that User:Agha Nader contributes to Iran-related topics and so the notification (whether by e-mail or some other way) may well have been solicited. I don't think there is enough evidence to claim that any inappropriate action took place if we assume good faith (not that I'm claiming that User:The Behnam is asserting the occurrence of such action). Black Falcon 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confirm this. I got an invitation email to vote on this page so I added {{not a ballot}} on top. I know at least two other Iranian users who have got a copy of that email. I'm really disappointed. Hessam 07:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I may ask: was the text of the message neutral? If it only called for comment and not a request to save or get rid of the article, then the canvassing (though undesirable as it can be construed as spamming) may be tolerable per WP:CANVASSING. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do note that if given to users expected to vote a certain way based upon editing patterns, even neutral messages are votestacking. The Behnam 08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, if it was something that HighInBC and Hessam didn't like, which seems to be the case, it probably should be considered spamming. The Behnam 08:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the e-mail to Hessam. Canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, I did no such thing. I sent the e-mail to Hessam because he's an admin who knows all wiki rules and is also familiar with the subject. That's neither canvassing nor spamming. --Sa.vakilian 08:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was neutral but I'm not sure anyone with any point of view was invited. Even just inviting Iranian users is not neurtal. The last sentence was: "Forward this email to anyone who can vote". Hessam 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Sa.Vakilian sent emails. What about Mardavich? That issue is still not explained. The Behnam 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, which is not the case with this particular AfD. Asking for input from one or two Wikipedians who are involved in similar topics and familiar with the subject matter in a neutral tone, without telling them how to vote, is not prohibited. This is a pointless discussion anyway, as this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus, and a {{not a ballot}} has alerady been added to the top of the page. --Mardavich 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Anti-Persianism per Black Falcon. The introductory paragraph is highly problematic and confusing as it defines anti-Iranianism as hositility towards various Iranian peoples. Please remember that the term Iranian peoples includes ethnic groups who may not be associated with the modern nation-state of Iran. Are feelings against Kurds in Turkey can be categorized as Anti-Iranianism? Does a Tajik that hates a Pashtun (in Afghanistan) can be called an anti-Iranian?.Heja Helweda 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to the closing admin: When making a final decision in evaluating consensus, please consider the following:
  1. a great number of changes have been made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised in the AfD (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V) -- most of the contentious sections have already been removed or modified;
  2. there is an ongoing effort to reach a consensus on the talk page and the user pages of various contributors to the AfD and the article; and
  3. given the size of this article, the time limit of 5 days will not be enough for editors to reach consensus and implement all the necessary changes to improve this article.
Thank you, Black Falcon 04:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to remind everyone of the definition of "Speedy Keep"? WP:SK AlexeiSeptimus 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Hanson[edit]

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

Marked as an A7 speedy, but this was contested by the article's creator, User:Gbsothere. --A Train take the 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nom...definately non-notable and completely promotional in nature.--IRelayer 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under criterion A7. I was unable to find any assertion within the text on why the subject of the article is notable (general criteria as well as WP:BIO), and a search on Google failed to yield any [[WP:|reliable sources]] with which to verify that she is indeed notable, although this does not mean there are not print sources that would satisfy this. Kyra~(talk) 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7 hit the mark first time. The Rambling Man 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. YechielMan 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. If not, delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article asserts that she released two albums, so I wouldn't quite speedy the article. But delete it since it doesn't look like they're on any sort of notable label, so the article fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 09:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hudgens[edit]

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

I have nominated this article because I believe that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of notability.

Per the notability guideline: A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.5 Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all.

There are no sources that meet the above criteria that are presented on the page. The only "source" relates to the comment on Bacliff, Texas and not the subject. Further, I was able to find no independent published material that relates to the subject. The only material I found was self-published (blogs, personal pages, and podcasts). --IRelayer 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per well-reasoned nom (but you don't need to quote to the guidelines, just link to them). He's not as notable as the college quarterback Chris Hudgens, certainly. As for the podcast, itself of marginal notability, he's listed as a "technician", not a notable role. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and cited i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, discounting the various WP:AADD opinions to the contrary. Note that [44] is indeed substantial coverage by a mainstream newspaper, so if more substantial coverage by a reliable source shows up, the article could probably be recreated. Sandstein 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabella brave[edit]

Speedied and then contested; I decided to give this the benefit of the doubt. I see no credible evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC and my opinion is that this should be Deleted.--Isotope23 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. A YouTube star is not inherently notable, neither is a competition finalist. No evidence of coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC - yet another YouTuber. The Rambling Man 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. I see why this was contested, but really, this singer is not notable. YechielMan 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Alf photoman 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio. --Kukini 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - shouldn't noteability be a statistical value? [CheckHitcount] 2 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.87.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - do not consider this person as 'yet another youtuber' but more of a 'phenomenon' and therefore zeitgeist, or 'noteable' 4 February 2007 Applet 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She was recently featured in Wired News. See the footnote added to her entry today. She was also featured on MSNBC on February 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.11.254 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Apart from being a talented performer who's BIO will develop, she is notable as a record-holder for honors on YouTube. Also this article can be a reference from articles describing the phenomena of YouTube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeSW17 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page this woman is tellented web based singer who is developing her carear via the net and has every right to use a web based encylopidia to diarise her progress. Giles Ashton

  • Keep - She's starting to get press beyond YouTube and blogs -- MSNBC, for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkakid (talk • contribs) all editors contributions have been to this article.
  • All sources provided so far have either been non-reliable sources like blogs or trivial mentions (like the MSNBC mention, which curiously was apparently only done on the television station and not on their website [45].--Isotope23 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources provided are all unreliable. She seems to have a fanbase on YouTube, but that is hardly a standard for inclusion. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - above searches don't produce any results. Also, no reliable sources included in article. Addhoc 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSNBC isn't reliable? And there is no "only" when talking about TV.
  • I said "or trivial", referring to the MSNBC mention... and "only" refers to TV as opposed to the website they have as well, where no mention is made.--Isotope23 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Palumbo[edit]

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

Delete.For one thing, the article is entirely non-objective. I removed some superfluous fluff, but the whole article reads like a promotional piece. Nothing about the mass criticism his films have received, the questionable content such as using a real infant in one scene, or allegations of anti-semitism...nada. A lot of the information is unsourced as well.

I also don't think he's that notable, at least for an encyclopedia. No one outside the core horror community knows about his work, and a lot of the 'controversy' that his films have received usually stem from his own aggressive message board patrolling.

No categories and no links. He was actually listed on a list of notable horror film directors, but he is clearly not and I removed it. CyberGhostface 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The IMDb listing and the interviews are enough to demonstrate notability. I added categories. The article would benefit if someone could add information relating to the points that CyberGhostface has raised. --Eastmain 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs cleanup, not delete. Madmedea 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I see some problems with WP:V but the subject of the article is notable. The article itself needs work Alf photoman 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article has been ammended with additional information. Disinformation has been repeatedly added to the article including the claim that the film was produced by Thrid Reich Productions when in fact it was produced by Fright Flix Productions. S_noone

Alright, Nick (because we all know thats who you are) I'll remove the bit about Third Reich as I can't find a source. But you're not removing the cited information that shows you in a less than favorable light. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fluff piece you use to shill your films.--CyberGhostface 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry O'Neal[edit]

Speedied as a biography with no assertion of meeting WP:BIO, I see assertions, I just think they fall short of meeting the criteria. Submitting here for community review. If kept it needs a nearly complete rewrite...--Isotope23 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, personal vendetta of a user against another. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chander P. Grover[edit]

Chander P. Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

notability questionable/possible author vanity/COI

  • Weak keep or MergeTag the page for cleanup, sourcing, and NPOV, or merge racial discrimination info with National Research Council of Canada Also, vanity is not itself a valid reason for deletion.--IRelayer 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: there aren't sources for the notability of Chander himself as a scientist--his pubmed citations don't place him above "average college professor." The implied notability seems to come from the lawsuit--and not very plaintiff in a lawsuit is inherently notable. In fact, few are. In this case, the damages were extemely low--$5,000--and it's not the only discrimination lawsuit in the history of the world (or Canada). It didn't get more than local mention, it appears. When are plaintiffs notable?--We do not have an article on the woman who received a 4.5 million dollar settlement for the Dalkon Shield, for example (nor would we call her a "human rights activist"). The article appears to have been written by a relative. I don't think mention should be in NRC, either, per due weight. A sentence or two could perhaps be merged into an article about Canadian discrimination lawsuits or something, if one exists.-Cindery 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There need not be any N as a scientist. The articles is not about his physics, but about the discrimination lawsuit, which I think is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. NRC Canada is a rather large organization & the article is appropriately mostly an outline linking to the articles about the various component bodies. This material would not reasonable fit in there. The article seems objective enough, and it is sourcd, so I do not see that who wrote it is to the point. DGG 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not sourced, actually--the first "source"is the lawsuit itself, which was not published/is a primary source, and the third is a general article that doesn't even mention Grover. The 2nd source is a small newspaper--The Ottawa Citizen--an article which isn't about the lawsuit per se, but about events which took place after. One indirect mention in a regional newspaper doesn't make it sourced/notable, I don't think...-Cindery 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense and vanity. - Mike Rosoft 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical Goop[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. May also be a case for WP:HOAX; the author has no contributions other than this article, and the line Due to severely unfair treatment in the Wikipedia community, Cervical Goop will be embarking on the official "COCKS UNITE" tour beginning in Seattle, July 2007...the tour is to help raise awareness and support for the band, and to combat the evil of Wikipedia.org administrators suggests that it may simply be an attempt to attack Wikipedia. (If it is a hoax, the random sexual profanity of the purported "discography" makes it a rather tasteless one as well.) Walton monarchist89 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per db-nonsense, tagged as such. Completely repugnant rubbish which shouldn't be allowed to exist a moment longer. The Rambling Man 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author deleted the afd and speedy tags, I restored them. - RJASE1 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very high-level programming language[edit]

blatant bullshit. there's no such thing as very high programming language they might use syntax that is never used in other programming languages, such as direct English syntax. obviously a joke.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) .

  • Strong keep. No evidence it's a joke, examples are actual languages. The term gets many ghits for scholarly publications, and appears to have been the subject of a technical symposium. (Proceedings, Symposium on Very High Level Languages. SIGPLAN Notices (ACM) 9, 4 (April 1974), 1-132) DMacks 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • well show me some examples that are very high programming languages. i would be happy to use them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • To quote the article itself "A good example of a very high-level programming language is Logo". BDL (see doi:10.1145/359863.359886) also. DMacks 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DMacks Caniago 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, not keen on the phrasing of the AFD, but VHLL exists alright. As per DMacks, check out Logo, and ISBN 0070350981 is a tidy book on the subject. The Rambling Man 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, please search when you are unfamiliar with a topic. Scheme (programming language) is another example. But arguably so is csh. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DMacks. By "Logo" I assume you mean Logo (programming language) not Logo. --Bduke 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the term seems really pointless and arbitrary compared to other high level languages, but apparently has been used in academia. Krimpet 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep More examples: SETL and ProSet. Google Books is awash with references on this topic [47], it's a shame the nominator didn't do a little basic research before declaring a notable topic "blatant bullshit". If you disagree with one statement, then remove it or request a citation. As it happens, you're wrong - there is no reason why parsable natural language syntax cannot be used as as a programming language with a clever enough compiler or interpreter. --Canley 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. You can't say that VHLL don't exist or aren't notable when the ACM has a symposium on them!--OinkOink 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian Works[edit]

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

Currently, this article is not reliably sourced but rather relies on a bunch of fan websites. That by itself is enough to justify deletion. Additionally, I believe finding reliable sources for this is impossible, because:

  1. Although Discordianism is a headless and anarchistic philosophy, calling anything other than the Principia Discordia a "Discordian work" is a statement of bias, since it is an assertion that the work is wholly Discordian. Wikipedia simply cannot state whether or not something is Discordian without a reliable reference to back that up. And that's serious business.
  2. The works listed on this page are clearly not Discordian, but some sort of loopy neo-paganism masqueraded as Discordianism.
  • I always thought Discordianism is loopy neo-paganism. MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one of the fallacies promoted by this article. Ashibaka (tock) 13:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the parts of the article which one might find a source for if one looks hard enough do not belong in the article.

There was a previous AfD which kept this article but I seriously do not see how it is grounded in policy. Ashibaka (tock) 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete There is a reasonably good article on the philosophy, where many o fthe works are mentioned, and some articles on the individual works. That is all that is needed, and all that other similar subjects use.DGG 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Article needs a big clean-up, and much of it could be removed as cruft, but the phenomena of the recent generation of "Holy Tracts" by Discordians is a genuine one, and deserves mention as an important and notable part of modern Discordianism. I think it is demonstrable that each of the works listed identifies itself as a "Discordian Work" -- I'm not sure how the assertion that such a work is *not* a "Discordian Work" would be made (short of the possesion of a magic wand which reveals the Hidden Nature of things laff), but to say they are "clearly not Discordian" is a statement of opinion, not fact.
Further, if I offended you by the reverts I made to your additions to the article, just before you nominated AfD, I apologise. DrJon 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, can I just write my own self-published book and it's automatically Discordian? In that case, how is this article useful at all?! Ashibaka (tock) 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, and it's not automatically Greek Orthodox, either. But if you self-publish a book called "Greek Orthodoxia" and write about the Greek Orthodox church, then that's a Greek Orthodox work. If somebody wrote an article on Wikipedia about there's been a bunch of books, including self-published ones, about Greek Orthodoxy, then someone could mention and describe your book in the article. MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. The books on this page are original essays that claim to be Discordian. But you could, for example, write an essay that claims you are a Discordian and the true nature of the religion is Satan worship. Who says whether you are right or wrong? Ashibaka (tock) 13:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A Discordian work (self-identifying as Discordian) which was accepted by other Discordians as being a Discordian Work is probably going to be Discordian. And that might include your hypothetical Discordian Work which postulates that Discordianism was "Satan Worship". This is kinda self-evident, I'm afraid, given the meta-religious nature of Discordianism.

Here's some links which might prove enlightening when it comes to your assertion of a lack of reliable sources:

http://www.ohmyeris.com/4.html http://pages.videotron.com/drroots/DiscordianReferences.htm http://batlock666.blogspot.com/2006/11/scripture.html http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/5books.html http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9743.0

Given that these are lists compiled by practicing Discordians and Discordian Cabals, I'm rather afraid that they count as "reliable sources". I do not understand why you might think that they are not, unless you chose to view them as "fan sites", an epithet which I am pretty sure they would object to vehemently. Drjon 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Are we going through all this again? It is reliably sourced--many of the links are to the original sites and even where you can buy a lot of these. And your argument that anything that isn't Principia Discordia isn't a Discordian work is like saying anything that isn't the Bible isn't a Christian work! And then you say the works aren't Discordian but are something else? Based on what?
I have to ask. Is this deletion some kind of joke or are you really serious?
DGG sounds perfectly reasonable, but I do disagree. Many subjects have a lot of articles. For example of something that's a belief system that's only done by a small minority, Nudism, Public nudity, Nude beach, List of public outdoor clothes free places, Gay naturism, Clothing-optional bike rides, American Nudist Research Library, Timeline of non-sexual social nudity (prehistory - 1999), Timeline of non-sexual social nudity (2000 - present), etc. Those are all about the same topic. For another faith that has a relatively small number of followers, Bahá'í, there are Bahá'í, Bahá'í apologetics, Bahá'í individuals, Bahá'í orthography, Orthodox_Bahais,

Bahá'í Faith in fiction, etc. A google search gave 1,400,000 hits for Bahá'í, but 3,330,000 for Discordia. Binky The WonderSkull 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Look, I'm not deleting Discordianism. Read this closely. I want reliable sources for this article or else it is totally useless. Ashibaka (tock) 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep So User:Ashibaka thinks this article is worth editing (check its history), but then when somebody reverses his edits, he says it should be deleted? OK.
To comment on something actually worthwhile, we've already had this discussion before, so this is deja vu all over again. If I recall, the only arguments against the article originally were that it only talked about a couple or so Discordian works. Several more were added, the objectors were satisfied, and the situation was resolved. The article stayed.
And by the way, Binky, if you do a search on Wikipedia for Nudism and Bahai, you'll find several more articles, which back you up even more. And if anybody checks, I have made at least 100 posts here, so I have the right to an opinion. Even if I am the one who created this article. IamthatIam 09:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not address my arguments at all. Ashibaka (tock) 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which argument? You said it's impossible to find reliable sources because "Discordianism is a headless and anarchistic philosophy, calling anything other than the Principia Discordia a "Discordian work" is a statement of bias." So in another words, it's impossible to justify any article having to do with Discordianism that isn't about Principia Discordia. OK.
        • It's not impossible to justify it, but you need reliable sources. Ashibaka (tock) 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what you said, Ashibaka. You said "I believe finding reliable sources for this is impossible...." MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe it is impossible because there aren't any sources. Ashibaka (tock) 13:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or "The works listed on this page are clearly not Discordian, but some sort of loopy neo-paganism masqueraded as Discordianism." -- now that's a logical argument, right?
        • It is my opinion, but I think it is a reasonable one. Ashibaka (tock) 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So those who argue in support of this article have to have facts, but you can stand on your personal opinion? MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or "this article is not reliably sourced but rather relies on a bunch of fan websites." Most of the sites are the original sources. How can you get any more "sourced" than that?
        • Original sources are not reliable sources, but original research which cannot be included on this encyclopedia. Ashibaka (tock) 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if there's an article on the U.S. Government, for example, we can't use any government site or publication or announcement, etc., as a source? Or if an article talks about the micronation of Sealand (which has maybe one or two residents), we can't use the official Sealand site as a source? I'd like to see that Wikipedia policy. MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only point I see even worth considering is the one DenisMoskowitz mentioned, which is which works are worthy of staying in the article. But if this is deleted, we'll have half a dozen stubs about various Discordian works, just like we did before. This article was created to correct that problem, which DenisMoskowitz had pointed out before. IamthatIam 19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this article is useless. Ashibaka (tock) 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Specifically why is this particular article useless? What Wikipedia policy number does "useless" come under? MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is this up for debate again? If anything the article has improved. Having this page keeps us from having pages on each and every minor Discordian work - which used to be the case. DenisMoskowitz 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Ashibaka has an interesting point - what makes a work notable enough to appear on this page? It's difficult to know how widespread a Discordian work is, but just throwing some text up on a site shouldn't be enough to get you listed here. DenisMoskowitz 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DrJon points out that the great number of Discordian works IS the main point of this article. That's what this article is about--there are a lot of them that have been created in the 21st century. But just saying this is true is not a Wikipedia article. Listing the works, describing them, and showing websites where they can be found, is documentation that this is a real phenomenon and makes this a real Wikipedia article. The growth of Discordianism from works other than Principia Discordia was a big part of Robert Anton Wilson keeping his home during his last days RAW Bedside Update October 10, 2006, and the naming of Planet Eris. If that's not real, then what is?
Face it. Someone thought it would be funny to put up a Discordian article up for deletion by using silly Discordian-type arguments. Nice joke. Problem is, this is a real online encyclopedia, and not everyone thinks deleting articles is funny. Although I do think Wikipedia has a lot of loopy neo-paganism. MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't delete an article because you dispute it's category status also who are you to delete an article simply because you see it as uncanonical --Jesusmyth 06:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could actually blank this article myself because there is no reliable evidence that anything on it is true. Ashibaka (tock) 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somebody needs to add a section on The Book of Eris. MRN 05:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to my obvious bias (my work is included in four of the mentioned works and I'm mentioned in a fifth), I will not comment on whether this article should be marked keep or delete.
However, I believe I am not overstepping my bounds in posting Ashibaka's removed edits to the article as they are mentioned above by DrJon (and yes, if this were used as part of an argument, this could be considered ad hominem; but I'm not making an argument, so judge for yourself):
20:21, 31 January 2007: This is evidence that the book is taking itself far too seriously to be a true Discordian work, since obviously it will have no impact on the use of traditional third-person pronouns in Western society. Genderless neologisms are frequently seen in neo-pagan literature, not Discordian literature.
20:22, 31 January 2007: This, too, is far too serious and self-important to be considered a Discordian belief.
Reverend Loveshade 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments are just as accurate as anything else in that article. Ashibaka (tock) 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons it was kept the last time. Kmusser 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Ashibaka (tock) 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Boys Junior Lyceum (Malta)[edit]

St. Joseph Boys Junior Lyceum (Malta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnoteworthy school, violation of WP:V, with no sources to prove notability. Google displays just 40 hits, some of them just lists of schools. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --rogerd 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. The article seems to imply, but does not explicitly state, that this was the first junior lyceum in Malta. If this is so, the school is notable and the article should be retained and improved. Otherwise, I'm inclined to say Delete. WMMartin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - needs to be verified per WP:V, but I'd say it's notable per current policy; since the failure of WP:SCHOOL there's been no real policy on schools, and many non-noteworthy schools seem to have their own articles. At the moment it seems that schools are treated as inherently notable. Walton monarchist89 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the above searches turn up nothing and even using the much derided google hits method only produces 19 unique hits, including this article and mirrors. Addhoc 10:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schools are not inherently noteworthy and the rules of WP:V apply to all articles. If we can't get any reliable & independent sources then we must delete the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicyn Sterling[edit]

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

Non-notable porn star. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:BIO. Valrith 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Appears to be the screen name of Carrie Bittner, for whom there is an imdb listing, and seems to just fall short of the 100 film credits per WP:PORN BIO Ohconfucius 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having an IMDb listing is not a criteria for inclusion (or keeping) or an article, and the current WP:PORNBIO puts the 100-film criterion as a "dubious" qualifier. Valrith 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leam Lane[edit]

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

Prod removed, a vandalism hotspot, and a non-notable, non-verifiable article The Rambling Man 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the article as it stands even accurate? I've consulted maps which show a road called Leam Lane, but no suburb by that name. Incidentally, there is a biography of Catherine Cookson called The Girl From Leam Lane - apparently she was born there. AdorableRuffian 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gateshead council website lists a ward called Wardley and Leam Lane. Entering NZ295607 into the OS's get-a-map shows a place called Leam Lane, with a pool & a library, near a Roman road, per the article. Google finds "Fewster Square" per the article.The census lists a population of 9000 in a ward called Leam which is where the article says it should be. I think we'll just have to be eventualists on this one. Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Mr Stephen 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete above searches don't indicate any non-trivial mentions outside local press. Addhoc 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. -Docg 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland[edit]

Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NOTE: this page has recently been revised to remove the implications I have objected to (that it was a hereditary post) and otherwise rewritten to discuss the deputization of the Lord High Steward's functions. As discussed below, there is ample precedent for non-hereditary deputies; change my vote to Speedy Keep due to revisions in article. Choess 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 refers to honorary hereditary officer of the Crown - Kittybrewster 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's in reference to the Lord High Steward, not his deputy. Choess 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to believe that the existence of this office cannot be substantiated. Most of the references on the page refer to the right of the Lord High Steward of Ireland to appoint deputies. However, such deputyships, like appointments as deputy of the Earl Marshal, are not hereditary, as this office claims to be. The one exception, a reference to the Dublin Grant Book of 17 July 1442, appears to be a reference to the creation of the office of Lord High Steward itself. Furthermore, the office does not appear in any of the usual works of reference describing such dignities. Unless further evidence can be produced, I believe it should be deleted as unsubstantiated. Choess 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems to provide adequate references. On the other hand, I've never heard of this office (and my interest in traditional hereditary offices, and knowledge thereof, is rather extensive). The nominator is correct that most deputies to hereditary officers are not themselves hereditary - for instance, the Earl Marshal traditionally designates his eldest son and heir as Deputy Earl Marshal. However, this isn't necessarily a universal rule, and I would tend to trust the references. Walton monarchist89 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question - the article says one of the duties of office was "to formerly act as President of the Court by which a Peer may have been tried by his Peers in the Peerage of Ireland." Was there ever such a trial? If so, there are probably publications available concerning it and they would indicate who presided. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Newyorkbrad - Yes, such a trial would have occurred (as Choess says below); historically all peers in the UK had the right to trial before other peers, as they could not be tried before a jury of commoners. In England and Wales they were tried before the House of Lords, under the presidency of the Lord High Steward (more recently, the Lord Chancellor fulfilled this role, as the hereditary Stewardship has been in abeyance for centuries). I presume that in Ireland (before the 1801 Act of Union) the Lord High Steward of Ireland, or his designated deputy, would have presided (as Choess explains below). So you're right, there should be publications relating to this (although bear in mind that such trials were always quite rare, due to the small number of peers compared to the population as a whole). Walton monarchist89 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion upon points of fact here, so let me try to explain at greater length. Two facts are incontestable: first, that there is such an officer as the Lord High Steward of Ireland, an office now hereditary in the Earl of Shrewsbury, whose duties are to carry a white rod on certain occasions and who formerly had the right to preside over the trial of Irish peers. However, as explained in the article on the Lord High Steward (recently expanded, and excellently, by the author of the article now being considered for deletion), the office was for many centuries not claimed nor its rights exercised, until after Catholic Emancipation; the Earl of Shrewsbury petitioned to be recognized as Lord High Steward of Ireland in 1862, and was so confirmed. The second fact is that the Lord High Steward had the power to appoint non-hereditary deputies, as the Earl Marshal has the power to appoint Deputy Earl Marshals. (An examination of the list of Deputy Earl Marshals in that article will show that the deputyship has been given to various people unrelated or distantly related to the Earl Marshal; the grant to the eldest son is a matter of tradition, not of hereditary right.) Again, this is unquestioned, and in the past few years the current Earl of Shrewsbury has announced plans to sell deputyships. Such deputies have the power to exercise all the functions of the office of Lord High Steward of Ireland when the Lord High Steward is unable, himself, to carry them out. All this, I consider to be established. The controversial part of this article is that it asserts the existence of a hereditary deputyship granted to a member of the O'Donnell family, information which is *not* sufficiently corroborated. The first and third references establish the legal basis for creating non-hereditary deputies. I suffered the article to stand for some time on the basis of the second reference, to a grant of "17 July 1442" in the Dublin Grant Books, but I am now decidedly skeptical of that reference (which does not quote from the grant). John Talbot was created Earl of Shrewsbury in the year 1442, and Earl of Waterford and Lord High Steward of Ireland on 17 July 1446. The reference appears to be a confutation of those two dates. Given that the article draws heavily on the description of the duties and rights of the Lord High Steward, this would seem to be a reference to the creation of that office. It would seem most remarkable if the creation of the Vice Great Seneschally, simultaneously with that of Lord High Steward/Great Seneschal, escaped the notice of all the references on United Kingdom dignities which recognize the latter; particularly since I can think of no other Great Officer of State with whom a hereditary deputyship is associated. The office is described as being associated with that of "seneschal of Tyrconnell", and I find it not implausible that the O'Donnells of Ardfert might hold such an office created by the prerogative of Hugh Roe O'Donnell as King of Tír Conaill, rather than as part of the United Kingdom system of offices. This would be congruent with the statements made by the author of this article, in other articles, that Hugh "left some of his O'Donnell kinsmen behind in Ardfert," "in stewardship to hold it". If such is the case, I would be happy to see evidence put forth for it, but it should be described as such, rather than part of the official order erected by the then Kings of England. Please note that I haven't put this up for deletion because of republican sentiment or some sort of political nonsense; a considerable amount of my work in Wikipedia concerns the peerage, offices under the crown and so forth. I'm simply concerned that this is not an accurate description. To claim the existence of a demi-Officer of State who has not, as far as I can tell, been recorded in any of the many works on the official structure of the UK is something of an extraordinary claim, and deserves careful scrutiny. Choess 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, I'd strongly agree that if this is not an accurate description then it should be altered; I share your interest in the peerage and officers of the Crown. However, what about the references cited in the article? Obviously they could be incorrectly quoted - I don't have reference materials on hand to check them out. Walton monarchist89 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it actually exists, it does seem to smack of charlatans creating false titles, or at least, feigning a long-forgotten title.--Couter-revolutionary 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Fest[edit]

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

Delete.This appears non-notable Avi 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one time only fest that didn't complete half its days seems non-notable. Google hits produces a few mentions of the event being shut down for rioting or near-rioting and little else. Also seems to have a biased POV.Improbcat 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, personal vendetta of a user against another. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chander P. Grover[edit]

Chander P. Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

notability questionable/possible author vanity/COI

  • Weak keep or MergeTag the page for cleanup, sourcing, and NPOV, or merge racial discrimination info with National Research Council of Canada Also, vanity is not itself a valid reason for deletion.--IRelayer 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: there aren't sources for the notability of Chander himself as a scientist--his pubmed citations don't place him above "average college professor." The implied notability seems to come from the lawsuit--and not very plaintiff in a lawsuit is inherently notable. In fact, few are. In this case, the damages were extemely low--$5,000--and it's not the only discrimination lawsuit in the history of the world (or Canada). It didn't get more than local mention, it appears. When are plaintiffs notable?--We do not have an article on the woman who received a 4.5 million dollar settlement for the Dalkon Shield, for example (nor would we call her a "human rights activist"). The article appears to have been written by a relative. I don't think mention should be in NRC, either, per due weight. A sentence or two could perhaps be merged into an article about Canadian discrimination lawsuits or something, if one exists.-Cindery 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There need not be any N as a scientist. The articles is not about his physics, but about the discrimination lawsuit, which I think is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. NRC Canada is a rather large organization & the article is appropriately mostly an outline linking to the articles about the various component bodies. This material would not reasonable fit in there. The article seems objective enough, and it is sourcd, so I do not see that who wrote it is to the point. DGG 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not sourced, actually--the first "source"is the lawsuit itself, which was not published/is a primary source, and the third is a general article that doesn't even mention Grover. The 2nd source is a small newspaper--The Ottawa Citizen--an article which isn't about the lawsuit per se, but about events which took place after. One indirect mention in a regional newspaper doesn't make it sourced/notable, I don't think...-Cindery 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanamaker Elementary School, Marion County, Indiana[edit]

Wanamaker Elementary School, Marion County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school Reywas92TalkSigs 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is simply a copy of the above page because the author didn't know how to use redirects:

Wanamaker Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Weak keep it appears that schools (particularly north American ones) seem exempt from proof of notability other than that they exist. WP:SCHOOL is going some way to help, but since there are dozens of Indiana school stubs without AFDs, I'm not sure if this is any different. I know we shouldn't use the this should stay because of all the others approach. But then again I'd be interested to know if there are any more concrete guidelines on this... The Rambling Man 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the notability guidelines for schools (it's only proposed, and this is more of my idea:) High schools and jr. highs are usually eligible, and others if of importance, but this is simply a very non-notable, lowly, elementary school with little encyclopedic importance. Reywas92TalkSigs 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. I do not accept the argument that schools are exempt from notability requirements. Soltak | Talk 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An elementary school has to be more relevant than stated in order to be notable. Its existence as a school is not enough. YechielMan 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, there is no such policy. WP:Schools says This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. (It's not even "proposed"--it was proposed and has been rejected. Therefore schools must be judged individually according to the standards of WP:N. Even the WikiProject:Schools page says "Wikipedia:Schools - a failed, now historical discussion of school articles on Wikipedia"
  • delete In this case there is nothing to show notability.DGG 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable duplication of information already available on the School Corporation website (which indicates there are six Elementary Schools in the Corporation, while the article gives me the impression this is the only one). On an unrelated note, the statistics for the school displayed by the Indiana Department of Education (on their website) in a quick and easy to read manner leave the neighboring Illinois State Board of Education website and its School Report Card PDF files to shame. --JohnDBuell 09:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All'. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nom says it all. Mr Stephen 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marion County, Indiana for now per WP:LOCAL and various iterations of the proposed school guidelines. Silensor 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:LOCAL. --Myles Long 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into You Damn Kid!. I will redirect this article, whilst leavinh the edit history. Feel free to merge in any information from The Beevnicks to the new target article. Proto::► 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beevnicks[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable webcomic. Beevnicks plus Dunne gets only 55 distinct Google hits[48], most of them links from his own websites (beevnicks, youdamnkid, dunnestuffe, myspace) or keenspot forums. No mentions in independent WP:RS sources indicating any notability. Being hosted on Keenspot is supposed to give notability, but if no one independent has deemed it important enough to comment on it, we can start to wonder if Keenspot hosting really is a good indicator of notability... Prod is contested, but no efforts were done to address the lack of WP:RS sources indicating notability. Fram 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yeah, the lack of sources doesn't help the article much, but it was run in a newspaper for a good long while before it was a web-only comic. It was also recently optioned to Fox to be developed into a television series, which I think is sufficiently different from your run-of-the-mill web comic. He's also put out at least one book, though I'm not sure if that was largely self-published or not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was You Damn Kid! that was optioned for Fox, not Beevnicks. I have found no source for any printed publication, but I can't rule out a self-publication of course. Any sources for the newspaper publication? Fram 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yeah, I totally knew that. I was just, uh... testing to see if you were paying attention... yeah. Uh, good job, by the way; looks like you were! *cough* So, anyway...
As for this article, a "keep" !vote from me would be based on "I like it", so I'll just abstain (until I can actually pull up some real evidence for it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Upon further contemplation (and after removing the egg from my face), why not merge this article into You Damn Kid!? After all, The Beevnicks started out as a sub-comic of YDK's, and there is already a Other hosted comics section; the Beevnicks content would have to get pared down a bit, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to just put the lead paragraphs and infobox under a "The Beevnicks" heading. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering :-) The merge seems like a reasonable compromis to me, but I'll let a few other people comment as well, now that this AfD is running anyway. Fram 06:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain -- I have to say that I must wonder if people are not posting because they don't know the strip or they just can't figure out how to give an answer. I know that's been my problem regarding placing a vote here -- best argument I can come up with is WP:ILIKEIT, and I'm no more comfortable with that than anyone else is. Given the inactivity on this AfD, I think it's at the point where this should either be relisted or dismissed without prejudice as "no consensus". Haikupoet 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete - above searches return nothing and only 55 google hits. Addhoc 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think the subject is notable enough but we're severely lacking in reliable sources. If the article is not to be kept, however, I would strongly advocate a merge to You Damn Kid! rather than outright deletion. Powers T 14:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -- I make it 449 distinct Google hits,[49] a number of which do seem to have substantive discussion. John M Baker 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - your search gives "Results 1 - 47 of about 448 for beevnicks -wikipedia" this in effect means 47 unique hits not including Wikipedia. Addhoc 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there appear to be varying and apparently inconsistent ways to manipulate the number of Googlits. For example, the search "beevnicks -wikipedia -site:beevnicks.com -site:youdamnkid.com" gets 116,000 hits,[50] even though there should be fewer than the 448 hits for "beevnicks -wikipedia". What this suggests to me is that the number of Google hits may not be a reliable determiner of notability. I guess my "Keep" argument has to come down to the fact that I believe there is public interest in webcomics like The Beevnicks, and Dunne does seem to have an audience. John M Baker 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your revised search gives 44 hits, none of which appear to be reliable sources. Addhoc 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was simply that Google counts are not particularly reliable, as others have noted.[51] Unfortunately, that does mean a lack of verifiable support for my notability argument. Under the circumstances, a change in my vote to merge into the clearly notable You Damn Kid! seems more defensible. John M Baker 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per John M Baker. Addhoc 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Rider[edit]

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

non notable Improbcat 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion page for Michael_Rider because it appears to be nothing but a duplicate of a minor Actor's IMDB list of roles. Even had the year of birth wrong despite two links to information on the actor with the correct date listed.Improbcat 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: There seem to be plenty of references to him around the Internet, but they look to be mostly made by various trekkies on all the directory sites. He even has a Rotton Tomatoes page. However, there is no assertion of notability. As ever, willing to change my vote. J Milburn 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. WP should not become a mirror for IMDB with an article for every single bit-part actor. I don't see any real assertion of notability, although, as J Milburn, plenty of web sources, nothing special though... The Rambling Man 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Don't need articles for every bit actor out there. I can't find any references to him that aren't cast lists or fan sites. Plymouths 08:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (or an IMDB mirror). Mr Stephen 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurna[edit]

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

Article about a minor character in a television series broadcast only in the Philippines. No assertion of notability, unreferenced, violates WP:WAF and is completely in-universe in tone (aside from a lip-service blurb). Shrumster 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems to me that most of the pages in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Encantadia that governs this one are completely unnecessary and should be deleted, with whatever relevant information moved to "character list" pages. I won't nominate the others first, and see how the community reacts. I find it ridiculous that every single character in the series has his/her/its own character page. Shrumster 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I don't like using the word itself, most of the article(s) seem crufty. Shrumster 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and consider them all) as fancruft. No notability asserted, very very in-universe. Yuck. The Rambling Man 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of the editors seem to be complaining about the article. Can it be speedied then per WP:V and the fact that the article itself has no assertion of notability? Shrumster 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 Club (Princeton University)[edit]

21 Club (Princeton University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable student club. Hard to Google (many clubs with the same name No WP:RS for the Rumsfeld claim[52], no WP:RS sources for other claims to notability[53] (many results not for this club). Just an eating / drinking club, no good reasons for having an article here.Fram 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree that lack of WP:RS to assert notability means this article should go. Happy to re-appraise should some sources appear... The Rambling Man 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Winterborn 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Princeton (and harvard, and yale, etc etc) has a million of these. They aren't all notable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete default non-notability of student clubs is the consensus. Lack of sources means that it fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some clubs are more notable than other clubs. This club is actually one of the more notable clubs. Andrew73 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have any reliable sources to support your opinion? Fram 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't quote chapter and verse, but just speaking from personal experience. Andrew73 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Ghostbusters[edit]

References to Ghostbusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Trivia with lack of sources to verify claims. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Smells like original research to me. Especially without sources to verify the contents or the article. Kyra~(talk) 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeutral/comment - As source you could use Special:Whatlinkshere/Ghostbuster. But it seems that there is always different reference to Ghostbusters as listed in the AfD article. Cate | Talk 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) . WP:OR. Cate | Talk 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why in the world would we use ourselves as a source? I know Mary Poppins. Trust me, because I said it somewhere! We need reliable sources (read: not Wikipedia) because we have no assurances against WP:NOR otherwise. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. The article is about references, so IMHO we can use what links here (and movies are not obscure or rare references). Do we need references to references to references? (references (external sources) to references (to other movies) to references (to gostbuster)). Anyway what links here give other results as the article, so it is not a point for this AfD discussion. Cate | Talk 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the original sources are sufficient. --Lasttan 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources? Please fine me a reliable source that says Danny Phantom rips off Ghostbusters. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - maybe not significant enough to find a home in the movie's page, but relevant to give an idea of the movie's popularity and impact. Lorenzo80 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. If anything is significant, it should be merged into Ghostbusters in the relevant section. This is really not what WP is for. The Rambling Man 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Ghostbusters after trimming down a lot. It's true that some of it is OR but much of it is not - i.e. the reference for the fact that Ray Stantz says "Who ya gonna call? ...Somebody else." in Casper is the movie itself - we shouldn't need another source quoting the movie to prove that the quote happens in the movie. Plymouths 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am feeling some deja vu - we just dealt with an article called "Ghostbusters Trivia" a couple of weeks ago... -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with Plymouths on this one - trim it down, keep a few references... It looks like the biggest problem is the sheer number of TV/cartoon appearances, which are verifiable if and only if someone decides to find and watch EVERY episode mentioned. Personally, if it's possible to find a number of print sources (magazines, books, articles, whatever) with specific page numbers added, it might be easier to confirm references. Otherwise we might need to start asking for series names, episode names, episode numbers, timecodes... :) --JohnDBuell 09:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure OR with no sources and based on authors opinion rather than fact. As an example is the statement 'Dr. Venture is seen wearing a Proton-Pack-Like backpack while getting off of the X-1 in the start of the episode' where the author is guessing. Nuttah68 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced portions selectively into Ghostbusters as a section "Cultural References". Ghostbusters inspired numerous references in popular culture, and some of these need documentation in the main article. Such documentation could easily draw from this article. Prune out the references which consist entirely of original research and weasel words, such as "Luigi's Mansion ... is said to have been inspired partly by Ghostbusters". Leave only the ones with unmistakable references to Ghostbusters, such as the direct use of lines from the movie ("Who you gonna call?", "Don't cross the streams", "ain't afraid of no ghost"), or the references to "keymaster", "gatekeeper", and Zool/Zuul/XUL. Add specific episode references, not just "an episode of". This article needs help, not deletion. To aid in the merge, I would suggest putting a merge template at the top of References to Ghostbusters, but including a specific note in the template suggesting the need for selective merging. --Josh Triplett 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewtalian[edit]

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

Neologism, non encyclopaedic, more dic def than article and main reference is urban dictionary RHB Talk - Edits 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Last I checked, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Natalie 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef plus a plug for someone's cafepress shop. Krimpet 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. YechielMan 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Perhaps this slang should be added to Wiktionary. Joshdboz 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silly neologism that violates WP:NEO. IZAK 11:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Sefringle 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable neologism --Dweller 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives[edit]

Not notable. Meets notability in WP:MUSIC guideline 9, in that they've performed for a notable work (Guitar Hero series), but with that as the sole criterion they're meeting, the WP:MUSIC page suggests a mention in the main article and a redirect. Deltopia 23:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being featured in both Guitar Hero games and the Car Talk radio show seems to meet WP:MUSIC criteria threefold. Krimpet 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, "notability" fairly clear. Does Car Talk provide archives of their shows? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The band's songs appearing in several top-selling music-themed video games speaks to their relevance. Disclaimer: I am the article's original creator. Jyaus 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reasons stated by Krimpet, above. WesternActor 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not married to the delete vote, but it cites one source which is essentially a school newspaper. Maybe they're notable, but are they verifiable? My google-fu is not what it could be, but search as I might, I couldn't find a single press review other than the MIT one -- and that's a school newspaper, which is specifically excepted from the list of good sources under WP:MUSIC. Multiple verifiable non-trivial sources. If they don't exist, then it's against the rules (as I understand them) to keep the article. (On the other hand, Ignore all rules when necessary....) Deltopia 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. --Djsasso 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but will rename. W.marsh 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel Stars[edit]

List of Disney Channel Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Same content as Category:Disney Channel actors Deb 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rename to List of Disney Channel actors. Lists and categories serve different complementary purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate of a category. Soltak | Talk 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Dhartung. --Djsasso 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as actors should not be listed on the basis of what network their shows happen to appear. For that matter, actors shouldn't be categorized by this either. Otto4711 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why was most of this list removed? Anyway, the list does have a function separate from a category, listing the Disney Channel productions in which the actor/actress appeared. Doesn't appear to be listcruft since Disney Channel does indeed have a nasty habit of recycling its actors/actresses. ShadowHalo 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An actor's credits should be listed in their own article rather than maintaining a separate list by network. Otto4711 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whilst it's true that a list can have a separate function from a category, that applies when the items in the list are items that don't have their own articles. In this case, the items in the list all have separate articles and are all included in the relevant category, and are listed in alphabetical order - hence it's just a duplicate. Deb 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Delahanty[edit]

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

This one is a bit funny, because it does fail WP:BIO, but the individual is an editor that I know, PDelahanty (talk · contribs). Of course, I have no clue to whether or not he has read the article, but I am sure he'll agree that it doesn't belong here--at least that is my take. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I kinda like it...and there are a fair number (and wide variety) of pages that link in.  :) --PatrickD 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Pat, we know you're an attention whore. :) Why else would you destroy anime toys? :P --Farix (Talk) 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD (no hard feelings I hope... just my standard quirk) Alf photoman 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete, above searches don't yield any results that have relevance. Addhoc 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't yield any" isn't accurate. There are multiple articles from major newspapers such as the Boston Globe (usually related to my participation with Anime Boston). You just have to filter out the guy in Kentucky.--PatrickD 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - fair enough I didn't see those, revised search. Addhoc 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anime Boston per above search. Addhoc 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, but I'll be checking out the toy-hurting site. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ...since the page is referenced from a fair amount of articles on several different subjects. Also, I can provide more sources for verification if anyone wants them. I just can't add them to the article due to WP:COI. And hell...if Mike Tatsugawa and Richard "Pocky" Kim have a page... --PatrickD 14:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Add the sources to the talk page. It's as good a place as any to store them until someone is able to use them. -Farix (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive Rewrite - I'm not going to insult Pat by saying he's not worthy of a Wikipedia page. But let's be honest, this article needs a massive rewrite to be NPOV and relevant. The first paragraph alone is utterly ridiculous. The Mike T page is brief and only states the facts of why he's relevant. I think it's only fair to give an editor a chance to make changes before going off half-cocked with a RfD. Kensuke Aida 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a redirect? I thought it was an article. --Farix (Talk) 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Science League[edit]

I myself have participated in this high school competition, but I find no evidence that it is really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Google shows only a few hundred hits for the competition, and this is only offered at the high-school level, just in New Jersey. Only a few hundred students a year take this test, which suggests this is not something of significance outside the local realm. Nishkid64 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as both failing to prove and not actually having notability. The Rambling Man 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Savidan 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more notable than other similar science competitions. WMMartin 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shaundakulbara 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result was Delete by Nihonjoe. Diez2 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gooey Louie[edit]

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

This was originally prodded as 'Not for things made up in school one day', but I thought it only fair to remove that, as I know that it is not the case. I thought it fair that the article was brought here, as it had already been Prodded, and I was not sure of the notability. No vote from me, for now. J Milburn 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think it really is WP:NFT which is slowly becoming WP:NEO, so get rid of it, no notability asserted, no verifiability provided. The Rambling Man 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is too short , no notability and so onBartekos 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not something made up in school one day. It is an actual retail product [54]. --- RockMFR 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment - definitely agree, you can buy it on Amazon etc, but it's a school-ism that's become an neolgism and outside of the crap toys, does it assert WP:N? If so, I'll happily become a keeper. The Rambling Man 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, it definately exists- see this. I think it could probably scrape notability, but I am not going to pull my hair out trying to prove it. J Milburn 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Where the hell do people come up with an idea for a game like this. Aplomado talk 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a game product from Pressman toy company. Here's a review. The article when subbed for afd was woefully shy of context though leading to submission. ju66l3r 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just because the toy/game exists doesn't mean it's notable. Aplomado talk 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment (albeit late) deleted already... The Rambling Man 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Just because a toy/game exists and has multiple independent reviews means it is. Google for "Gooey Louie". Why was this article deleted mid-afd? ju66l3r 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems to be gone now for some reason, but it's definitely a real retail product by a major board game company. Krimpet 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Alley Cats[edit]

Yale Alley Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. Successfully prod-ed then recreated, so bringing it here. Savidan 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete...delete...delete... or else provide WP:MUSIC criteria. The Rambling Man 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google pulls up lots of unique hits, appears to be a notable and nationally-recognized a cappella group that is more than six decades old. Needs to be cleaned up, though. Aplomado talk 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - cool, it should stay if the clean-up includes providing WP:RS which allow WP:V of WP:N in order to meet WP:MUSIC. If this happens, let me know and I'll change my opinion here. The Rambling Man 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is not a WP:MUSIC criteria, nor is age. "Nationally-recognized" should be determined by sources, not word of mouth. Savidan 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a lot of college a cappella groups got AfD'd recently, including one from Yale, and someone suggested creating a "music at Yale" page to deal with it (as well as all the other musically-oriented stuff Yale is known for.) -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensual non-notability of student groups. I can find no trace of their CD in Amazon, and I suspect that it may be a self-published effort like for the vast majority of college a cappella groups. I have come across articles for them, but most of the hits appear to be events listings. Ohconfucius 08:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aplomado. --Djsasso 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article categorized for deletion, but the other Yale undergraduate a cappella vocal ensembles are not categorized for deletion? There needs to be consistency in treating the well-established collegiate vocal groups.

Which other groups do you think are non-notable? You're free to nominate them yourself, or if you refer them to me (and I agree), I'll do it. Savidan 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of sources per WP:V. As the article stands I have no idea if being 'Friendship Citizens' is noteworthy enough to be reported or if 100s are handed out every week. Likewise the award nomination, does this require an independent party or the group applying themselves? Nuttah68 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources appear for the information in the article. The group clearly exists, and has done for a while, and has a stack of google hits, and a couple of newspaper hits, but the article fails WP:V. Perhaps the idea mentioned by Dmz5 has legs? Mr Stephen 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the fallen records[edit]

To the fallen records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable, no sources/links Tom H 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously non-notable. Aplomado talk 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently non-notable as it fails to provide any WP:RS and any assertion of WP:N. Sorry, but no dice. The Rambling Man 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied.Chris 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Djsasso 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lotito[edit]

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

non-notable self-published author. All books are from lulu.com. A google search fails to bring forth any notability, the first hits are the lulu.com page and this article. The article author, Artnut586, only created this page and then never edited again. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Donaldson (Designer)[edit]

James Donaldson (Designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Googling "James Donaldson" + designer gets some results, but only a write-up from his college is reliably this James Donaldson. Article cites no sources to demonstrate notability. While this person may very well be as revolutionary as the article says, I'd say the burden of proof is on the creator. Natalie 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I can't see how this meets any notability requirements, so it must fail WP:BIO. The edits seem to originate from a WP:SPA so there's a probable WP:COI. However, prepared to delete without prejudice should subject become notable (with WP:V). The Rambling Man 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guy is 21. I seriously doubt his contributions to mankind are that earth-shattering. Regardless, nothing is sourced and there really isn't much of an assertion of notability. It's a vanity page. Aplomado talk 23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not assert notability, and is a WP:COI page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless problems with WP:COI and WP:V are fixed by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search for ""Creativity with Conscience" only gives a handful of hits, and none seem to mention James Donaldson, which seems odd for a groundbreaker in a field au fait with modern media. Fails WP:V, possibly a WP:COI. Mr Stephen 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Roberts (hockey player)[edit]

William Roberts (hockey player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local roller hockey player. Djsasso 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as interesting as roller hockey in central Virginia must be. Aplomado talk 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent software (2nd nomination)[edit]

BitTorrent index comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison of BitTorrent software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia's not..., original research... This is not encyclopaedic information and has been built up independently of external sources. The referenced sources do not provide a reference for the comparison of such software but rather that individual software has certain features. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent software. Thanks/wangi 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep To take two (etc) sets of features and make a table out of them is not OR. OR would be determining what features the software has from direct investigation. This is straight-forward assembling of available information.DGG 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I agree per above that this isn't OR. Yet, I also question the usefullness of such a list, although I would be slightly more inclined to keep it. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep them per DGG. (as chance would have it I was reading the articles only a little while earlier this week!) Mathmo Talk 13:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC
  • Keep It is in need of cleanup , but it has nothing that warrants deletion, as nothing in it is OR, as the information about the clients are gathered from sources. Darthnader37 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is how I generally pick my file sharing applications (Wikipedia comparison charts). It is kinda long but useful.--Taboo Tongue 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A great way to compare the best BitTorrent Clients for new users. --41.243.68.13 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Not strictly original research, and useful in some cases, but I'd question its general usefulness. - Davidjk (msg+edits) 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for Comparison of BitTorrent software). We're discussing 2 pages of differeing quality. The software comparison page is useful (it sums up important information about dozens of different BT clients), not original research (most of that data is available in changelogs, version descriptions, on the clients' hompages or even their respective WP articles) and well-maintained. No reason to delete it. --89.55.184.128 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great for new or interested or out of date users. --70.51.219.7 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree KEEP!! At least for now... This is a fairly new technology and very little independent (self serving) information seems to be available right now. Wiki whatever has become a constant companion tool for all types of research for the past year. As this technology grows and gets more attention, then deletion at a later date may be considered if necessary.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss artists[edit]

List of Swiss artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant article given Category:Swiss artists exists. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and as a disclaimer, the article was created by Vspano (talk · contribs), who originally created the article solely as a spam link to the website of a "Vincent Spano". He also created a List of Switzerland artists with the same link, which was later speedy deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undiscriminated lists is not exactly what we need Alf photoman 15:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of all of the nationality lists in List of Artists, and the fact that this was first created to spam is irrelevant. Where did you get the idea that categories and lists are exclusive? Categories and lists are most effective in synergy. This list is just names at the moment but it could grow to list the artists by style, period, or dates, for example. The category is only ever going to list the contents alphabetically. --Steve (Slf67) talk 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category is better for this type of information. Mr Stephen 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Just do that next time, afd takes a lot more time from everyone. - Bobet 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kailey Hopkins[edit]

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

This article is redundant. The information included is not important enough to warrant its own encyclopedia page. Enough is said about this doll on the American Girl Dolls article. JabberwockyPie 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If anything, some of the historical dolls are more well known, and still do not need separate articles. Delete. Natalie 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. I think that the American Girls should each have thier own page, and I am working on that right now. I am doing them in the order that I purchased them, and I happened to purchase Kailey first. -mollybrown95

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

Article has been recreated to meet Wikipedia standards. Primary reasons for importance focused on A) credit for introduction of Science-Fiction to Asia, B)Co-Founder of Bubonicon C) Recipient to World Sci-Fi life time achievement award. FLJuJitsu 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Tackett[edit]

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

Completing nomination process, see note by Looper5920 below. — ERcheck (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article does not state the importance of the individual other than he was a fan of Sci-Fi and published a non-notable letter. It appears to be a tribute written by a relative.--Looper5920 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. By the way, I was amused to read that he's a "Marine Crops" veteran! YechielMan 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Looper5920. Mathmo Talk 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_31&oldid=1116721871"