Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 3

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Engle

Non-notable D-list Elmer Gantry wannabe. No actual accomplishments. Believe me, I checked this guy, fixed up the biased and poor language, formatted and wikified, researched publisher info on his vanity-press "publications", tried (and failed) to find citations backing up any claim to any level of notability (besides his website). I'm especially pissed because after all that, I decided not to AfD the article despite his clear non-notability, because, enh, too lazy. Response? Reverts with insulting edit summary, addition of more mendacious and biased material, refusal of editor to respond to polite requests to engage. Giving him a pass on his non-notability a mistake, I guess, so deletey-time. "Lou Engle is an influential leader" is just plain false. He's a nobody. More info on article talk page. Herostratus 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  crashfan 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Ignoring the POV problems, I don't know where you draw the line on notability. I get about 30K GHits for this guy, fewer than 1K for "Justice House of Prayer", and about 650 for "The Cause USA". To compare, I find 167K for Randall Terry, and 400K for his organization, "Operation Rescue". Clearly this guy's no Randall Terry. Where's the cutoff? Fan1967 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Looks like that 30K is really less than 700 unique hits for his name [2]. Fan1967 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be a fairly common name. Delete per nom. Notability doesn't seem to be backed up by the facts.
  masterka 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Being clergy or publishing a book does not notability make. NTK 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability page establishes several consensus criteria for notability. Engle does not qualify by many of them, but does qualify by the criterion for published authors, and by the 100-year test. To illustrate the latter, I consider Engle to be analogous in his role and activity to Daniel Rowland. Anyone researching turn of the millenium American revivalism would be ill-served by Engle's omission from the history, 100 years from now. I'm sorry if the editor felt personally slighted by my npov smear comment, but the use of self-published appeared prima facie to be an intentional mischaracterization. Whatever the editors intentions were, I still consider the incorrect use of the term to be belittling. The deletion project also appears to be consistent with this agenda-based editorial plan. Please do not attribute to me edits which I did not make. Aminorex 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Aminorex is talking about is a message I left on his talk page taking him to task for an edit made by someone else, which I did due to a engregiously incorrect misreading of the page history. I apologized on your talk page and I apologize here, Aminorex. Stupid mistake, but why are you bringing it here? (I don't know what you mean by "agenda-driven plan". I'm an inclusionist, and I cleaned up the article and left it even though the guy is clearly non-notable; I only thought better of it when I saw it got messed up again and I saw a long stretch of edit warring, not worth it for a guy who's just not notable.) I don't know exactly how to characterize his publishing; it's a special case. He's certainly not published by normal, commercial publishing houses; They look to be small fundamentalist publishers. Perhaps "specialty publisher" would be the term, or maybe they are a form of vanity press. I used "self-published" and I guess that was a slight mischaracterization, but to leave the impression that he was published in the sense that we use the term for normal published authors would also be misleading. As to the main point, I'll comment below. Herostratus 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mention it here, because you made statments above which were based on that mistaken impression, appeared to contribute to the imputation that I was making edits which were mendacious and biased. I think it is reasonable to make a defense against such an imputation wherever it occurs, and I hope that any impression that I have undertaken mendacity or bias has been mitigated by your subsequent review of the actual edit history. —This
      unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs
      ) .
      • I didn't mention your name anywhere above. I apologized again on your talk page, and will continue to do so as long as you wish, I guess. Herostratus 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No apologies are necessary, I merely wished to provide a refutation. We both understand the facts of the case. I appreciate your graciousness in offering an apology, but that frank mutual understanding is more than enough to gratify me.Aminorex 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would dispute that Engle is a "published author" in the sense that the term is commonly meant. Although I think its probable that his publishing houses exist in some sense, I sure couldn't find out much about them. This goes way beyond not having a web site; they don't seem to have a web presence. I think at least one of them is defunct. These are not big players in the publishing world. I don't know where the line between a vanity press and actual publishing house lies. As to the rest... the original article makes as his big claim to fame that he "organized" something called CallDC that got a crowd of "400,000". I couldn't find any mention in the regular press at all - not a clipping, not an 'also in the news' note, nothing. The only other real mention was in another fundamentalist website, where they gave the crowd as "75,000" and characterized Engle's involvement as being "among the speakers" at the event. And that's his friends. 75,000 is probably a great exaggeraterion itself, but who can tell since there is no mainstream press coverage of the event at all. For all I know it was 750. And remember, that's his main claim to notability that the article made. (Since then, more has been added, such as his being "actively involved in the leadership" of a planned future event, along with some frankly bizzare ramblings about theology. Whatever, but I hope any Keep voters also volunteer to re-clean and re-verify the article and keep watch over it (have fun), 'cause I ain't gonna. Herostratus 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Specialty presses are not somehow unreal by virtue of their specialized audience. Examples of specialized publishers which have wide respect are abundant, and many very influential works have been published by specialized or ephemeral presses. I agree that one of the publishers in question has been dissolved or, as seems more likely, absorbed into Destiny Image, and that none of Engles publishers is among the top tier; in fact they represent a subspecialization of Christian theological publishing, however, if there is a mall near your home, I'm sure that you could find many current titles published by Destiny Image, or by Wagner, in the Charismatic or Pentecostal interest section of a Christian book store. I don't think that the unverifiability of the attendance numbers of The Call gatherings is a strong grounds for refuting the notability of the organizers. I do have personal knowledge that Engle was among the organizers at The Call in Kansas City and in San Francisco. If his role in The Call D.C. was inflated by my edits, I hope to correct that error. I understand that the theology espoused is a minority one, but that doesn't impugn the interest of the topic to researchers. The movement represented is very real, has numerous well-known proponents, and certainly several hundreds of thousands of participants in North America alone (millions seems more likely to me, but my sampling is very unscientific, and certainly suffers from selection bias). While there are hundreds or thousands of leaders of local influence, Engle is among a handful with national and international influence of note. Others would include Goll, Joiner, Bickle, Cain (now in disgrace), and Strom (who has dissociated himself, but remains influential and is closely related, if no longer affiliated). The web presence of these people is very small, when compared to practical impact, and I think it is misleading to derive notability from Google statistics for this group. They seem to invest most of their efforts in speaking to sympathetic groups in person, and organizing on a face-to-face basis, and perhaps consciously avoid the web entirely, although I speak here in a hypothetical frame, as I have no actual contact with any of these persons, except as a casual observer of their activity and its consequences. I think the ongoing activity is also of interest, and substantiates the notability of the organizers. Aminorex 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It seems that Lou Engle was in fact one of the principal organizers of The Call D.C., as he was the person to whom the U.S. Park Service issued the permit which secured the Washington Mall for the event. The event is generally attributed to Engle and Che Ahn, in the literature. I personally consider organizing a national event attended by hundreds of thousands of people, involving thousands of local churches, and establishing cooperative links with dozens of national organizations to be a noteworthy accomplishment, whether one considers it favorably or unfavorably. Moreover, every indication is that Engle's activity is expanding and influencing a substantial youth subculture of "Riot Christians", through his involvement with Teen Mania and Rock for Life. "D-list Elmer Gantry" is a profoundly whiggish spin and does not accurately represent this persons role in U.S. culture. He speaks routinely to gatherings of tens of thousands of people. That makes him at least an "A-List Elmer Gantry". I would rather characterise him as a midpoint between Pat Robertson and Martin Luther King, Jr., but with much less media involvement than either of these two figures.—This
  unsigned comment was added by Aminorex (talk • contribs
  ) .
  • I'm perfectly prepared to change my vote if you have any web sites or other citations you could share with us? I still don't understand why an event attended by "hundreds of thousands of people" would get zero press coverage. Herostratus 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to inform the readership that I am engaged in collecting references in publications outside of the influence of organizations associated with Engle, and gathering verifiable facts to support the notability claim. I anticipate providing my results by April 16, since tax preparations are eating my head right now.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Herostratus' comments. Furthermore, Lou Engle isn't listed as a pastor of Harvest Rock Church... --Sam67fr 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Updated the article to reflect his departure from that office.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about notability; There is no doubt that books were published. But we have no way to know the audience of these books. About Lou Engle himself and the Call dc ... I can't find any real press coverage of that event and/or of Lou Engle involvement in it. I can't find any real press coverage of Lou Engle in any other major event. The only web sites I found that cover the man or the event are mostly self promoting sites.--Sam67fr 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. Lou Engle is leading one of the most vital christian youth movements in the USA. I have been at the Boston Uprising, I have been there, I have seen it with my onw eyes. Lou Engle is a well know Christian leader with a huge media coverage. Just look at http://www.the700club.org/700club/guests/bios/lou_engle_070804.asp . The nominator's comment does not represent facts. —This
  unsigned comment was added by 140.247.251.192 (talk contribs
  ) .

Comment In case the 700 Club reference is considered marginal (many non-notable people appear on the 700 Club, certainly), I would observe that he was also covered on ABC's Nightline in December, 2005, in connection with the Justice House of Prayer Project. He is also one of the organizers of Rock for Life, a series of rock concerts, mostly in California and in the U.S. rust belt area. This helps substantiate notability, in my view, since it influences a large audience.Aminorex 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Herostratus. Eusebeus 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. -- infinity0 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotlandshire

Article on a made-up term with no sources of evidence that the term is used, let alone worthy of an encyclopaedia article. All google hits seem to be 'silly use', and not that described in the article. Stringops 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete,
  crashfan 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I can assure you, the term is used. The introduction to this RfD is nonsense. I created this article on request. It is the title of a reasonably famous song, and you can see, google produces nearly 1000 hits. The term even appear on the lighly indexed google book search. [3] - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Englandshire also appears on such a book search with more results. Should we have an article on it simply because it's a jovial neologism too? Stringops 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what Englandshire means, so I can't do any article on that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Pejorative, sometimes affectionate, term for "Scotland". -AED 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly in use - here are a couple of examples from the Letters Page of The Scotsman: [[4]] (needs free registration to actually read the relevant letters). I note that it also frequently pops up on forums, blogs, song lyrics and the like, so it is certainly a word of the populace at large. What I am fascinated to know is how, and why, it is being used in academic circles. --Mais oui! 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is nonsense there is no such term 82.36.107.54 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there certainly is such a term. An Siarach
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a repositaary for every obscure term ever created and used very occasionally. I can't see how this term is notable. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, such matters are subjective. It was clearly notable enough for you to list it for deletion. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity, does the term bother you for some reason? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This term doesn't 'bother' me; I simply don't think it's notable enough to merit a seperate article. As well as this, there's not much than can be said about it that can be made into anything other than a glorified dictionary definition. If it isn't deleted, the article will remain a stub. Stringops 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds like a challenge to me! This is one of the great things about Afd - sometimes articles that survive the process go on to become really valuable additions to the project. From all I have read I think that there is a good amount of source material, and Calgacus says that he has some good material in his own library, which unfortunately he does not have access to at present. --Mais oui! 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you and Calgacus think you can make it into a worthwhile article, please go ahead. If you do, I'm happy to eat my words. But I can't really see how a single term and its (perhaps widespread but abscure) usage can ever escape being a glorified dicdef, however many quotations/references you may be able to add. Stringops 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 8 references found, dating back to 1992, in NewsBank newspaper archive (Times, Daily Record, Glasgow Herald). Example: "Even so we cannot be abolished, and Ramsay, among many others, helps prove it. The last opportunity to abolish Scotland or at least turn it into Scotlandshire, England came in his lifetime" - Portrait of the nation by a couthy son - Allan Ramsay, Sunday Times, The (London, England), August 9, 1992. Tearlach 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so that's 8 references in 14 years. Should wikipedia have articles on every made-up term used at least once by a local newspaper? It's not even a coherent topic - it's just a rare neologism. The
    OED doesn't even list it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well, the
      OED, ignoring its thousands of inaccurate etymological explanations, is not supposed to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - Important article which links in with Scottish history. Simply because it can be used tongue in cheek is no reason to delete. If WP can have articles on obscure anime characters that nobody has heard of then it should most definitely have articles on things like this. SFC9394 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the term has any genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history, then it should be merged with the History of Scotland article. As it stands, I can't see how a usefully-sized article can be created from it. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the strangest argument I've ever heard. Should Scottish king then be merged with History of Scotland. On this logic, there would be no Scotland-related articles except History of Scotland. And as History of England "has ... genuine and notable relevance to Scottish history", should it be "merged" with History of Scotland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia
  WP:ISNOT a dictionary. Yes the term is used, yes I use it myself however Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not be taking part in original research to build up articles - where are the sources, and "Scotlandshire is a term sometimes used": by who? Where? When? thanks/wangi 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - common phrase with history to be expounded beyond a dicdef. Vizjim 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Vizjim 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but at least find a couple of respectable quotations to illustrate the term in use (The Sunday Times one would do for a start) otherwise it could only be a dictionary entry. Ming the Merciless 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Redirect to a new short section at Shire sounds a workable option. Ming the Merciless 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - should wikipedia have articles on every word in the Oxford English Dictionary, if ' a couple of respectable quoations to illustrate them' are provided in each case? This is not a dictionary for neologisms. Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep (with rewrite) As noted, it's met all standards as not being a neologism. If the page is poorly written such as a dicdef, then it needs to be rewritten, but this would definately be useful as an encyclopedia article.
  _Fire! 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - what are the standards for not being a neologism? It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the OED, it gets fewer than 900 google hits (Englandshire gets 13,200 - so should that be included too? Franceshire gets 7,590, clearly a far more popular non-word; Spainshire gets 3,630!). If merely having a few jovial usages is grounds for inclusion, should we have articles on all of these 'notable terms'? Stringops 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standards for not being a neologism are inclusion in at least a couple news articles back in 1992. How can it be a neologism when written 14 years ago? The usage of it has been shown to not be entirely jovial. Can you show me otherwise for Franceshire, Spainshire, etc?
      _Fire! 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Very interesting. This is clearly part of a global, or at least European , phenomenon. Perhaps the whole issue of "shire-ification" deserves some Wikipedia coverage. --Mais oui! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable neologism. Maybe add a paragraph in Shire to discuss the usage in things like Chiantishire, but Scotlandshire seems too obscure to rate even a mention there. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The google book search, lightly indexed as it is, shows the term in use in the 1940s. Now, I have no prejudices against neologisms, but even if I did, this one blatantly would not meet any neologism criteria. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shire and mention the term there along with other joking uses of -shire (much as Ben suggests). ProhibitOnions 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no problem with it having its own article. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of subject of little note to anybody, which go for years without content edits; this article, in contrast, is apparently of more note. Dumping it in shire could mean that it could be deleted, and if it were deleted, any vote supporting a redirect would be null and void, and the article could be reverted to its original content. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing to stop you or anyone else expanding Shire so as to incorporate the relevant content of this article. Stringops 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term is not notable enough to have an entry here. U$er
• Delete please. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of amusing terms. NTK 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as nonsense. — TheKMan^talk 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vpod

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Delete AlistairMcMillan 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A3.
  crashfan 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete pure unsourced speculation --rogerd 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as the person who prodded this, but I can not understand why it was moved to AfD when the prod was not contested? NickelShoe (Talk) 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Six words and a picture. Also Wikipedia is no crystal ball, per
  WP:NOT + A similar article (with a lot more content) was deleted less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPod True Video.--Blue520 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starf*ck (party)

• Delete nn annual party thrown at Brown University. Does not meet
  WP:V with no sources either. Jersey Devil 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn vanity.
  crashfan 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 03:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be a party special to anyone outside Brown. Perhaps the author can find another article to merge this into as a subsection. NTK 04:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's notable at Brown, a decent sized university. It's notable as far as parties go. As the argument goes, if each individual road in pokemon games gets it's own article, this should too.
  _Fire! 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nn. Probably a lot more people are familiar with each individual road in Pokemon as have ever graduated from Brown in the university's history. I'm sure this obscure local quasi-annual party would merit inclusion in WikiBrownU, and encourage editors there to do so.
  RGTraynor 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not in favour of adding more cruft which swatjester seems to be proposing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment removed a misunderstanding.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just too non-notable to be here. --Wingsandsword 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SexPowerGod

• Delete nn and vanity. The article is about an annual party held at Brown University, I don't think that a mention on The O'Reilly Factor makes this one event notable enough to warrant an article. Jersey Devil 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  crashfan 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. Discussion by O'Reilly is a legitimate claim to notability, but not sufficient in itself. Coverage in college newspaper counts for almost nothing. dbtfz^talk 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The party is fairly well known as college parties go, but that's not good enough. There needs to be a reason why anyone besides Ivy Leaguers and Bill O'Reilly should care about this. NTK 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The bill oreilly reference, plus the notability in the size and publicity of the event itself (I go to FSU and I've heard of this event) make it highly notable.
  _Fire! 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn and it sounds like you could find it in a tabloid magasine. SunbirdInc 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  RGTraynor 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep: this sound like one of those stories you here on the radio. B.t.w. did you know that in... It's factual, it appears to be notable for enough for the school... however I would strongly keep if there are third party sources for the information. ie.: a news article... etc. --CyclePat 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Oh wait there is... Meuh! keep[reply]
• Keep but it needs to say how long its been going on, and it be good to know that its going to continue going on for some timee. JeffBurdges 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep drunkcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a typo.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Bill O'Reilly mention is sufficient to warrant keeping this article. That makes it notable. Bibigon 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything that comes out of that man's mouth is notable? What is he, the conservative pope? This is a pretty well-known party, but the Bill O'Reilly reference doesn't magically make it notable. If a college party is going to be notable, there better be something pretty damn controversial about it. I think Spring Fling at my alma mater is a lot better known that SexPowerGod, but there's no mention of it even at the University's writeup, much less a separate article—which there certainly should not be. (Quick Google test... "Spring Fling"+Penn = 141,000 hits, SexPowerGod = 245 hits, Wikipedia on top, wait, let me change my vote from Weak Delete to Delete). NTK 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's still just a party. Eivind^t@c 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this party is notable Yuckfoo 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article could be good. There are no sources cited. It it can be cleaned up and sources added it would not merit deletion. Keep - for now. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [5].--Jersey Devil 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn party, o'reilly outrage notwithstanding. If WP had to have an article for everything that o'reilly thinks is unacceptable.... Eusebeus 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Bill O'Reilly getting angry at it once isn't enough for real notability. Just another vanity article about a small-time gathering/group so it can look respectable. --Wingsandsword 08:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sandstein 09:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 11:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugation of auxiliary Catalan verbs

Non-encyclopedic. Gflores^Talk 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is Wikipedia, not Languagepedia.
  crashfan 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  Wikipedia is not a bilingual dictionary. Merge with Catalan grammar now that the template is cleaned up. T K E 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki? Wikibooks? Just an idea. -- stillnotelf is invisible 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TKE --Icarus 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (hopefully cleanup) or possibly merge compacted version of it into main
  Conjugation of regular Catalan verbs. --Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: I've now tidied it up into a single table, to make it easier for merging if that should be the outcome. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Catalan grammar, trimmed. JIP | Talk 08:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have
  Conjugation of regular Catalan verbs under the title Catalan verb conjugation. Edwy ^(talk) 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Lukas & Edwy. James Kendall [talk] 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. FWIW, I think this article exists as a separate article mostly to keep the tables from cluttering up the chief article on Catalan grammar. Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid topic. Stringops 17:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone may want to merge this, but it looks like a nice little chart. I guess I think Catalan is an important enough language for this chart to exist. At least its not some crufty conlang like Klingon. Brian G. Crawford 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. True, it's not fancruft. I would like to see them all in one article because they are all related. This deals with my previous delete vote, that we're not a bilingual dictionary. A merge is fine with me, but I find separate articles unnecessary. If you're learning a languague, an encyclopedia is not the way to go. This is my first time dealing with such an article, so it's a learning experience for me. T K E 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valuable language info, and well linked to other Catalan language articles. Agree with Smerdis of Tlön and Brian G. Crawford. -- P199 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, don't delete. Lambiam^Talk 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the other Catalan conjugation articles. --moof 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - while I would like delete, there is apparently precedent. Wickethewok 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe we could take this as an opportunity for us grammar-interested editors to get together somewhere else and discuss what constitutes "morphology cruft" in grammar articles and how to avoid it. I do agree that bare listings of morphological paradigms are not optimal for a grammar article, but it's often done. Ideally, the function of such tables should always be subordinate to prose descriptions of what is characteristic or special about a grammatical system. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. As the grammar articles get larger, there will be natural breakouts such as grammar of Catalan verbs, and what-not. It is not cruft it is useful, encyclopedic, and judgmentally added. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Time box

Appears to be non-notable bandcruft. If it is decided to keep it, this article and timebox should at least reference each other, or perhaps a dab page created for them -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article admits NN per
  WP:Music T K E 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  crashfan 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BAND and possible WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Some guy 07:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note It sounds like it's going to be deleted, in which case Time box should redirect to Timebox -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly, before the Time Cube guys get wind of it. --Sneftel 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Makemi 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com

Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -Andrew120 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, not a valid nom., this article has never been deleted, unless it was created under a different name, in which case a link to that article or AfD should be included here. Makemi 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Quite notable website, whether it's been deleted before or not. dbtfz^talk 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I check this site all the time, and its predecessor,
  TV Tome, also has an article. Alexa rank is 410. Fan1967 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep as above. Nominator appears to be affiliated with a less successful rival site. Monicasdude 03:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was just about to post this anyway, seems to be in retribution for
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination). Bad faith nomination. Makemi 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Media iii

• Delete. Blatant ad (note contact info and use of "we".)
  masterka 03:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all above.
  crashfan 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:SPAM --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Bige1977 04:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  ManiF 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon, and spam
  .
• Delete as blatant spam. JIP | Talk 08:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing but spam. --
  e Ong 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete spamlet
  _Fire! 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, spam. --Zybergoat 22:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Sam67fr 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• this article was AFD'd later, and deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Juggernaut Bitch

Is this notable? You be the judge. Gets lots of Google hits.(Has redirects too) DJ Clayworth 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is a important part of internet culture, something does not need to be clever and artistic to be on wikipedia, there are articles on cumshots, various juvenile sexual acts, and much more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.135.64 (talk • contribs)
• Keep This is notable. Its probably the most popular internet clip at this time. And its a very well written article. --Pal5017 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not the "most popular internet clip at this time," at best it is one of hundreds of currently popular clips. We deleted the Prime Number Shitting Bear as nonnotable, and small chance that the Juggernaut Bitch, clever and artistic as it is, will have the same staying power. Unless this gets picked up somewhere and becomes a true phenomenon, it should go. NTK 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone comes up with some sources. ( I really want to keep it, along with a lot of things, but we are trying to be an encyclopedia and that pesky
  WP:V et al get in the way of things like this. ) Also, I'm not sure I saw the same video that NTK did if he thinks it is clever or artistic. Kotepho 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I said, "clever and artistic as it is," however much that is. ;-) It is not a great work of art, it is somewhat offensive and juvenile, but it clearly took either a good bit of work or some very fast-on-the feet improv. Obviously a lot of people find it funny. NTK 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I dunno, I must be a little bit crazy, but who the heck are we to judge what is "artistic" and/or "clever"? If you think the humor is lowbrow or juvenile or "offensive" that's your opinion. The humor is largely identical to the types of humor found in Chappelle's Show, for example, and the video is WILDLY popular in the gaming community. I suppose the standup of, say, George Carlin is also not "clever" and "artistic," then? I also don't understand this "we're trying to be an encyclopedia" stuff. Wikipedia is never going to be an encyclopedia along the lines of Britannica, that's just the nature of the beast. And if we feel we need to live up to that standard of stick-in-the-assness, why have we not deleted every ten thousand word otaku article on Final Fantasy tertiary characters or on Warhammer 40,000 races? This is merely and completely a judgment call on the part of people who feel that the subject matter of this article isn't "highbrow" enough for wikipedia. What an irony. The Juggernaut Bitch article is well written (I know because I wrote it), and it accomplishes the rare feat of being complementary to the humor of its own subject matter. I'm so sick of the antiseptic cast that wikipedians seem to feel we need to throw onto every single article. What makes something really an encyclopedia is that the articles are not only informative, but interesting. Anyway, enough tirade. I think this is a keeper, unless we're running out of hard drive space of Wiki servers. RiseAbove 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard drives are cheap. That being said, this article is severly lacking in the

reliable sources covered this video? Also FWIW I laughed quite a bit watching the video. Kotepho 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your concerns, but what "sources" do we really need? This is a short film, created by fans. You can easily verify everything in the article by simply watching the film, which is linked on the page. Also, I'm still confused as to why this page has been singled out, as opposed to literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia that deal with subject matter much less widespread than The Juggernaut Bitch video (again, how many people really care about the vital statistics and motivations of Sephiroth, the main bad guy from Final Fantasy VII? And yet he has a frickin' saga for his page... Again, I call discrimination here, there seems to be a bias against this article because of the tone and language of the subject matter. RiseAbove 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you could source that from any number of game guides that are published. Also, I'm quite sure that FF7 is notable and will be remembered years from now. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Marvel comics (and their parodies) won't be? And while you tell me where you could find sources (i.e. games manuals) for Warhammer and FF7, you don't explain why this is relevant to this particular article; an article that concerns a subject matter not susceptible to being sourced. It's kind of like accusing a page on a fantasy novel for not having sources because there are no books of commentary written about that novel.RiseAbove 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I've heard of this video before as it was mentioned on some notable sites such as on VG Cats, but I'll have to go find a link first --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Funny? Yes. Encyclopedic? I personally don't think so, at least not until there's a verifiable reference indicating that it has broader appeal than your standard run-of-the-mill internet meme. --Alan Au 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  e Ong 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't see evidence of non-fleeting notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep all internet memes.
  _Fire! 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can't find any evidence this meme is in any way notable. Funny, but no
  WP:V coverage that I can see.--Isotope23 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Historians in the 22nd century may be interested in this stuff. Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, wikipedia does not strive to be a primary source. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Deli nk 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, then track down anyone responsible for this fancruft and delete them too.
  RGTraynor 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm responsible for it, sizzlechest. Got something you'd like to say to me? RiseAbove 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

• Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

• Keep What makes Wikipedia cool is NOT the fact that it is a professionally monitored encyclopedia, but rather that you can find things here that other encyclopedias would not even consider. I feel that Wikipedia is the "free thinkers" encyclopedia and I would be disappointed if 'The Juggernaut Bitch' was deleted. This clip is gaining a huge cult following, and I would argue that it's even more American than apple pie! It simply DOES EXIST, so why not catalog it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

I agree one hundred percent. RiseAbove 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverifiable. Melchoir 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it unverifiable? Non notable perhaps, but unverifiable just doesnt make sense to me. Its a video, and theres a link to it, so doesnt that prove that it exist, and thus prove verifiability?--Pal5017 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With 200k Google hits this easily passes any bar of notability.  Grue  21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Keep, with a vengeance. What “sources” are required beyond the video itself? Nominating this page for deletion is an unfair and irrational attack. The only motivation I can see for the “debate” here is the video’s trespass upon the humorless and politically correct sensibilities of the self-consciously high-minded. Wikipedia is populated by hundreds of ludicrous pages authored by pathologically obsessed fans of some inane enclave of gaming or popular culture (I think more pages are devoted to Final Fantasy minutiae than are afforded the plays of Shakespeare). These pages seem to survive the cut through pure teflon blandness, but when the subject involves humor of a highly vulgar (though hardly immature) color, out come the censors, knives sharpened, to cleave us all to some imagined standard of lofty gentility. What it comes down to is, Wikipedia functions as a repository of knowledge. This page provides entertaining, yet NPOV, description of an extremely popular internet video that does, in fact, exist. I see no reason this fact should be expunged from the social record, especially since precedents have now established that Wiki has plenty of tolerance for internet memes (and for countless subjects far more asinine than this page.) Wiki articles are not guesses as to what future historians might find of interest; they are written for the benefit of people today. And the fact that the page enjoys Google hits and redirects suggests that people are finding use for it. Spotlessmind

I particularlly like this article and I think it is pretty good. I just think it is better suited for Everything2 than something that is trying to be an encyclopedia. Kotepho 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spotlessmind, and I would like to say further that his argument is not only well reasoned, but also well written. Why indeed, are some things designated "acceptable" for Wikipedia, and others, of seemingly the exact same pedigree, deemed only acceptable for Everything2? Kudos to you, SpotlessMind. RiseAbove 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is where our policies such as

no original research come in. Kotepho 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

So... what if I were to write a few articles commenting on the video? If we then cited them in the page, would it suddenly and magically transmogrify into a page worthy of being on wikipedia? This no original research and citing sources stuff seems arbitrary and easily manipulated. And, regardless of the policies of wikipedia, the fact remains that MANY people use it as a "first stop" for information, especially on subjects like this. Are we going to actively destroy an informative article that could be helpful and interesting merely because it does not follow the letter of the law? If we are, that's a waste and a low down dirty shame. RiseAbove 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pretty much, yes, we will. Perhaps instead of numerous impassioned pleas for Wikipedia official policy to be ignored in this case (more or less because, well, you wrote the article and you like the subject matter), you could devote those energies to verification of the video's notability. Many people do use Wikipedia as a first stop for information, and they trust Wikipedia's usefulness for that because there are policies to trim out ephemeral, self-promotional fancruft.

RGTraynor 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you have abandoned common sense in favor of obdurate and irrational adherence to bureaucratic stipulations. I submit the following:

Verifiability- Video is linked at bottom of page. Video exists. Quotes listed on page are reproduced as heard in video. Verification complete.

Notability- 200,000 hits within 2 weeks. Clearly popular. Do you, then, presume to decide what is “notable” for the rest of us, over the actual usage practices of the people whom Wikipedia serves?

I once ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on my personal website just to see if I could do it. Your own site's counter on how many hits you claim to have isn't in of itself proof.

Considering the page achieved significant hits before this ridiculous controversy broke out, Occam's razor would suggest that the hits were acquired legitimately, rather than being the result of an hour-long coordinated effort by a 40 man team hitting refresh to drive up the hits on a Wiki page for absolutely no reason. Spotlessmind

Also, please provide some evidence of RiseAbove's connection to the video to support your claim of self-promotion. He has never suggested he was involved in the video's production. And further, please provide the address of the company from which you mail ordered your magic crystal ball, so I can verify the ephemeral nature of this video. Spotlessmind

Spotlessmind, you're my hero. Also, for the record, the video has been viewed close to 2 MILLION times on YouTube. That's not counting Google Video, and every other video site on the net. Clearly notable. Clearly verifiable. And, by the way, anybody who "ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on [his] personal website just to see if [he] could do it" is somebody who's rational judgment should be questioned, to say the least. What did you do, just keep hitting reload 5,000 times in a row? WTF? RiseAbove 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obviously. — ciphergoth 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest providing an argument next time, rather than a meaningless appeal to ridicule. It is just as obvious to those of us who oppose you that it should be kept. Spotlessmind

• Comment: Speaking of verification, this talk page is obviously Savethejuggernaut's first edit, and Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year.
  RGTraynor 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does that make any of their arguments any more or less true? Again, this comment is further evidence that you and those like you are motivated solely by emotion and bias, and not on logic or empiricism. That ain't the way to run an encyclopedia. Also, I noticed you haven't responded to my previous citations about YouTube or your 5,000 clicks on your own website. Can I assume you're conceding those points? RiseAbove 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year." That clears up the issue of whether you can count. But I'm interested to know what relevance this has to your argument. Spotlessmind

• Keep I don't care for the video, but my opinion of the video's quality does not enter into my decision as to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. This is an extremely popular video, so I don't see how it is not-notable.YellowPigNowNow 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I hadn't even heard of it until seeing it on AfD. --Zybergoat 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I guess I didn't know that if Zybergoat hadn't heard of it, it wasn't notable. Except... that lots of people not named Zybergoat have heard of it. RiseAbove 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't adding that to say it's the reason for my vote. Not every little thing on the Internet deserves its own page in WP. Far more popular memes haven't netted a notice on WP, and I can't see why this should. But thanks for the borderline personal attack. It's well-appreciated. --Zybergoat 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please meme is very notable Yuckfoo 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep I know a lot of people looking for information on the origins of this video. It has gotten quite popular. Brokenfrog 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the simple "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" can have its own page, then this masterpiece should as well. Nearing 2 million views on YouTube. Gully Juice 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh come on. Can we stop these race-to-the-bottom comparisons?
    WP:POINT. Besides, I note that PBJT has four references on television and another in an immensely popular game. I will bet money that "The Juggernaut Bitch" will never reach that level of notoriety. 2 million hits is nothing. There's hundreds upon hundreds of videos on Google videos and every other waste-of-time site out there with media that gets that many hits and ends up in the dustbins of lame jokes and email forwards. NTK 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, many Internet memes are are notable, this is one for example. bbx 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Regarding "verifiability", this is referring to verifiability that the subject is notable, not just that the subject exists (which it obviously does). --Alan Au 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. Well, there goes 9 minutes of my life I'll never be able to get back. 8-) It did, at least, explain some odd spots of vandalism I've been seeing the past few weeks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn fitp internet meme. Eusebeus 12:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per gullyjuice CASE 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gully Juice JimTS 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a very popular video and very notable. Itsgotbigteeth69 10:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was banished to the Phantom Zone. DS 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone (comics)

Non-notable. Article states that this is only mentioned once in a comic with no specifics. Some guy 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  crashfan 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Perhaps a merge to Superboy-Prime? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fancruft. --Icarus 04:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cruft. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Deli nk 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i made this article to. i'll add this info to
  Exvicious 16:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild (libertarian)

I nominate this article for deletion because I fail to see how the subject in question is notable. When using Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a guide, this individual does not hold office, and doesn't seem to get that much press.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn bio.
  crashfan 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Neither running for local office under a third party nor changing ones name is notable. NTK 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merged with

J2EE certification program

Badly named title, no content, if notable at all belongs under a Sun article, but there's nothing left to merge. NTK 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn.
  crashfan 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Sun announced..." good for them. And this belongs in Wikipedia... why, exactly? (Man, I'm getting kinda snarky... Maybe I should lay off the AfDs and go get some sleep, lol!) --Icarus 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Sun Certified Professional. Peter Grey 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brasilia Tropicalis

Video game in development by a couple of guys for some contest. They don't even have a publisher. And, icing on the cake, zero google hits. Extreme delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as unverifiable
  WP:V.--Blue520 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:Crystal ball --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nonnotable, ad, etc. NTK 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable, unverifiable, crystal ball, advertisement, and probably vanity too (how else could the editor know so much about a game that hasn't been released yet?) --Icarus 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, lack of verifiabilty. --Alan Au 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  e Ong 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, although props to the article writer for having the stones to declare a subject with zero Google hits "notable."
  RGTraynor 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, article author here. Can't argue the standards by which a deletion is judged, but some clarification is in order. (1) I am one of the developers. (2) All three of us are industry professionals working full-time on VC-funded games. Googling my screenname 'Darien Kane' will return some articles and past projects by me. (3) JogosBR ('GamesBR' in Portuguese) is an initiative from the brazilian government to award original game proposals, game demos and complete games with robust cash investments (link is provided). I'm not affiliated with the government, but given the novelty of this practice, I believe JogosBR should in fact have an article of its own. (4) The prize encompasses self-publishing (hence the 'TBA' on the 'Publisher' field). (5) Zero Google hits is due to zero advertisement. (6) The notability of this article is not anchored to whether or not the game gets released or wins the contest (i.e. crystal balling); rather, it lies in the PhotoRank feature - which represents a paradigm shift in our industry - and to a lesser extent, in-game pedagogy. These two topics have been sparking debates among our peers, fans, collaborators and overseas partners (hence me posting on en.wikipedia.org instead of pt.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to rewrite the article to reflect that its less of an ad and more of a case study in social computing and e-learning (at least in Brazil). Thiago Aiache 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promo spam. David Hoag 07:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have vigorously revamped the article to focus on the issues surrounding the game. Please review. Thiago Aiache 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just did reread it, and found no external links or references that would establish the notability of the game ... nor, with zero Google hits, am I much surprised. Since Brazilian sites reflect on Google -- I have an ex in Sao Paulo with whom I am in touch -- it seems to me that Occam's Razor applies: plainly this "PhotoRank" is an extremely flawed yardstick by which notability can be gauged. Perhaps you could supply some links pointing out where these debates are actually taking place?
    RGTraynor 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: I can only link to the lecture transcripts from the event where these issues were first debated, in middle March. It was the 'Conferência de Desenvolvedores de Games-Rio', which literally translates to Rio Game Developers Conference. The site is www.cdgrio.com.br. Transcripts (rather lenghty ones) are in Portuguese, but your friend from São Paulo can attest to their legitimacy. If this is still insufficient proof of notability, I can only ask that the article is moved to my User Space, as per one of the editors' suggestion. I kindly request that a redirect is provided, as I have linked the article on the document we submitted to the JogosBR contest. Thiago Aiache 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A directed Google search of that site you provided resulted in no hits for Brasilia Tropicalis, in Portuguese or otherwise. [6]
        RGTraynor 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Transcripts are downloadable files, thus precluded from Google searching. They can be opened from http://www.cdgrio.com.br/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=30 Thiago Aiache 21:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakkie

Could find no evidence this is a real art technique. Googled 'dakkie contrast', 22 hits, "dakkie" itself yields some 22K hits, but most seem to refer to a proper name. "dakkie cinematography" (with no quotes) yielded 5 hits. Finally, the page does not link anywhere.-- Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom;
  WP:V --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its one reference is a blog. --BillC 07:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Icarus 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, lack of verifiability. --Alan Au 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, unverifiable, unreliable sources and whatsoever. --
  e Ong 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galesburg shower

local slang, not in widespread use. Zero google hits. Montco 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the wall of a highschool lockerroom. Tombride 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncited dicdef. NTK 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone --Icarus 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  e Ong 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Tango 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Yamaguchi Ghost Story

Can find no evidence of notability. Zero hits for "A Yamaguchi Ghost Story", "Concrete Canvas" Static got 123, but none seem to be related to anime. "Shishido Takamitsu", the work's creator, yielded one hit.-- Fang Aili ^說嗎? 05:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Icarus 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided at the moment. In another article by the same user he lists the author's name as Shishidou Takamitsu. He seems to have decent English ability so I'll try to talk to him. Kotepho 06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Heilme 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sabove.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft

This article is almost entirely original research, and when viewed against the other articles in Category:Military comparison has no stylistic or content similarities. This is the type of article that should be read in air combat magazines or written by pundits, not the type that belongs in an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm ambivalent about this. In its current form I have no problem deleting it. I had been planning on changing it to an article on 4th generation fighters; trimming out most of the comparative aspects but keeping the basics, the comparative costs, and the DERA study. --Mmx1 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see that there are parts of the article which need some help with sourcing, NPOVing and general cleanup. On the other hand, in some sections the article actually contains a fair amount of external links which provide sources for the claims. I think that deleting the entire article would be too drastic a measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current incarnation as original research, but I would probably keep a retitled, rewritten (npov) version of this article. --Alan Au 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Encyclopedic subject, but requires major rewriting and page-splitting. Twinxor t 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Needs cleanup and a total rewrite. Current state is definitely unacceptable. --
  e Ong 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but needs a very heavy rewrite and serious trimming. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I find it encyclopedic, but it needs citations. If there were a military/war CotW it could make an interesting project. — RJH 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic itself invites Original Research. del per ericg
  _Fire! 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a technical measure. It seems that this article is going to be renamed
  ^talk 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, move to User Space in preparation for new article I've had resistance in changing the status quo, deleting would remove a lot of that resistance. Since I proposed the renaming, let me take it, work on it, and move the new content to the 4th gen fighter article, while keeping this deleted to stanch any effort to keep OR. I think we're all agreed that this article in its current form and title invites OR, but has some useful information. I think this is the best way to satisfy both viewpoints. --Mmx1 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The section on the DERA study needs to stay, but some other subjective information needs to be removed. --zeroyon 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - it will be difficult to separate OR, but this is not an emotive topic, unlike a comparison of sportspeople or politics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I beg to differ. Nationalism plays a big role in this topic. People get very defensive about their own nation's aircraft. --Mmx1 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up as per Sjakkalle. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this could be good information for the layperson, but needs to be renamed and cleaned up as above. And yes, experience on other articles suggests there will be nationalists who assert the superiority of their country's planes, so we have to watch out for this. Note that these are fourth-generation jet fighters, as there were plenty of prop fighter generations. ProhibitOnions 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The currently popular proposal is "4th and 5th" or just "4th generation fighter jet aircraft" --Mmx1 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, decent topic, needs a rewrite as noted above. 156.34.90.110 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Death (beer)

This binge-drinking article failed

• Delete, interesting, but
  not notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable. Nice photo though.--Blue520 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I decided not to speedy this as there was no relevant criteria. Whether there ought to be is another issue. I added a prod notice but it was removed. On its talk page, it is claimed it was invented in 2002 and is popular on Carnegie Mellon. That falls well below our notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy deletion. On further thought I see that Capitalistroadster is correct in saying that it doesn't meet speedy criteria, but one way or another it really ought to be deleted. There are plenty of drinking games, and I'm sure more are invented every day by frat boys hellbent on getting alcohol poisoning. There's nothing at all notable about this particular "game". --Icarus 06:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Other games are listed on the site, and just because some of you have biases or the like does not mean this should be deleted. --67.171.67.94 07:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is being considered on its own merits. If you do not believe that another article meets the various
    sources, then nominate them. Those articles will in turn be considered on their own merits. -- Saberwyn 10:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. The other games in this encyclopedia are (or should be),
  verifiable. --BillC 07:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable --
  Matt 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Highly highly played drinking game!!!! This is not something that was just made up in school one day, this is one of the most popular college drinking games out there. (And I say this coming from a past #1 party school)
  _Fire! 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• However, it's very different from the
  Matt 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Duly noted. I was thinking of the other article. In that case, I change my vote to Strong Delete.
    _Fire! 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete per nom.
  RGTraynor 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong delete per nom. Non-notable. --Quuxplusone 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete completely nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete with prejudice. --moof 05:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily vomit all over this, wake up and forget it ever happened. Frat-boy vanity. ProhibitOnions 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McAllister

No evidence or claim of notability. Alai 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably vanity. Google shows a concert saxophonist of the same, but the man described ain't he. Marskell 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Some guy 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article gives no indication whatsoever of notability. --Icarus 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable --Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Gives no indication of notability
  _Fire! 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Yawn. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, appears to be

Green Corn Ceremony

because a German English Administrator is unable to verify the content from Germany (since no Cherokee Live in Germany) and has placed a prod on the page, which means it probably doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Asgaya Gigagei 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete - Unverifiable from the Country of Germany. unsigned by Asgaya Gigagei Keep provided inaccruate information from Google is not associated with Cherokee Tribe since the materials placed by Isotope23 refer to the Oneidas, a tribe that lived 1500 miles north of the Cherokee -- and is totally inaccurate of Creek, Cherokee, and Seminole culture. Asgaya Gigagei 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may or may not have noticed on the Talk page that I requested that subject experts add subsections on each tribe's specific Green Corn ceremony practices since they are so divergent (provided the information can be sourced per
    WP:V. Right now I've taken it back to a very general stub.--Isotope23 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced so that the information in them can be verified whatever country you live in.
  talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep tag for sourcing, and edit out unsourced material. whether or not Cherokee live in Germany is completely irrelevant. It's verifiable from "the Country of Germany"... with a little website I like to call "Google" [7]. The basic premise of this article can be sourced very easily. Some of the info appears to be
  WP:OR and simply needs to be removed. In fact this could easily be expanded because other native cultures besides the Cherokee celebrate the Green Corn Ceremony. deletion isn't necessary... cleanup is.--Isotope23 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I also googled on the phrase "Green Corn Ceremony" and found any number of hits relating to Native American celebrations. Creeks and Oneidas were also named as having this. Should be more comprehensive and give sources, but what's here seems plausible. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by multiply-blocked sockpuppet. Article could use improved sourcing, but is perfectly encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I should also note that when searching for "Green Corn Ceremony", you only get 444 unique hits.
  crashfan 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep - AfD proposer is the only delete vote, and he's both rescinded his delete vote and been blocked. Jeff was probably trying to bring WP into disrepute by deleting more or less reasonable (though certainly not flawless) articles--Aim Here 09:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]